This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
written as . The full inventory, given in Table 2, does include symbols for aspirate consonants and others for writing Sanskrit and Pali as well as loans from those languages.
Morphology Sinhala nouns inflect for definiteness, number, and case. The basic gender categories are animate and inanimate. Table 3 gives a partial set for Spoken and Literary. Literary Sinhala also distinguishes masculine and feminine within animate. Spoken Sinhala has six cases, including the vocative: nominative, dative, genitive, instrumentalablative, and vocative. Literary Sinhala and some dialects of Spoken also have a distinct accusative, though they differ in form. Demonstratives and pronouns exhibit a four-way distinction: 1st proximal, 2nd proximal, distal, and (discourse) anaphoric. Thus, roughly, me: ‘this by me’, oye ‘that by you’, are ‘that over there’, and e: ‘that has been spoken of’. As stated earlier, Spoken Sinhala verbs lack personnumber-gender agreement, while Literary Sinhala has it for all three categories. Both varieties have a number of forms for tense, mode, voice, and aspect, though the inventories differ somewhat. There is also a three-way derivational system with sets including active, causative, and involitive verbs, though some sets are incomplete. Thus, kad. enewa ‘break’ (active, transitive), kad. ewenewa ‘cause (someone) to break’, and kæd. enewa ‘get broken’ (intransitive/involitive). The syntactic/semantic reflexes associated with these forms are complex and involve transitivity, causativity, and involitivity and the case of subjects and other grammatical relations, as well as special characteristics of specific verbs. Thus the causative of kiyenewa ‘say, tell’ is the common verb for ‘read’, but it is uncommon, though possible, in its causative sense, and its conjunctive participle kiyela is also the quotation marker/ complementizer in Spoken Sinhala (see (6) below).
Vowels
k c t. t p g j d. d b n g (nj) nd. nd mb N n˜ n m y r l w sˇ s h
i i:
u u:
e e:
e o o:
æ æ:
a a:
Syntax The basic word order in Sinhala is subject-objectverb, though other orders are not only possible but common for pragmatic effects such as foregrounding and emphasis. It is a thorough-going left-branching
966 Sinhala Table 2 The Sinhala writing system Vowels a
a:
æ
æ:
i
i:
u
u:
r.
r. :
.l
.l:
e
e:
ai
o
o:
au
ka
k ha
ga
g ha
Na
n
ga
ca
c ha
ja
j ha
n˜a
n
ja
.ta
.t
a
d. a
d. ha
n. a
n
d. a
pa
p ha
ba
bha
ma
m
ya
ra
la
va
s. a
sa
ha
.la
Consonants
s´a
h
ba
Other The ‘class nasal’ (Si. binduva) is listed following the vowels, but usually represents a velar nasal, transcribed
Table 3 Spoken (colloquial) and literary nouns Singular a Definite
Animate (masculine) Nominative/Direct Coll miniha ‘the man’ Lit minisa: Accusative Coll minihawe Lit minisa: Dative Coll minihat.e Lit minisa:t.a Inanimate Directb Coll and Lit pote ‘the book’ Dative Coll and Lit potet.e
Plural Indefinite
in its history.) It has postpositions, and complementizers are clause final. These characteristics are illustrated in (3) through (6). (3) siri gunepa:let. e potak Siri Gunapala-DAT book-INDEF ‘Siri gave Gunapala a book.’
dunna. give-PAST
minihek
minissu
minisek
minissu
minihekwe minisaku (-eku)
minissunwe minisun
minihekut.e minisakut.a
minissunt. e minisunt.a
(5) siri gunepa:lat. e dunne Siri Gunapala-DAT give-PAST-REL ‘The book that Siri gave Gunapala.’
potak
pot
(6) siri i:ye a:wa kiyela gunepa:le kiwwa. Siri yesterday came COMP Gunapala say-PAST ‘Gunapala said that Siri came yesterday.’
potaket.e
potwelet. e/ potvelet.e
a
Spoken forms are given in phonological representation; literary forms in transliteration. b Nouns of this type have no separate accusative in either variety, but only a direct case serving both functions.
(i.e., right-headed) language, and verb and noun modifiers, including relative clauses, precede their heads. (The correlative relative construction generally characteristic of Indo-Aryan languages was lost early
(4) mama ada kolem indela ˘ be I today Colombo-GEN from ko:ciyeN a:wa. train-INSTR come-PAST ‘I came from Colombo by train today.’ pote. book
Sinhala has the conjunctive participle that is a feature of both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages, and it is the major way in which sentence conjunction is effected. (7) siri kæ:me ka:la Siri food eat-CONJPART ‘Siri ate and went home.’
gedere home
giya. went
Nonverbal sentences, which are common, may be of numerous types, of which three are illustrated in (8) through (10). Such sentences do not have a
Sinhala 967
copula, but vowel-ending adjective predicators take an assertion marker, as in (10). (8) Nominal-equational: me: pote puskole potak. this book ola-leaf book-INDEF ‘This book is an ola-leaf manuscript.’
(16) i:ye gunepa:le e: minih at. e yesterday Gunapala that man-DAT dunne mokak de? give-PAST-EMPH what Q ‘What did Gunapala give that man yesterday?’
(9) Adjectival-attributive: me: pote hondayi. this book good-ASSMKR ‘This book is good.’ me: pote alut. this book new ‘This book is new.’ (10) Nonverbal modal: navaketa:pote mat. e e: alut I-DAT that new novel-book ‘I want that new novel.’
(15) i:ye gunepa:let. e salli yesterday Gunapala-DAT money dunne e: miniha. give-PAST-FOC that man ‘It was that man who gave Gunapala money yesterday.’
o:ne. want/need
Sinhala has the dative subject sentences common in South Asia. A nonverbal example was provided in (10). Dative subject verbal sentences commonly involve involitive verbs, as in (11): (11) mat. e aliyek penuna. I-DAT elephant-INDEF see-PAST ‘I saw the elephant (it was visible to me).’
An uncommon feature of Sinhala is that it also has subjects in case forms other than nominative/direct and dative, in fact, in all except the genitive, as in (12)–(14). (12) illustrates the involitive optative verb inflection, indicating possibility of occurrence. (12) minihawe ganget. e wæte:wi. man-ACC river-DAT fall-INVOLOPT ‘The man might fall into the river.’ (There are no accusative subject transitive sentences.) (13) ehe: po:lisiyeN innewa. there police-INSTR be (Animate) ‘There are police there.’ e:ket. e a:da:re (14) a:nd. uweN government-INSTR that-DAT support-PL denewa. give-PRES ‘The government gives support for that.’
Sinhala has an interesting cleft or focused sentence construction that requires a special form of the verb, as in (15). The focused element may be virtually any type of sentence constituent, and it may be postposed as in (15) but need not be. This structure is very common in discourse and is used in most types of question word questions, as in (16). The question marker de that appears in (16) is also the way in which ordinary yes/no questions are formed, as in (17):
(17) e: miniha i:ye gunepa:let. e that man yesterday Gunapala-DAT salli dunna de? money give-PAST Q ‘Did that man give Gunapala money yesterday?’
The related Dhivehi has a similar focus construction. It is also found in several Dravidian languages, and it is very likely that it, like other characteristics such as the completely left-branching nature of Sinhala-Dhivehi, is a result of language contact.
Bibliography Coates W & De Silva M W S (1960). ‘The segmental phonemes of Sinhalese.’ University of Ceylon Review 18(3–4), 163–175. De Silva M W S (1979). Sinhalese and other island languages in South Asia. Tubingen: Gunther Narr Verlag. Disanayaka J B (1991). The structure of spoken Sinhala: 1: Sounds and their patterns. Maharagama, Sri Lanka: National Institute of Education. Fairbanks G W, Gair J W & De Silva M W S (1968). Colloquial Sinhalese (Sinhala) (Books 1 & 2). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University South Asia Program. Gair J W (1970). Colloquial Sinhalese clause structures. The Hague: Mouton. Gair J W (1996). ‘Sinhala writing.’ In Daniels P T & Bright W (eds.) The world’s writing systems. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 408–412. Gair J W (1998). Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gair J W & Karunatillake W S (1974). Literary Sinhala. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University South Asia Program. Gair J W & Karunatillake W S (1976). Literary Sinhala inflected forms: a synopsis with a transliteration guide to Sinhala script. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University South Asia Program. Gair J W & Paolillo J C (1997). Sinhala (Languages of the world/materials 34). Mu¨nchen: Lincom. Gair J W, Karunatillake W S & Paolillo J C (1987). Readings in colloquial Sinhala. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University South Asia Program. Geiger W (1938). A grammar of the Sinhalese language. Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society. Godakumbura C E (1955). Sinhalese literature. Colombo: Colombo Apothecaries Ltd.
968 Sino-Tibetan Languages Gunasekara A M (1891). A grammar of the Sinhalese language. Adapted for the use of English readers and prescribed for the Civil Service Examination. Colombo: Government Press. [Reprinted Sri Lanka Sahitya Mandalaya, Colombo: 1962.] Karunatillake W S (1992). An introduction to spoken Sinhala. Colombo: Gunasena. Karunatillake W S (2001). Historical phonology of Sinhalese: from old Indo-Aryan to the 14th century AD. Colombo: S. Godage and Brothers. Macdougall B G (1979). Sinhala: basic course. Washington D.C.: Foreign Service Institute, Department of State.
Matzel K & Jayawardena-Moser P (2001). Singhalesisch: Eine Einfu¨hrung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Reynolds C H B (ed.) (1970). An anthology of Sinhalese literature up to 1815. London: George Allen and Unwin (English translations). Reynolds C H B (ed.) (1987). An anthology of Sinhalese literature of the twentieth century. Woodchurch, Kent: Paul Norbury/Unesco (English translations). Reynolds C H B (1995). Sinhalese: an introductory course (2nd edn.). London: School of Oriental and African Studies. [1st edn., 1980.]
Sino-Tibetan Languages R J LaPolla, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family includes the Sinitic languages (what for political reasons are known as Chinese ‘dialects’) and the 200 to 300 Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages. Geographically it stretches from Northeast India, Burma, Bangladesh, and northern Thailand in the southeast, throughout the Tibetan plateau to the north, across most of China and up to the Korean border in the northeast, and down to Taiwan and Hainan Island in the southeast. The family has come to be the way it is because of multiple migrations, often into areas where other languages were spoken (LaPolla, 2001). Proto-SinoTibetan (PST) would have been spoken in the Yellow River valley at least 6000 years ago. Waves of migration followed: to the southeast, forming the Sinitic languages, and to the west and southwest, forming the TB languages (the speakers of what became the Bodish languages migrated west into Tibet and then south, all the way to the Bay of Bengal, while the speakers of what became the rest of the TB languages followed the river valleys down along the eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau and across into Burma, India, and Nepal). The large spread of Mandarin Chinese to the northwest, southwest and northeast, giving it its large population and geographic spread, happened only in the last few hundred years. In the past, and to some extent in China still today (e.g., Ma, 2003), this family was also said to include the Tai-Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) and Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages of southern China and Southeast Asia, but the resemblances found among Sinitic,
Tai-Kadai, and Hmong-Mien are now understood to be a result of contact influence (these peoples originally inhabited southern China). Sino-Tibetan has the second largest number of speakers of any language family in the world, due largely to the over one billion Sinitic speakers; except for Burmese (see Bradley, 1996), most Tibeto-Burman languages have relatively few speakers. Subgroupings within ST are still controversial, due to differences in criteria for subgrouping, a paucity of reliable data, particularly on morphosyntactic patterns, and the fact that the development and distribution of these languages has been greatly influenced by migration and language contact. Some of the influential proposals for subgrouping within TB are Grierson 1909, Shafer 1955, Benedict 1972, DeLancey 1987, Sun 1988, Dai, Liu & Fu 1989, Bradley 1997, Matisoff 2003, and Thurgood 2003 (see Hale 1982 for comparison of the older proposals). There is now general agreement on the existence of the following groupings (individual languages listed are only representative; see Matisoff 1996 for the many different names used for TB languages and groupings). . Qiangic (Qiang, Pumi, Muya, Namuyi, Shixing); . Lolo-Burmese, comprising the Burmish languages (Burmese, Lawngwaw [Maru], Ngo Chang [Achang], Zaiwa, Lachik [Lashi]) and the Loloish languages (further divided into Northern: Nosu [Yi, Yunnan or Sichuan], Nasu, Nisu; Central: Lahu, Lisu, Nusu, Jinuo; and Southern: Hani, Bisu, Phunoi, Mpi; . Bodish (Tibetan, Dzongkha, Tamang (several varieties), Tshangla, Takpa); . Kuki-Chin (Lushai, Asho Chin, Tiddim [Chin, Tedim], Anal, Hmar);
Sino-Tibetan Languages 969
. Bodo-Koch (Bodo, Garo, Dimasa, Kachari, Koch, Rabha); . Konyak (Tangsa [Naga, Tangsa], Chang [Naga, Chang], Konyak [Naga, Konyak], Nocte [Naga, Nocte], Wancho [Naga, Wancho]); . Tani (Apatani, Mising [Miri], Adi); and . Karenic (Pwo [Karen, Pwo], Karenni, Sgaw [Karen, S’gaw]). There is much controversy over the affiliations of many of the languages of Northeast India and whether they all form a group together (see Burling, 1999; Matisoff, 1999), as well as the positions of the Bai language of Yunnan, China, Newari and the Kiranti languages of Nepal, Dulong-Rawang-Anong (Rawang) of Burma and China, the extinct Tangut language of northwest China, and the rGyalrong language of Sichuan, China, among many others. The latter two are most often said to be part of the Qiangic group, and the Kiranti languages are often seen as forming a higher grouping with the Bodish languages, but LaPolla (2003a), with reference to the morphological paradigms, argued that rGyalrong, the Kiranti languages (Bantawa, Athpare [Athapariya], Dumi, Khaling, Camling), Dulong-Rawang-Anong, the Kham languages, and the Western Himalayan languages (Kinnauri, Rongpo, Chaudangsi, Darmiya; also often grouped with Bodish) should be seen as forming a single higher-level grouping. This grouping was given the name ‘Rung’ because of the similarity (but not identity) of this proposal to an earlier one by Thurgood (1985). The Rung languages most likely split off from an even higher-level grouping with the Qiangic languages, then rGyalrong split off from the group as migrations moved south, then Western Himalayan split off from Kiranti and Rawang, and then these two groups split (Figure 1; see LaPolla, 2003a, for the evidence). Within Sinitic, it is generally agreed there are at least six major dialect groups, initially distinguished on the basis of the reflexes of the historically voiced initial consonants (Li, 1936–1937): Mandarin (northern and southwestern China), Wu (Jiangsu and Zhejiang), Xiang (Hunan), Gan (Jiangxi), Yue (Guangdong and Guangxi), and Min (Guangdong,
Figure 1 The subgrouping of Qiangic-Rung.
Fujian, Hainan Island, and Taiwan). The Hakka group of dialects (Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangxi, Sichuan, and Taiwan) is seen by some as part of the Gan group and by others as a separate group. Another three groups were proposed by Li (1987): the Jin group (Shanxi and Inner Mongolia), the Hui group (Anhui and Zhejiang), and the Pinghua group (Guangxi), but these groupings are not universally accepted. Norman (1988, 2003), based on a paradigmatic set of lexical and grammatical items, further grouped the dialect groups into the Northern (Mandarin) group, the Central group (some Xiang dialects, Wu, Gan), and the Southern group (Yue, Hakka, and some Xiang dialects). He left out the Min group because he felt that the Min dialects lay ‘‘outside the mainstream of Chinese linguistic development’’ (2003: 81). That is, they cannot be reconciled with the reconstructed Middle Chinese system (seventh century A.D.) to which the other dialect groups can be traced. Mandarin has the largest geographic spread and population, and can be subdivided into as many as eight subgroups (see Li, 1987; cf. Ho, 2003), based largely on the reflexes of the stopped tone category. Of these, the Southwestern (Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou), Central Plains, and Jianghuai (Southeastern) groups are generally recognized. One variety of Mandarin, Put – onghu\ a, the ‘Common Language’ of China today, was developed in the early 20th century (and dubbed Gu|o´yuˇ, ‘National Language,’ at that time), taking the phonology of the Beijing dialect but the lexicon and grammar from a more generalized Mandarin and from the vernacular literature of the time. Standardization and spread of the standard through aggressive educational programs continues today. Min does not have a large spread and population, but because of the complex nature of its historical development (multiple migrations into the area, causing multiple strata, even within a single variety), it can be subdivided into as many as seven subgroups: Southern, Northern, Central, Eastern, Puxian, Shaojiang, and Qiongwen (Li, 1987). For an excellent book-length synchronic and historical overview of Sinitic, see Norman, 1988; for the best detailed analysis of a single dialect, see Chao (1968). Proto-Sino-Tibetan was monosyllabic, but with a much more complicated syllable structure than most of the modern languages: *(PREF) (PREF) Ci (G) V (:) (Cf) (s) (Matisoff, 1991: 490; Ci ¼ initial consonant, G ¼ glide, : ¼ vowel length, Cf ¼ final consonant, s ¼ suffixal *-s; parentheses mark items that do not appear in all syllables). The modern languages have moved much more toward bisyllabic or polysyllabic words, although they are often reduced again to
970 Sino-Tibetan Languages
sesquisyllabic (syllable and a half) or monosyllabic forms, and tone systems have developed in Sinitic and many of the TB languages (either through contact, through independent innovation, or a combination of the two). For example, in Sinitic the tones developed out of consonant suffixes (*-s, *- ) and loss of initial voicing (Baxter, 1992: 8.2), and in Lhasa Tibetan the tones developed independently, out of loss of initial voicing and the influence of final consonants. Within this general commonality there is also diversity in phonemic inventories and syllable structures, with, for example, the Qiang language (LaPolla, 2003b) having 36 initial consonants, a complex system of consonant clusters in initial and final position, and no tones, while Lahu (Matisoff, 1973) has only 24 consonant initials, a simple (C)V syllable structure (no consonant clusters), and seven phonemic tones. Proto-Sino-Tibetan morphology included derivational prefixes and suffixes and a voicing alternation of the initial consonant of some verbs that could affect the valency or form class of a word, but no relational morphology. Many of the modern languages have grammaticalized person-marking affixes on the verb and/or semantic role marking on nouns, but these cannot be reconstructed to the PST level (see LaPolla, 2003a, and references therein). The clause was verb focused, in that the verb was the key element, and noun phrases were optional. This is still the case in most languages. Most have not grammaticalized the kind of constraints on referent identification we associate with the concept of ‘subject’ and other grammatical relations. If noun phrases appeared in the clause, the verb would have been clause final. In Sinitic the clause is largely verb medial, as the verb has come to function as the divider between topical (preverbal) and nontopical (postverbal) elements (there has clearly been a progressive change away from verb-final order over time). This change has happened to a large extent in Bai and Karen as well. With morphology as with phonology we find diversity of types. Using our examples of Qiang and Lahu again, we find Qiang is agglutinative, whereas Lahu is isolating. Qiang has complex affixal systems of direction marking, person marking, and evidential marking on the verb and definite marking in noun phrases, whereas Lahu has none of these features. Both languages have developed complex sortal classifier systems – a common, but not universal, trait among ST languages. All ST languages have modifiermodified order in noun–noun structures (with genitive-head order being a subtype of this – there was no genitive marking in PST, but some languages have developed genitive marking), as well as relative-head order (Karen has a secondary head-relative order as
well). Proto-Sino-Tibetan had negative-verb order, and this is still true of most ST languages. Matisoff (2003) grouped the languages in the family into the ‘Sinosphere’ and the ‘Indosphere’ due to the linguistic and political influence of China and India, respectively, on the languages. In Indospheric languages, such as the TB languages of Northeast India and Nepal, for example, we often find the development of relative pronouns and corelative structures, and also of retroflex initial consonants. In the Sinosphere we often find the development of tone systems and more analytic structure. We also find contact influence from the Altaic languages in the north (Altaic speakers controlled large parts of northern China for long periods over the last thousand years) and the Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai, and Hmong-Mien languages in the south. For example, there is a cline from north to south in terms of complexity of tone and also classifier systems (greater in the south, less in the north), and influence on prosody and word structure where the sesquisyllabic lightheavy structure of Austroasiatic languages is also found in many of the southern TB languages, such as Burmese and Jinghpaw (Jingpho), often leading to the reduction of the first syllable in a compound, in contrast to a trochaic stress pattern in northern TB and northern Sinitic, which often leads to the reduction of the second syllable in compounds.
Bibliography Baxter W H (1992). A handbook of Old Chinese phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Benedict P K (1972). Princeton-Cambridge studies in Chinese linguistics 2: Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley D (1996). ‘Burmese as a lingua franca (and associated map, #87).’ In Wurm S A, Mu¨hlha¨usler P & Tryon D T (eds.) Atlas of languages used for intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, vol. II.1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 745–747. Bradley D (1997). ‘Tibeto-Burman languages and classification.’ In Bradley D (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics No. 14, Pacific Linguistics Series A–86: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas. Canberra: Australian National University. 1–71. Burling R (1999). ‘On Kamarupan.’ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22(2), 169–171. Chao Y R (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Dai Q, Liu J & Fu A (1989). ‘Guanyu woguo Zangmian yuzu xishu fenlei wenti (On the problem of genetic subgrouping within the Tibeto-Burman languages of China).’ Yunnan Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao 3, 82–92. DeLancey S (1987). ‘The Sino-Tibetan languages.’ In Comrie C (ed.) The world’s major languages. New York: Oxford University Press. 799–810.
Siouan Languages 971 Grierson G A (ed.) (1909). Linguistic survey of India, III, Parts 1–3: Tibeto-Burman family. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing. Hale A (1982). Research on Tibeto-Burman languages. Trends in linguistics, state of the art report, 14. Berlin & New York: Mouton. Ho D (2003). ‘The characteristics of Mandarin dialects.’ In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.). 126–130. LaPolla R J (2001). ‘The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family.’ In Dixon R M W & Aikhenvald A Y (eds.) Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: case studies in language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 225–254. LaPolla R J (2003a). ‘An overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax.’ In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.). 22–42. LaPolla R J, with Huang C (2003b). A grammar of Qiang, with annotated texts and glossary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. LaPolla R J & Lowe J B (1994). STEDT monograph series 1A: Bibliography of the international conferences on Sino-Tibetan languages and linguistics I-XXV. Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asian Languages. Li F -K (1936–1937). ‘Languages, dialects.’ The Chinese, Year Book, 121–128. [Reprinted (1973) in Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(1), 1–13.]. Li R (1987). ‘Chinese dialects in China.’ In Wurm S A et al. (eds.) Pacific linguistics, series C, no. 102: Language atlas of China parts I and II. Hong Kong: Longman Group (Far East). [Map and Text A–2.] Ma X (ed.) (2003). Han Zangyu gailun (An introduction to Sino-Tibetan languages) (2nd edn.). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Matisoff J A (1973). University of California publications in linguistics, 75: The grammar of Lahu. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Matisoff J A (1991). ‘Sino-Tibetan linguistics: present state and future prospects.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 469–504. Matisoff J A (1996). STEDT monograph series 2: Languages and dialects of Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asian Languages.
Matisoff J A (1999). ‘In defense of Kamarupan.’ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22(2), 173–182. Matisoff J A (2003). Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley, Los Angeles, & London: University of California Press. Norman J (1988). Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norman J (2003). ‘The Chinese dialects: phonology.’ In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.). 72–83. Shafer R (1955). ‘Classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages.’ Word 11(1), 94–111. Sun H (1988). ‘Shilun Zhongguo jingnei Zang-Mian yu de puxi fenlei (A classification of Tibeto-Burman languages in China).’ In Eguchi P K et al. (eds.) Languages and history in East Asia: a festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida on the occasion of his 60th birthday, vol. I. Kyoto: Shokado. 61–73. Thurgood G (1985). ‘Pronouns, verb agreement systems, and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman.’ In Thurgood G, Matisoff J A & Bradley D (eds.) Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area: the state of the art. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University. 376–400. Thurgood G (2003). ‘A subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages: the interaction between language contact, change, and inheritance.’ In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.). 1–21. Thurgood G & LaPolla R J (eds.) (2003). The Sino-Tibetan languages. London & New York: Routledge.
Relevant Websites http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ltba/ – Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jcl2/ – Journal of Chinese Linguistics. http://stedt.berkeley.edu/ – Sino-Tibetan Dictionary and Thesaurus Project. http://tibeto-burman.net – Tibeto-Burman Linguistics Domain.
Siouan Languages R L Rankin, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
At the time of earliest contact with Europeans, the Siouan-speaking peoples were found in an arc extending from the northern high plains of North America, east and southward along the prairie-plains border to the mouth of the Arkansas River, with small enclaves farther to the east and southeast. The Siouan
languages generally bear the names of the Native American tribes that speak them.
Subgroups, Locations, and Speaker Statistics The Siouan languages fall into four major subgroups named after the river valleys where they were spoken in protohistoric times; however, the classification is based on shared linguistic innovations, not geography.
972 Siouan Languages
Missouri River Siouan includes Crow, still spoken in southeastern Montana by perhaps 3000 persons of all ages, and Hidatsa in North Dakota, with approximately 60 speakers, all adults. Mississippi Valley Siouan is split into three major groups, Dakotan, Chiwere-Winnebago, and Dhegiha. Dakotan is spoken by over 10 000 persons of all ages in several dialects, including Assiniboine, Stoney, Teton, Yankton-Yanktonai, and Santee-Sisseton, scattered across northern Nebraska, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. The Chiwere dialects are Ioway, Otoe, and Missouria, spoken originally in Iowa, southeastern Nebraska, and northern Missouri. The Missourias took refuge among the Otoes in 1829, and all three tribes were moved to Oklahoma by the 1880s, where today there are perhaps a very few elderly speakers. Winnebago, called Hochunk by its speakers and originally spoken in Wisconsin, is still spoken by adults both there and in Nebraska. The Dhegiha dialects are Omaha-Ponca, Kansa, Osage, and Quapaw. OmahaPonca is still spoken by perhaps 50 adults of both tribes in their ancestral home, Nebraska (Omaha), and near Ponca City, Oklahoma (Ponca). Kansa, also called Kaw, originally of northeastern Kansas; Osage, originally of southwestern Missouri; and Quapaw, originally of eastern Arkansas, now in northeastern Oklahoma, no longer have fluent native speakers. Ohio Valley Siouan is extinct but once comprised several languages, Biloxi in southwestern Alabama, Ofo in Mississippi, and Tutelo-Saponi, Moniton, and Occaneechee in Virginia. There were a few Tutelo speakers living with the Cayuga in Ontario as recently as the early 1980s. The Mandan language, with only one or two speakers in North Dakota, is considered a separate subgroup by the author and a close relation of Mississippi Valley Siouan by some others. The Dakotan, Chiwere, and Dhegiha languages share a certain amount of mutual intelligibility subgroup internally, but there is little or no intelligibility among these subgroups or among other Siouan languages.
External Relationships The Siouan family is related to the extinct Catawban languages of the Carolina Piedmont. These included Catawba and Woccon and a number of unattested languages said by explorers to have been similar. There is fairly strong recent evidence that SiouanCatawban is related to Yuchi, originally spoken in Tennessee. Sapir (1929) proposed even more distant links to the Iroquoian and Caddoan language families,
but there is little agreement among specialists on any of these.
Grammatical and Phonological Features Siouan languages are primarily head-marking, active-stative, subject-object-verb (SOV), i.e., dependent-head languages of moderate morphological complexity. Sapir characterized Dakota Sioux as complex pure relational, with derivational concepts signaled by agglutinating elements and pure-relational (here, pronominal) concepts somewhat fused. Sapir characterized Dakota’s overall morphological technique as agglutinative fusional and the degree of synthesis as synthetic to mildly polysynthetic. Siouan languages are among those considered by many linguists to be pronominal argument languages, i.e., the pronominal prefixes on the verb are considered to be the arguments of that verb, not just agreement markers for external arguments. If they are considered agreement markers, then Siouan languages are doubleagreement languages, with prefixes for subject and object, or, alternatively, actor, patient/experiencer, along with additional roles such as recipient, locative, and instrumental. Siouan lexical classes include nouns, verbs, pronouns, postpositions, particles, and probably adverbs, but not adjectives. The equivalents of English adjectives are all conjugatable verbs. Siouan argument structure is of the active-stative type in which the subjects of stative verbs (and some active verbs with experiencer subjects) and objects of active transitive verbs are marked alike, whereas agentive subjects of active verbs (both transitive and intransitive) are marked differently. Siouan languages possess many of the other syntactic orderings that dependent-head languages tend to have (postpositions, main verb–auxiliary verb, possessornoun (inalienable), and subordinate clause–main clause). All mark person, number, aspect (not tense), mode, and pronominal case in their verb morphologies, and permit noun incorporation. Nominal incorporation is most active in the northern languages: Crow may incorporate entire relative clauses within the verb. Many of the languages have fairly complex phonological inventories, including aspiration, glottalization, and nasalization contrasts for three or four places of articulation among consonants, and length contrasts for five oral and three nasal vowels. Many, if not most, Siouan languages have pitch accent and tend to assign accent to the second mora of words. Phonologists are warned that the practical orthographies, such as those developed by Riggs for Dakota or La Flesche for Omaha, lack detail necessary for phonological analysis.
Skou Languages 973
Future Scholarship Siouan scholarship is presently flourishing, but much remains to be done. New dictionaries are being or have recently been elaborated for Crow, Hidatsa, Mandan, Dakota, Chiwere, Winnebago, Kansa, Osage, and Quapaw, along with grammars of Crow, Hidatsa, Chiwere, Omaha, Osage, Biloxi, and Ofo. A comparative Siouan dictionary is nearing completion.
Bibliography Boas F & Deloria E (1941). Dakota grammar, vol. XXIII, second memoir. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Einaudi P F (1976). A grammar of Biloxi. New York: Garland Publishing Company. Good Tracks J G (1992). Baxoje-Jiwere-Nyut’aji-Ma’unke: Iowa-Otoe-Missouria language. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study of the Languages of the Plains and Southwest, Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado. Graczyk R (1991). ‘Incorporation and cliticization in Crow morphosyntax.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago.
Ingham B (2001). English-Lakota dictionary. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press. Mixco M J (1997). Mandan. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Oliverio G R M (1996). ‘Grammar and dictionary of Tutelo.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas (Lawrence). Parks D & Rankin R L (2001). ‘The Siouan languages.’ In Sturtevant W (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 13, part 1. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 94–114. Quintero C (1997). ‘Osage phonology and verbal morphology.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts. Rood D S & Taylor A R (1996). ‘Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan language.’ In Sturtevant W (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 17. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 440–482. Sapir E (1929). ‘Central and North American Indian languages.’ In Encyclopedia Britannica, (14th edn.) vol. 5. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica. 128–141. Sapir E (1921). Language. An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Trechter S (1995). ‘The pragmatic functions of gender deixis in Lakhota.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas.
Skou Languages M Donohue, National University of Singapore, Singapore ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The languages of the Skou family are spoken along the north coast of New Guinea, from the Skou villages east of Humboldt Bay in Indonesia to Barupu west of Aitape in Papua New Guinea. There are 16 known languages in the family, split fairly evenly between three family-level units and one isolate, I’saka (Krisa). Most of the languages are found along the coast, but the orientation of most groups lies inland. Tone and in most cases either unusual consonants or a high number of vowels feature prominently. Tonal contrasts range from three to six on a monosyllabic word, but in all well-investigated cases the domain of tone is the morpheme, not the syllable. Unusual segments found in the family include the palatal lateral dental affricate of Puare (Puari) and the nonback rounded vowels [u] and [ø] of Skou. Contrastive nasalization on either the syllable or the rime is common. Other phonologically marked features include the lack of contrastive nasal consonants in I’saka and the lack of an /s/ phoneme in Skou or many of the Piore River languages.
Morphosyntactically the languages show a lot of variation from one to another, and only some salient features are mentioned here. The basic order is SOV, with postverbal obliques. Case marking is not used, but verbs typically show prefixal agreement for subject, and object agreement, if present, is suffixal. In the western group there is no suffixal agreement, but we do find alternations in the vowel of the verb root that indicate earlier affixation: ke-fu 3.SING.NF-see.FEM.OBJ
‘he saw her’
(where NF stands for nonfeminine) from earlier ke ¼ fu-u. Compare this with Sumo, which has regular suffixation for object: b-a-chara-u MOOD-3.SING.MASC-see-3SING.FEM ‘he saw her’
Often a language will employ one or more applicatives; typically a goal (beneficiary or direction) or, secondarily, an accompanier has dedicated applicative morphology, whereas instruments are not marked with applicatives but simply appear in the clause.
974 Slavic Languages
Many Skou languages show the frequent use of multiple exponence to mark the subject. In Puare we can see double marking for subject on the verb, once by an infix (marked here with angled brackets) and once by a proclitic, as in the sentence: aro n-s
Similarly in Skou we can find verbs with proclitic, prefix, and vowel agreement. The verb /ø/ ‘shave’ is [teri] when inflected for third-person plural te-t-lø 3.PL-3.PL-shave<(3).PL> ‘they shaved’
Gender is a pervasive feature of the languages. All the languages distinguish at least two genders in the third-person singular pronominal paradigms, and in most cases gender is found elsewhere as well. In Skou, all the dual pronouns, but none of the plural, are differentiated for gender. Barupu (Warupu) and Ramo both distinguish gender in all but the dual pronouns, both free and bound forms. The Serra Hills languages typically mark gender only in the second- and thirdperson dual pronouns. In Skou itself, a number of nouns obligatorily mark gender. Thus, ume ‘woman’ cannot appear on its own and must take the feminine clitic pe, pe-ume ‘woman’, and a˜ku ‘child’ is heard as pe-a˜ku ‘girl’ or ke-a˜ku ‘boy’.
Donohue M (2002a). ‘Negation and grammatical functions in Skou.’ In Collins P & Amberber M (eds.) Proceedings of ALS2002, the 2002 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Sydney: University of New South Wales. Available at http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au. Donohue M (2002b). ‘Which sounds change: descent and borrowing in the Skou family.’ Oceanic Linguistics 41(1), 157–207. Donohue M (2003a). ‘Agreement in the Skou language: a historical account.’ Oceanic Linguistics 42(2), 479–498. Donohue M (2003b). ‘Morphological templates, headedness, and applicatives in Barupu.’ Oceanic Linguistics 42(1), 111–143. Donohue M (2003c). ‘The tonal system of Skou, New Guinea.’ In Kaji (ed.) Proceedings of the symposium on cross-linguistic studies of tonal phenomena: historical development, phonetics of tone, and descriptive studies. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Research Institute for Language and Cultures of Asia and Africa. 329–355. Donohue M & San Roque L (2004). I’saka. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. Foley W A (1986). The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Laycock D C (1975). ‘Sko, Kwomtari, and Left May (Arai) phyla.’ In Wurm S A (ed.) New Guinea area languages and language study 1: Papuan Languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. 849–858. Ross M (1980). Some elements of Vanimo, a New Guinea tone language. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 20, 77–109. Voorhoeve C L (1971). ‘Miscellaneous notes on languages in West Irian.’ Papers in New Guinea linguistics 14, 47–114.
Bibliography Cowan H K J (1952). ‘Een toon-taal in Nederlandsch Nieuw Guinea.’ Tijdschrift Nieuw Guinea 13, 55–60.
Slavic Languages L A Janda, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Slavic language group contains three subfamilies: (1) East Slavic, consisting of Russian, Belarusian (Belarusan), and Ukrainian; (2) West Slavic, consisting of Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian (the latter spoken in Germany and also known as Lusatian); and (3) South Slavic, consisting of Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slovene (Slovenian), and Bosnian/Croatian/ Serbian (BCS; formerly known as Serbo-Croatian). The Slavs are believed to have expanded from an
area corresponding to southwestern Belarus/northwestern Ukraine beginning in the 6th century C.E. , an event that contributed to the linguistic differentiation of Late Common Slavic (LCS) into the modern Slavic languages. In the late 9th century a Byzantine mission to the present-day eastern Czech Republic yielded translations of liturgical texts into Old Church Slav(on)ic, a written language presumed to be very close to LCS. These documents have made it possible for us to reconstruct the history of the Slavic languages quite reliably. Orthography follows religion in dividing the Slavic languages into an Eastern/Orthodox Christian group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet (Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian,
Slavic Languages 975
Macedonian, and part of BCS), and a Western/Catholic and Protestant group that uses the Latin alphabet with the addition of diacritics (Polish, Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Slovene, and part of BCS).
. . . .
Phonological History
The subsequent development of ‘jat’ is quite diverse in Slavic. Diphthongs ending in a nasal monophthongized to yield nasal vowels:
Within the Indo-European language family, the closest relatives to the Slavic languages are the Baltic languages (Latvian and Lithuanian). Both Slavic and Baltic are ‘satem’ languages, a name based on the Avestan word for ‘hundred,’ which identifies the reflex of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) k’ !s (and g’ ! z), as in the Late Common Slavic (LCS) s]to ‘hundred’. Peculiar to Slavic (though with some analogues in Baltic and Indo-Iranian languages) is the ‘ruki’ rule sound change, which caused s (sˇ) ! x in positions following r, u, k/g, and i, as in Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ousos ! LCS uxo ‘ear’. ‘Ruki’ and ‘satem’ are ancient changes in the development of PIE into Early Proto-Slavic (EPSl). The subsequent era linking EPSl and LCS is marked by sound changes that affected all of Slavic, though their ultimate outcomes are not entirely uniform. Many EPSl-to-LCS sound changes reflect a phonotactic strategy aimed at creating ‘ideal’ syllables of rising sonority and level tonality, i.e., syllables with CV structure where both the C and V elements had the same (high or low) tonality (also known as ‘syllabic synharmony’). The conflict between the most normal structure for a root morpheme, which was CVC, and the ideal syllable structure of CV resulted in the great number of morphophonemic alternations so characteristic of Slavic. The last element in a CVC sequence was in a precarious position: either it was assigned to the syllable containing the preceding CV, in which case sonority constraints made it subject to absorption or loss, or it was assigned to the following syllable, where tonality constraints could subject it to mutation. We will look at each group of sound changes separately. Rising Sonority
Rising sonority motivated syllable shape changes CVC ! CV and V ! CV, which resulted in both loss of final consonants, as in EPSl su:nus (cf. Gothic sunus) ! syn] ‘son’, and prothesis, as in EPSl esti (cf. Latin est) ! jestm ‘is’. If a syllable peak contained a diphthong (a vowel followed by a sonorant: a glide, nasal, or liquid), its sonority rose but then dipped, and this lack of conformity to rising sonority also motivated changes in syllable structure, mainly monophthongization or metathesis. Diphthongs ending in a glide monophthongized to yield new vowels:
ei ! i, as in zeim- ! zima ‘winter’ a˚i ! eˇ (known as ‘jat’), as in ma˚ix- ! meˇx] ‘fur’ eu ! (j)u, as in teu- ! tjudjm ‘alien’ a˚u ! u, as in la˚u- ! luna ‘moon’.
. e/i þ m/n ! , as in swent- ! sv t] ‘holy’ . a˚/u þ m/n ! , as in za˚mb- ! z b] ‘tooth’ Polish is the only Slavic language that retains nasality for these vowels (though they have been reorganized: those that developed length became the back nasal a, ( whereas those that remained short became the front nasal ). The remaining Slavic languages denasalized these vowels, with various results. Thus sv t] ‘holy’ and z b] ‘tooth’ yield, respectively: Russian sviatoıˇ and zub, Polish s´wi ty and zab, Czech svaty´ and zub, ( Slovene svet and zob, BCS svet and zub, Bulgarian svet and z00 b. Diphthongs ending in a liquid differed in the presence or absence of an initial consonant and in whether the vowel was a ‘full’ vowel or a reduced vowel (‘jer’), and are referred to as ORT (for orC- and olC-), TORT (for CorC, CerC, ColC, and CelC), and T]RT (for C]rC, C]lC, CmrC, CmlC). Overall, these are referred to as the ‘TORT’ phenomena, and the results (particularly in terms of vowel quality) are quite varied across Slavic. The examples represent only a fraction of the relevant data: . ORT reflexes show metathesis: orst] ‘growth’ ! Russian rost, Polish -rost, Czech ru˚st, BCS rast, Bulgarian rast. . TORT reflexes show an epenthetic vowel in Russian (pleophony, creating two syllables from one), and metathesis elsewhere: gord] ‘enclosure’ ! Russian gorod, Polish gro´d, Czech hrad, BCS grad, Bulgarian grad. . T]RT reflexes are the most varied and hard to characterize by rule: vmlk] ‘wolf’ ! Russian volk, Polish wilk, Czech vlk, BCS vuk, Bulgarian v 00 lk. Syllabic synharmony
Syllabic synharmony was violated when a low tonality consonant was followed by a high tonality vowel (or sonant), or when a high tonality consonant was followed by a low tonality consonant. The solution in both cases was to raise the tonality of the low tonality segment. Raising the tonality of consonants yielded the postalveolar fricatives and affricates conspicuous in the Slavic languages, resulting from the palatalizations of velars. In the first palatalization, k ! cˇ, g ! zˇ,
976 Slavic Languages
x ! sˇ before a front vowel or j uniformly throughout Slavic: pla˚kja˚m ! placˇ ‘I weep’, gen- ! zˇena ‘woman’, du:xe:tei ! dysˇati ‘breathe’. The second (and third) palatalization of velars took place in two environments: after a high front vowel (or diphthong containing one) or before a˚i. This palatalization yielded k ! c, g ! z (dz in Polish), x ! s (sˇ in West Slavic): a˚tika˚s ! otmcm ‘father’, ka˚ina˚: ! ceˇna ‘price’, kuninga˚s ! k]n zm ‘prince’ (cf. Polish ksiadz ( ‘priest’), na˚ga˚i ! nozeˇ ‘leg.DAT/LOC.SG’ (cf. Polish nodze), vixa˚s ! vmsm ‘all’ (cf. Czech vsˇechen), xa˚ir! seˇr- ‘gray’ (cf. Czech sˇery´). The velar palatalizations show a loss (except for Polish) of the stop quality of g, and this was part of a larger phenomenon which included the lenition of g in all positions to a velar or uvular fricative in East Slavic (except Russian), Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian. Dentals followed by j (and similar clusters) were subject to similar sound changes. Throughout Slavic sj ! sˇ and zj ! zˇ: peisja˚:m ! pisˇ ‘I write’, ma˚:zja˚:m ! mazˇ ‘I smear’. Original dj (also deu and gti) and tj (also teu and kti), as in LCS medja ‘boundary’, sveˇtja ‘candle’, yielded a variety of reflexes: Russian mezha/ svecha, Polish miedza/s´wieca, Czech meze/svı´ce, Slovene meja/svecˇa, BCS me a/svijec´a, Bulgarian mezhda/sveshch. The various palatalizations occur both in roots and at morpheme boundaries, where they occasion various morphophonemic alternations of consonants in Slavic languages. The principle of raising the tonality of a consonant followed by a high tonality vowel has been further continued in some languages: Russian has developed phonemic palatalization, such that all nonpalatal consonants are opposed hard to soft, except the dental affricate ts; in Polish this goes one step further and dentals are palatalized to palatals (t/d/s/z/n ! c´/dz´/s´/z´/n´) before front vowels. A low tonality vowel following a high tonality consonant (usually j) was also subject to the adjustment of syllabic synharmony, and this resulted in the fronting of back vowels: ma˚rja˚s ! morje ‘sea’, sju: tei ! sˇiti ‘sew’. Vowel Distinctions
EPSl had four vowels, all of which could be long or short: i, u, e, a˚. These vowels were reinterpreted as eight LCS vowels, differentiating the long and short vowels qualitatively. Thus long i: ! i, u: ! y, e: ! eˇ, a˚: ! a; and short i ! m, u ! ], e ! e, a˚ ! o. The LCS era (and the law of rising sonority) comes to an end with the loss of the two short high vowels, m (‘front jer’) and ] (‘back jer’) in weak positions, commonly known as ‘the fall of the jers’. A jer was strong in a syllable preceding a syllable with a weak jer; all
other jers were weak. Weak jers were lost, but strong jers attained the status of full vowels. The fall of the jers created new closed (CVC) syllables, new consonant clusters, and many vowel/zero morphophonemic alternations. In this example, the strong jer is underlined: LCS s]n]/s]na ‘dream.NOM/GEN.SG’ yields Russian son/sna, Czech sen/sna, BCS san/sna. Prosody
LCS had a system of phonemic pitch and subphonemic stress. Although length had been lost in the re-interpretation of vowels, it was subsequently re-established in parts of the Slavic territory. Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Bulgarian have phonemic stress. BCS and Slovene have phonemic pitch and length. Polish and Macedonian have fixed stress on the penultimate and antepenultimate syllables, respectively. Czech and Slovak have phonemic length and fixed stress on the initial syllable.
Morphological history Declension
LCS was, and Slavic languages for the most part remain, highly synthetic, with distinct inflectional desinences as well as derivational suffixes and prefixes affixed to roots. EPSl declensions were based mostly on stems with theme vowels, with a few consonantal stems. By the LCS period, the declensions had moved toward association with genders, and the theme vowels were absorbed by sound changes into synthetic desinences that mark case, number, and gender. LCS had three numbers, singular, dual (with restricted case distinctions), and plural, but all the modern languages except Slovene and Sorbian have lost the dual. Slavic maintained much of the PIE case structure, though it merged the ablative with the genitive (restrictive), to yield nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, locative, and instrumental. The case distinctions (all but the vocative) were subsequently lost in Macedonian and Bulgarian, and the vocative was lost in Russian, Slovene, Slovak, Lower Sorbian, and Belarusian. In addition to the three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), an animacy distinction developed within masculine during LCS, marked by the substitution of the genitive singular inflection for the accusative singular. Animacy is realized in the plural only by a few languages, in particular Russian and Polish (where it marks only male humans), plus Czech (where it is available only in the nominative plural and dative/ locative singular). In LCS, Slavic adjectives were enlarged by the affixation of the corresponding pronominal forms, to create compound adjectives, which
Slovak 977
initially signaled definite, as opposed to the shorter ‘indefinite’ adjectives. BSC and Slovene continue this distribution of long vs. short adjectives. Polish, Czech, and Russian expanded the long compound adjectives, and have restricted the short adjectives to predicate position. Bulgarian and Macedonian maintained only the short adjectives, and developed a postposed article to mark definiteness. The LCS personal pronouns had both long (emphatic) and short (enclitic) forms, and the West Slavic and South Slavic languages continue this distinction. Conjugation
The most important development for verbs is the evolution of Slavic aspect, which is peculiar because it obligatorily distinguishes perfective from imperfective in all verbal forms, and because the imperfective is more complex and unmarked (whereas it is the marked category in most other languages with this distinction). Aspect is expressed in simplex stems, and via an elaborate system of derivational prefixes and suffixes. The PIE supine, middle, subjunctive, and perfect disappeared in Slavic (but Bulgarian and Macedonian have a new perfect), and the LCS aorist and imperfect tenses have been lost in both East Slavic and West Slavic (except Sorbian). The only two tenses that the modern languages all share are a past (derived from a resultative participle) and a nonpast (usually interpreted as a future if perfective, but as a present if imperfective). Bulgarian and Macedonian lack an infinitive. The Slavic imperative has been innovated from the PIE optative, and the conditional is expressed paraphrastically using an auxiliary from byti ‘be’. LCS had no distinct future tense, but used instead the perfective nonpast or an auxiliary verb with a participle or infinitive. LCS had a system of four participles expressing present vs. past and active
vs. passive; these survive in their entirety only in Russian. Like its nouns, EPSl verbs were inflected by combining a stem with a theme vowel and a desinence (with the exception of five ‘athematic’ verbs), and again sound changes obliterated the distinct role of the theme vowel by LCS. In the modern languages, verbs express aspect, tense, person, number, and, in certain forms, gender.
Bibliography Carlton T R (1991). Introduction to the phonological history of the Slavic languages. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Comrie B & Corbett G G (eds.) (1993). The Slavonic languages. London/New York: Routledge. De Bray R G A (1980). Guide to the Slavonic languages (3rd edn.). Columbus, OH: Slavica. Goła˛b Z (1992). The origins of the Slavs: A linguist’s view. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Kondrasˇov N (1986). Slavjanskie jazyki. Moscow: Prosvesˇcˇenie. Meillet A (1965). Le slave commun. Paris: Librarie Honore´ Champion. Schenker A M (1995). The dawn of Slavic. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press. Shevelov G (1965). A prehistory of Slavic: The historical phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press. Stankiewicz E & Schenker A (eds.) (1980). The Slavic literary languages: Formation and development (¼Yale East European publications 1). New Haven, CT: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies. Stone G & Worth D (eds.) (1985). The formation of the Slavonic literary languages (¼UCLA Slavic Studies 11). Columbus, OH: Slavica. Townsend C E & Janda L A (1996). Common and comparative Slavic: Phonology and inflection. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Vaillant A (1950–74). Grammaire compare´e des langues slaves. Lyon: IAC.
Slovak R A Rothstein, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Slovak is a West Slavic language, most closely related to Czech. It is the native language of some 4.6 million residents of Slovakia, of somewhere between 300 000 and 500 000 residents of the Czech Republic, and of additional speakers in Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and North and South America.
Orthography Like other Slavic languages that were historically in the cultural sphere of the Western Church, Slovak uses the Latin alphabet with diacritic marks. Long vowels are marked by an acute accent, oˆ represents the diphthong [uo], and a¨ traditionally represents the vowel [æ], which almost all speakers replace with [E]. The letters i and y both represent [i], and ı´ and y´ both represent [i:]; the distinction is etymological. Digraphs are used to spell the voiceless velar fricative (ch)
978 Slovak
and the voiced dental and alveolar affricates (dz and dzˇ, respectively). The voiceless alveolar affricate and the voiced and voiceless alveolar fricatives are represented, respectively, by cˇ, zˇ, and sˇ. Palatal stops and sonorants are not specially marked before the vowels e, i, and ı´ or the diphthongs ia, ie, iu; elsewhere they are indicated by diacritics: , , , nˇ. Certain words and categories of words constitute exceptions to this rule for spelling palatals; thus, there is a contrast between the adverb sta´le ‘constantly,’ pronounced [sta´ e], which follows the rule, and the adjective form sta´le ‘constant,’ pronounced [sta´le], which does not.
Phonology The Slovak phonemic inventory consists of fifteen vocalic segments (six short vowels, five long vowels, and four diphthongs) and 27 consonantal ones. Most speakers have only five distinct short vowels, the basic phonetic realizations of which are [i], [E], [!], [O] and [u] (orthographic i, e/a¨, a, o, u), but the different alternation patterns of orthographic a¨ and e (the former alternates with ia; the latter with a´ or ia) are grounds for treating them as representing distinct phonemes. The five long vowels correspond to the short vowels, but /o´/ occurs only in nonnative words, and the distribution of /e´/ outside of nonnative words is limited. The four diphthongs are /uo/, /ie/, /ia/, and /iu/, but the last of these seems always to result from a process of contraction and may therefore not be a phoneme. The diphthongs behave like long vowels with respect to phonologically or morphologically conditioned processes of shortening and lengthening, but the relationships between the long vowels and diphthongs on the one hand and the short vowels on the other is mediated by various contextual constraints. The liquids /r/ and /l/ can be syllabic and in that role distinguish length. A so-called ‘rhythmic law’ that operates in Central Slovak dialects and in the standard language mandates the shortening of a syllable that follows a long syllable (one containing a long vowel or a diphthong). Thus, in the masculine nominative singular of adjectives, we find hladky´ ‘smooth,’ but kra´tky ‘short’ and riedky ‘rare.’ The rhythmic law does not apply in certain grammatical and derivational contexts, e.g., the declension of adjectives derived from animal names (e.g., vta´cˇı´ ‘bird’s). The consonants that arose from the historical palatalization of velars or from the deiotation of clusters consisting of dental stop or fricative plus glide have lost their palatal character. The historical palatalization of dental consonants, on the other hand, has
given rise to a series of palatal consonants: , , nˇ, . As in most other Slavic languages, final voiced obstruents lose voicing before pause. In obstruent clusters both within phonological words and between words, there is regressive assimilation with respect to voicing. Before a word-initial vowel or sonorant, a word-final obstruent is voiced; such voicing may also occur at morpheme boundaries within words. The laryngeal fricative represented by h devoices to the velar fricative ch, but when the latter becomes voiced, there is free variation between a voiced velar fricative [X] and h. The voiced labiodental fricative v behaves like an obstruent at the beginning of a phonological word, but does not cause voicing of a preceding voiceless obstruent within a word. It is realized as [w] in word-final position and is generally realized as [w] word-internally in the environment V C. The primary word stress is on the initial syllable and can thus fall on a monosyllabic preposition, especially if the following noun or pronoun is monosyllabic, e.g., pOd nˇou ‘under it,’ but also potentially dO pra´cy ‘to work.’ Unstressed vowels are not reduced, and words longer than three syllables alternate unstressed and secondarily stressed syllables.
Morphology Nouns distinguish six cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, locative); a few masculine nouns have vestigial vocative forms (e.g., synku ‘son’). Three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) are distinguished in the singular by agreement phenomena, and a masculine animate subgender can also be distinguished by its syncretism of accusative and genitive and by the ending -ovi for dative and locative singular. Certain classes of semantically inanimate masculine nouns also show the accusative-genitive syncretism (e.g., names of trees, mushrooms, diseases: s a duba ‘cut down an oak tree’; na´js hrı´ba ‘find a boletus mushroom’; ma vreda ‘have an ulcer’). In the plural there is a binary distinction of masculine-personal (nouns referring to male human beings) and nonmasculine-personal (all other nouns); they are distinguished by the nominative endings, by agreement phenomena, and by the accusativegenitive syncretism of the former vs. the accusativenominative syncretism of the latter. Adjectives and third-person pronouns also distinguish three genders in the singular and two in the plural; the past-tense forms of verbs show a three-way distinction in the singular but have only a single form for the plural. Some nouns have only plural forms (e.g., vidly ‘pitchfork[s]’); others are used primarily in the singular
Slovak 979
(e.g., mass and abstract nouns) but have potential plural forms that usually acquire specialized meanings (e.g., pivo ‘beer’ vs. piva´ ‘kinds or portions of beer’; la´ska ‘love’ vs. la´sky ‘objects of affection’). Noun declensions are largely gender-based: the masculine and neuter declensions have most endings in common in the singular, while the three feminine declensions in the singular (one for nouns ending in -a in the nominative singular and two for those ending in a consonant, i.e., with zero-ending) also share most endings. There is a class of masculine nouns ending in -a that refer to male human beings; they follow the masculine declension except for the genitive and accusative singular, which use the u-ending of the feminine a-declension. In the plural, feminine and neuter nouns have common oblique-case endings, which are different from those of masculine nouns. The traditional presentation of multiple declensional types is based on the fact that certain case endings are dependent on the nature of the final stem consonant – whether it is ‘soft’ (palatal or ‘historically soft,’ i.e., the result of historical palatalization or deiotation) or not. Cf. dative singular zˇene vs. ulici, which traditional grammars describe as belonging to different declensional types (zˇena ‘wife’ vs. ulica ‘street’). Most inherited consonant mutations have been lost from noun declensions. The remaining mutations affect velars and dentals in the masculine personal nominative plural (e.g., vojak/vojaci ‘soldier[s]’; Americˇan/Americˇania ‘American[s],’ with the alternation /n/ to /nˇ/; pilot/piloti ‘pilot[s],’ with /t/ to / /) and dentals in the locative singular of all three genders (e.g., sused/susede ‘neighbor,’ zˇena/zˇene, mesto/meste ‘city’). Noun declensions do show quantitative alternations of vowels, for example, between forms with an ending and forms with a zero ending (e.g., NOM/ACC sg chlieb vs. GEN sg. chleba ‘bread,’ NOM sg. ruka vs. GEN pl. ru´k ‘hand; arm’). Slovak verbs belong to one of two aspectual categories, perfective or imperfective; there are also some biaspectual verbs (e.g., absorbovat’ ‘absorb,’ pomstit’ ‘avenge’). Perfective verbs express accomplishments or transitions; imperfective verbs express states or activities/processes. Imperfective verbs are typically unprefixed; adding a prefix perfectivizes the verb, sometimes also adding an additional semantic component (e.g., pı´sa ‘write ¼ engage in the activity of writing’/napı´sa ‘write ¼ get something written’ vs. prepı´sa ‘rewrite,’ opı´sa ‘describe,’ popı´sa ‘write a lot’). There are also productive ways of imperfectivizing a perfective verb through a change in suffix and/or the stem (e.g., prepisova ‘engage in the activity of rewriting,’ opisova ‘engage in the activity of
describing’). Occasionally, corresponding verbs are based on different stems (e.g., imperfective bra vs. perfective vzia ‘take’), and some verbs have no corresponding verb of the opposite aspect (e.g., imperfective ma ‘have’ or perfective vydrzˇa ‘bear, stand’). Imperfective verbs have synthetic forms for past and present tense and analytic forms for the future tense; perfective verbs form their past tense in the same way as imperfective verbs, but the forms that look like the present-tense forms of imperfective verbs normally express future tense (or, under certain circumstances, potentiality). An analytic pluperfect tense is formed mostly from perfective verbs. The perfective/imperfective distinction is also present in infinitives, imperatives, and conditional/subjunctive forms. The last of these is formed analytically and distinguishes present vs. past (‘would X’ vs. ‘would have X’). Imperfective verbs form verbal adjectives and adverbs expressing simultaneity, while perfective verbs form verbal adjectives and adverbs that express temporal precedence or subordination to the action of the main verb. Both perfective and imperfective transitive verbs form passive participles, which can be used with by ‘be’ to form passive constructions. Within the imperfective aspect, a further distinction is made between determinate and indeterminate verbs of motion. The former designate motion in a single direction on a single occasion, while the latter do not have those restrictions and can therefore designate repeated motion, the ability to move, etc. (e.g., determinate is vs. indeterminate chodi ). Many imperfective verbs also have derived iteratives that express repeated, often regular, actions (e.g., hra´va ‘play frequently’ from hra ‘play’). Most of the inherited consonant alternations have been eliminated from present-tense paradigms, except for the alternation between palatals and dentals (idiem ‘I’m going,’ idiesˇ ‘you’re going’ vs. idu´ ‘they’re going’; cf. pecˇiem, pecˇiesˇ, pecˇu´ ‘I’m baking, etc.,’ and the corresponding Polish forms piek , pieczesz, pieka). Other inherited consonant alternations are ( reflected in the relation between infinitive and present tense (pı´sa ‘to write’ vs. pı´sˇem ‘I write’), past tense and present tense (mohol ‘he could’ vs. moˆzˇe ‘he can’), or perfective and derived imperfective (podtvrdi ‘confirm – pf.’ vs. potvrdzova ‘confirm – impf.’). Quantitative alternations of vowels appear in conjugation (e.g., piec ‘to bake’ vs. pecˇiem) and in the derivation of imperfective from perfective verbs (e.g., ku´pi vs. kupova ‘buy’ or skry vs. skry´va ‘hide’), as well as in nonverbal derivation (e.g., Nitran ‘man from Nitra’ vs. Nitrianka ‘woman from Nitra’).
980 Slovak
Syntax
Dialectology
Slovak word order is relatively free and is used, together with sentence intonation, to express the informational structure of the utterance. Thus, the rheme normally follows the theme in emotionally neutral speech. Pronominal and some verbal clitics follow the first stressed word in a sentence. Among them is the particle sa, which is historically the enclitic accusative form of the reflexive and reciprocal pronoun. The reciprocal function is still present (e.g., pozna´me sa ‘we know one another’), but true reflexive uses are rare (e.g., bra´ni sa ‘defend oneself’). Verbs with sa can express a variety of meanings, among other things, a kind of middle voice (e.g., umy´va sa ‘wash/ wash up/get washed’) and also an intransitive verb with an unaccusative subject (e.g., lekcia sa zacˇı´na ‘class is beginning’). They can also be used in passive constructions with unexpressed agent (e.g., recˇi sa hovoria a chlieb sa je ‘speeches are spoken, but bread is eaten’). As in some other Slavic languages, sa has acquired the function of a generic human subject, parallel to German man or French on, with third-person singular agreement (e.g., hovorı´ sa ‘they/ people say’). The enclitic dative form of the reflexive and reciprocal pronoun, si, occurs both in its literal meaning (e.g., poma´ha si ‘help one another’ or ‘help oneself’) and like sa, as a component of reflexiva tantum (e.g., vsˇı´ma si ‘notice’; cf. ba´ sa ‘be afraid’). Both sa and si also combine with prefixes to produce a variety of Aktionsart meanings (e.g., nasedie sa ‘have one’s fill of sitting,’ pospa si ‘have oneself a nap’). First- and second-person subject pronouns are normally used only for contrast or emphasis; third-person subject pronouns are typically dropped after their first use, unless a previous theme has been reintroduced. Nonfamiliar address uses second-person plural forms of pronouns and verbs.
The three major dialect areas are Western Slovak, which is transitional to Moravian Czech; Central Slovak, which served as the basis for the literary language; and Eastern Slovak, which is transitional to Polish. The most striking feature of Eastern Slovak is the lack of quantitative distinctions and a tendency to penultimate stress. Central and Western Slovak both distinguish long and short vowels, but the ‘rhythmic law’ that (with a variety of systematic exceptions) prevents two successive long syllables applies only in Central Slovak. Central and Western Slovak both have initial stress.
Lexicon In addition to preserving its Common Slavic patrimony, the Slovak lexicon has been open to borrowings and adaptations from neighboring languages. Among the earliest borrowings were elements of Christian terminology from Latin, often via German. Throughout the centuries, those two languages, as well as Czech, Hungarian, and Romanian have been important linguistic donors (Slovak has also contributed to Hungarian); in more recent times, Polish, Russian, French, and English have also served as source languages. In the last decades, the role of internationalisms and Anglicisms has been especially important.
History The incorporation of the Slovak lands into the Hungarian kingdom that was established at the end of the 10th century separated the Slovaks from the Czechs, who maintained their independence until being subdued by the Habsburgs in 1648. The written language of the Hungarian kingdom, and therefore also of Slovakia, was Latin, but thanks to continuing contacts with their Czech brethren, Slovaks began to use Czech as a written language as well. This was especially true after the establishment of Charles University in Prague in 1348, where Slovaks were among the students, and with the influence of the Hussite movement in the 15th century. From the beginning, the Czech written by Slovaks showed the influence of spoken Slovak. As early as the 15th century there were efforts to write in Slovak, but the first comprehensive effort to create a Slovak literary standard was by a Catholic priest, Anton Bernola´k, at the end of the 18th century, who based his norms on the Western Slovak dialects. Perhaps because Western Slovak is closest to Czech, Bernola´k’s project did not win general acceptance. Slovak Protestants continued to base their writing on the language of the Czech Kralicka´ Bible. In the middle of the 19th century, udovı´t Sˇtu´r and his colleagues proposed a new literary standard based on the Central Slovak dialects, and this became the basis of the modern Slovak literary language. During the first Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938), Slovak linguists had to cope with the official doctrine of a single Czechoslovak language, and after World War II the question of the relationship between the Slovak and Czech languages was still on the agenda. Since the creation of two independent states in 1989, there is evidence of decreasing mutual intelligibility, especially among the younger generation of Slovaks and Czechs, who are less exposed to mass media in the other language.
Slovene 981
Bibliography Kacˇala J, Eichler E & Sˇikra J (eds.) (1992). A reader in Slovak linguistics: studies in semantics. Munich: O. Sagner.
Rubach Jerzy (1993). The lexical phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Short David (1993). ‘Slovak.’ In Comrie B & Corbett G G (eds.) The Slavonic languages. London and New York: Routledge. 533–592.
Slovene M L Greenberg, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Overview
Slovene (or Slovenian), the titular language of the Republic of Slovenia, is spoken by some 2.4 million people, including speakers in bordering areas in Italy, Austria, and Hungary as well as in diaspora communities in Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the USA. Together with Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian (Serbo-Croatian), Slovene makes up the Western subgroup of the South Slavic branch of the Slavic languages (Indo-European). Slovene transitions to the Cˇakavian and Kajkavian dialects of Croatian. It is less close to the Sˇtokavian dialect, the basis for the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian standard languages. Ancient connections to the central dialect of Slovak (West Slavic) are evident. Slovene is traditionally divided into seven dialects, each of which has further dialect differentiation: (I) littoral dialects, spoken partly in Italy; (II) Carinthian, spoken mostly in Austria; (III) Upper Carniolan; (IV) Lower Carniolan; (V) Styrian; (VI) Pannonian, spoken partly in Hungary; (VII) Rovte (Figure 1). There are 48 distinct local varieties. Standard Slovene is constructed of features from various dialects and historical stages of Slovene and does not correspond exactly to any one dialect. Even in the capital, Ljubljana, everyday speech differs in fundamental ways from the standard; compare standard: kaj mislite? ‘what do you think?’ and colloquial: kva mislte? ˚ Historical Development and Emergence of Literary Language
By the 6th or 7th century A.D., Proto-Slovene was spoken in an area bounded by the Tagliamento River, the Gulf of Trieste, Linz and the outskirts of Vienna, and the southern end of Lake Balaton. The
Proto-Slovene speech territory gradually diminished in the medieval period as speakers shifted to Friulian, Italian, German (Standard German), and Hungarian, leaving a core area today consisting of the Republic of Slovenia plus border areas in Italy, Austria, and Hungary. The earliest surviving documents are the Freising Folia, liturgical texts composed around 1000 A.D., which are among the oldest attestations of any Slavic language. There are a few surviving Slovene documents dating from then until the middle of the 16th century, mostly religious and legal texts. The first printed books in Slovene are Primus Truber’s (1508–1586) Catechismus (1550) and Jurij Dalmatin’s (1547–1598) translation of the Bible (1584), which mark the first attempt at a standard language. Truber modeled the language on the speech of Ljubljana and his native Lower Carniolan. The Counter–Reformation submerged Truber’s legacy, while the Protestants developed a regional literary language in the northeast. Until the 19th century, Slovene remained secondary to the state language, German (Standard German), and, regionally, Italian and Hungarian. Modern standard Slovene dates to Jernej Kopitar’s 1809 grammar, the prestige of which was elevated by the poet France Presˇeren (1800–1849) and the intellectual circle around Sigismund Zois (1747–1819). The orthographic system essentially as it is found today was codified in Maks Pletersˇnik’s Slovene–German Dictionary (1894–95). Political Issues and Language Maintenance
After the incorporation of the Slovene speech territory (minus border regions in Austria, Italy, and Hungary) into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918 (renamed Yugoslavia in 1929), Slovene now became subordinate to Serbo-Croatian, the de facto lingua franca of the Yugoslav state. The legal status of Slovene was raised after World War II. Its rights as an official language were reaffirmed in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution. In reality, the status of Slovene remained unfavorable with
982 Slovene
Figure 1 Map of Slovene dialects. Roman numerals indicating local speech varieties are referenced in Greenberg (2000).
respect to Serbo-Croatian, an issue that contributed to Slovene dissatisfaction with Yugoslavia and was resolved with the 1991 Slovene secession from that state. Slovenes continue to be concerned with language rights among their minorities in Italy, Austria, and Hungary, where they have attempted to encourage the respective governments to accord language rights and allow Slovene-language media and education. Slovene became one of the official languages of the European Union with the 2004 accession.
Phonology Writing System
Slovene is written in modified Roman letters, with diacritic marks for sounds not represented by the inherited alphabet (see Table 1). Several other letters are sanctioned in standard orthography to render direct citation of foreign words, viz., C ¸ , c¸; C´, c´; Ð, d–; Q, q; S´, s´; X, x; Y, y; Z´, z´; Z˙, z˙. Vowel System
See Table 2. i, e, , a, , o, u occur in long stressed is always short (pes syllables, while stressed [peA s] ‘dog’). In unstressed syllables the distinctions
Table 1 The Slovene alphabet Upper case
Lower case
Pronunciation (IPA values where significantly different than English)
A B C Cˇ D E
a b c cˇ d e
[a]
F G H I J K L M N O
f g h i j k l m n o
P R S Sˇ T U V
p r s sˇ t u v
Z Zˇ
z zˇ
[ts] [tS] corresponds to tense and lax e-vowels or schwa (see vowel chart)
[x] [i] [y] see explanation under Consonants
corresponds to tense and lax o-vowels (see vowel chart) tapped or trilled r [S] [u] [w] before a consonant or in word-final position [Z] as the s in pleasure
Slovene 983 Table 2 Standard Slovene vowel phonemes
High Tense (high-mid) Lax (low-mid) Low
Table 3 Standard Slovene consonant phonemes
Front
Central
Back
i e E
e
u o O
Stops Affricates
a Fricatives
between e– and o– are neutralized to and respectively: cˇlovek [tSlOA :vEk] ‘person-NOM-sing’, cˇloveka [tSlOv :ka] ‘person-GEN-sing’; potok [pOA :tOk] ‘stream-NOM-sing,’ potoka [pOt :ka] ‘stream-GENsing.’ The grapheme r between consonants represents a sequence of þ r, e.g., vrt [vert] ‘garden,’ srce [serce] ‘heart.’ Word Prosody
Standard Slovene pronunciation allows two accentual norms, one with pitch accent (characteristic of the Carniolan dialects), the other by stress and vowel length. In the pitch accent system, any long-stressed syllable – almost always only one per accented word – is characterized by either a low rising tone or a high falling tone. Accented words (i.e., not unstressed particles, prepositions, conjunctions, and some pronouns) that lack a long-stressed vowel are short stressed (phonetically high falling) on the final syllable, for example, brati [bra´:ti] ‘to read’ (low rising), brat [bra`:t] ‘to go read’ (high falling), brat [bra`t] ‘brother’ (short), posko`k ‘hop’ (short). Stress patterns are morphophonemic in that each morpheme carries an underlying prosodic marker and the concatenation of morphemes to form words determines realization of the placement and identity of the pitch and quantity. The realization of these concatenation rules is that paradigms are characterized either by fixed or by mobile stress patterns, e.g., fixed: mesto [me´:sto] ‘town-NOM/ACC-sing’–mesta [me´:sta] ‘townGEN-sing’–mestu [me ´ :stu] ‘town-DAT-sing’; mobile: meso [meso`:] ‘meat-NOM/ACC-sing’–mesa [mesa`:] ‘meat-GEN-sing’–mesu [me´:su] ‘meat-DAT-sing.’ Consonant System
See Table 3. V is pronounced as English v only when it precedes a vowel; otherwise, it is pronounced similarly to w: cerkve ‘church-GEN-sing,’ cerkev [-kew] ‘church-NOM-sing’; vrag [wrak] ‘devil’; navkreber [-wk-] ‘uphill.’ L is usually pronounced as w in wordfinal position and before a consonant (except in some morphologically conditioned environments, where it is pronounced as [l]): vedela ‘she knew,’ vedel [-dew] ‘he knew’; poznavalec [-lec] ‘connoisseur-NOM-sing,’ poznavalca [-wca] ‘connoisseur-GEN-sing.’
voiceless voiced voiceless voiced voiceless voiced
Nasals Lateral Trill/tap Glides
Labial
Dental
p b
t d c
f m
v [w]
Palatal
Velar
k g cˇ Z sˇ zˇ
x
n l r j
Morphology Slovene is an inflecting language. Nouns, pronouns, adjectives agree in case, number, and gender. The cases are nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, locative, and instrumental, the last two occurring obligatorily with prepositions. In addition to plural and singular, Slovene has distinct forms for dual. The genders are feminine, masculine, and neuter. In the standard language masculine adjectives in the nominative and accusative mark the definite article, e.g., grd obraz ‘(an) ugly face,’ grdi obraz ‘the ugly face.’ In the colloquial language a definite article has developed from a demonstrative pronoun (in all genders and numbers): grd ‘ugly’ (generic or indefinite), ta grd ‘the ugly (one).’ An indefinite article, also characteristic of colloquial speech, has developed from the numeral ‘one’ (eden), e.g., ena grda faca ‘an ugly face/guy.’ The present tense of the verb distinguishes person and number. Pronouns are normally dropped unless the subject is emphasized or reference is switched. Second person plural is used also as an honorific for a single addressee. Verbs distinguish imperfective and perfective aspect, in general, incomplete vs. completed action. Unprefixed verbs are usually imperfective (pisati ‘to write’) or bi-aspectual (nesti ‘to carry’). Prefixation creates additional, primarily perfective meanings, such as podpisati ‘to sign (e.g., a document),’ odnesti ‘to carry something away.’ Imperfectives are derived from these prefixed forms by suffixation and sometimes also vowel gradation, e.g., podpisovati ‘to sign repeatedly, to be in the process of signing,’ odnasˇati ‘to carry away repeatedly, to be in the process of carrying away.’ Noun and Adjective Inflection
See Tables 4–6.
984 Slovene Table 4 Singular ADJ þ noun
Table 7 Present-tense inflection
Case
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Nominative
Accusative Genitive
lepa hisˇa ‘beautiful house’ lepo hisˇo lepe hisˇe
lep(i) hrib ‘beautiful hill, mountain’ lep(i) hrib lepega hriba
Dative
lepi hisˇi
lepemu hribu
Locative
(pri) lepi hisˇi
Instrumental
(z) lepo hisˇo
(pri) lepem hribu (z) lepim hribom
lepo mesto ‘beautiful town’ lepo mesto lepega mesta lepemu mestu (pri) lepem mestu (z) lepim mestom
Table 5 Plural ADJ þ noun Case
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Nominative Accusative Genitive Dative Locative
lepe hisˇe lepe hisˇe lepih hisˇ lepim hisˇam (pri) lepih hisˇah (z) lepimi hisˇami
lepi hribi lepe hribe lepih hribov lepim hribom (pri) lepih hribih (z) lepimi hribi
lepa mesta lepa mesta lepih mest lepim mestom (pri) lepih mestih (z) lepimi mesti
Instrumental
Plural
Dual
vozi-m ‘(I) drive’ vozi-sˇ vozi
vozi-mo vozi-te vozi-jo
vozi-va vozi-ta vozi-ta
object moving to the beginning (2) or the subject to the end of the sentence (3). (1) Miran je Miran-NOM-sing 3-sing-AUX kupil kruh bought-MASC-sing bread.ACC ‘Miran bought bread’ (2) Kruh je kupil bread.ACC 3-sing-AUX bought-MASC-sing ‘He bought bread’/‘It was bread that he bought’ (3) Kruh je kupil bread.ACC 3-sing-AUX bought-MASC-sing Miran Miran-NOM-sing ‘Miran bought bread’/‘It was Miran who bought bread’
In noun phrases the order is DEM þ NUM þ ADV þ ADJ þ noun, where all but the ADV agree in case, number and gender:
Table 6 Dua ADJ þ noun Case
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Nominative, Accusative Genitive Locative
lepi hisˇi
lepa hriba
lepi mesti
lepih hisˇ (pri) lepih hisˇah lepima hisˇama
lepih hribov (pri) lepih hribih lepima hriboma
lepih mest (pri) lepih mestih lepima mestoma
Dative, Instrumental
1 2 3
Singular
Verb Inflection
The present tense declension marks person and number. Past and future tenses are constructed of an auxiliary (sem ¼ past, bom ¼ FUT), conjugated as in the present tense, plus a past participle marked for gender and number, e.g., sem delal ‘I workedMASC-sing,’ bom delala ‘I shall work-FEM-sing.’ The conditional is formed with an invariant particle bi, e.g., bi delali ‘we/you all/they would work’ (see Table 7).
Syntax Word Order
Neutral word order (1) is SVO, but the order may be rearranged depending on emphasis, with either the
(4) Tisti dve prav those-DEM-NOM-DU-FEM two-NOM-DU-FEM quite-ADV brihtni puncˇki bright-NOM-DU-FEM girls-NOM-DU-FEM ‘these two quite bright girls . . ..’
Clitics
Clitic elements, in accord with Wackernagel’s Law, follow directly after the first accented word or noun phrase in the main clause: (5) Trudili smo try-IMPERF-PP-MASC-PL AUX-1-PL se jo razumeti REFL-PART PRO-3-sing-ACC-FEM understand-INF ‘we were trying to understand her’
Subordinate clauses are typically introduced by da ‘that,’ ki / kateri ‘which,’ ker ‘because,’ ko(t) ‘as,’ cˇe ‘if’: (6) Prepricˇana sem, da je convinced-FEM-sing be-1-sing that be-3-sing tvoj racˇunalnik zastarel your-MASC- comp-MASC- superannuatedMASC-sing-NOM sing-nom sing-NOM ‘I’m convinced that your computer is obsolete’
Sogdian 985 (7) Pazi, ker te watch out-IMP-2-sing because PRO-2-sing-ACC bo avto povozil FUT-AUX-3-SG car-ACC-SG run over-PP-MASC-SG ‘watch out or the car will run you over’
Lexicon Historical influences on Slovene have come from Friulian, German (Standard German) (especially the Bavarian and Tyrolean dialects), Hungarian and Croatian (Serbo-Croatian), as well as Venetian Italian (Venetian), Dalmatian and Istrian Romance. A number of languages, including Illyrian and continental Celtic, may have made up substrata to Proto-Slovene (or, more likely, to the Romance dialects that preceded it) and are recognizable as trace elements in the vocabulary, e.g., from Celtic Karavanke ‘Karawanken Alps,’ Kranj(ska) ‘Carniola.’ German (Standard German) and English are the source of most contemporary loans, though these are officially deprecated in favor of native formations, which are increasingly accepted in everyday speech, e.g., zgosˇcˇenka ‘compact disk’ from zgostiti ‘to make compact,’ replacing cedejka. The youngest generation uses English freely, e.g., ful dober ‘really good’ (from Eng. full).
Bibliography Greenberg M L (ed.) (1997). The sociolinguistics of Slovene. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 124. Greenberg M L (2000). A historical phonology of the Slovene language. Heidelberg: Universita¨tsverlag Winter. Herrity P (2000). Slovene: a comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. Lencek R L (1982). The structure and history of the Slovene language. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Oresˇnik J & Reindl D F (eds.) (2003). Slovenian from a typological perspective. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 56/3 . Priestly T M S (1993). ‘Slovene.’ In Comrie B & Corbett G (eds.) The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. 388–451. Rigler J (1986). ‘The origins of the Slovene literary language.’ In Rigler J & Jakopin F (eds.) Razprave o slovenskem jeziku. Ljubljana: Slovenska Matica. 52–64. Snoj M (2003). Slovenski etimolosˇki slovar. Ljubljana: Modrijan. Stankiewicz E (1980). ‘Slovenian.’ In Schenker A & Stankiewicz E (eds.) The Slavic Literary Languages. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies. 85–102. Toporisˇicˇ J (2000). Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja.
Sogdian P O Skjærvø, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sogdian, an Eastern Middle Iranian language, was spoken at least up to the 8th century in Sogdiana, the area of modern Uzbekistan that includes the cities of Samarkand and Bukhara. Many Sogdians were merchants, however, and traveled east as far as China, bringing with them the Sogdian language. The Manicheans and Christians, as they fled from persecutions from the 3rd century on, took the Sogdian language with them to the farthest reaches of Chinese Turkestan and beyond, into Mongolia, where the Sogdian alphabet was adopted by the local Turks and the Mongolians, who still use it. The Sogdian written remains consist of religious and nonreligious texts. Most of the religious texts are translations, the Buddhist texts from Chinese, the Manichean ones from Persian and Parthian, and the Christian ones from Syriac.
We have Sogdian texts in five different alphabets: Old Sogdian Aramaic, Sogdian-Uighur (Uyghur), Manichean, Nestorian Christian, and Northern Brahmi. The Sogdian Aramaic script is used in the Ancient letters (see below) and in graffiti on rocks along the Karakorum Highway in northern Pakistan. The Sogdian-Uighur script is the most common, being used for secular documents, as well as for Buddhist and Manichean texts. The Manichean and Nestorian scripts were used for Manichean and Christian texts, respectively. There are a small number of late Sogdian manuscripts from Turfan written in Northern Brahmi script. In early times, the Sogdians must have been the neighbors of the Tocharians (see Tocharian), who borrowed numerous (proto-)Sogdian words. The modern Iranian language Yaghnobi is the descendant of a Sogdian dialect different from the known Sogdian. The oldest Sogdian texts are the Ancient letters, written on paper and discovered by the BritishHungarian discoverer and archeologist Marc Aurel Stein in eastern Chinese Turkestan (now in The
986 Sogdian
British Library). The letters can be dated to the early 4th century by references to current events. From the 8th century, we have a collection of letters and administrative, economic, and legal documents written in the Sogdian script from the archives of King Dhewastich found at Mount Mug east of Samarkand. The largest corpus of Sogdian texts are the Buddhist texts removed from a cave at Dunhuang in eastern Xinjiang by Aurel Stein and the French scholar and archeologist Paul Pelliot (now in The British Library and the Bibliothe`que Nationale). Numerous Sogdian Manichean and Christian texts were discovered at Turfan in northeastern Xinjiang by German archeologists (now in the Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin). Sogdian phonology and morphology are both conservative and innovative. The most important innovation is the ‘rhythmic law,’ by which words with long vowels before the endings (‘heavy’ stems), lose final short vowels. Thus, OIran. SING NOM *wrk-ah and ACC *wrk-am ‘wolf’ are Sogd. werk-ı´ and werk-u´ (‘light’ stem), while OIran. *daiw-ah and *daiw-am and *daiw-am ‘demon’ are both d w. Sogdian shares with Ossetic the plural suffix -t- (originally a collective noun, hence declined like a feminine singular), for instance, d w-t ‘demons’; forms of dbar- ‘door’: SING ´ , PLUR NOM-ACC dbar-t-a´, GENNOM dbar-ı´, LOC dbar-ya ´ ‘at the doors’. Sogdian uses demonDAT, LOC dbar-t-ya strative pronouns as definite articles (xo¯ ma´rtı¯ ‘the man’, xa¯ strı¯sˇ-t ‘the women’ [< strı¯cˇ-], uya ka´ny-ı¯ ‘in the city’ [LOC]). The verb system is complex. There are three stems: present, past, and perfect (perfect participle ¼ past stem þ suffix-e¯, FEM-cˇ-a; e.g., PRES pets cˇ- ‘fit’, PAST petsagt-, PERF MASC petsagt- , FEM petsag-cˇa´- [-gt-cˇ-> -g-cˇ-]). It has all the Old Iranian moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative, injunctive), as well as active and middle. It has, in modified form, the old imperfect, for instance, PRES bar-a´m, IMPERF bar-u´ ‘I carry, carried’, PRES w n-am, IMPERF w n ‘I see, saw’, PRES yabr-a´m, IMPERF y br-u ‘I give, gave’. Progressive tenses are formed with the suffix -skun (-sk) and the future with the suffix -ka¯m (-kan, -k) from a noun meaning ‘wish’ (IMPERF PROG bar-a´-skun ‘he was carrying’, FUT bar-a´m-ka¯m ‘I shall carry’; Christian Sogd. PRES PROG gerb-a´m-sk ‘I am seizing’, FUT w b-tkan ‘he shall say’).
There is a large range of past tense forms built on the remade Old Iranian perfect system: transitive active tenses with past stem plus the verb da¯r- ‘hold, have’ (e.g., ugt-u-d r-t ‘he has said’), but intransitive and passive tenses with past stem plus copula (e.g., tgat- sˇ ‘you entered’, zˇit-esya ‘you were born’). The perfect is made with the perfect participle in the same way (e.g., bast- da¯rand ‘bind-PERF.MASC hold.PRES-3RD.PLUR’ ¼ ‘they hold/keep bound,’ bast-cˇa´ astı´ ‘bind-PERF.FEM COP.3RD SING’ ¼ ‘she is (now) bound’). The passive is made with the perfect participle plus ‘be, become’ (e.g., bast- -t ub-and ‘bind-PERF.MASC.PL become.PRES-3RD.PLUR’ ¼ ‘they are being bound’, a´nxast-e¯ ekt-e¯m ‘goad-PERF.MASC become.PAST-COP.1ST SING’ ¼ ‘I was goaded’). Among special formations, note the ‘potentialis,’ formed with a past participle with the ending (light) -a and the verbs kun- ‘to do’ (active) and b- ‘become’ (passive), by which possibility and completion of action are expressed (e.g., ne¯ zˇagd-a´ kun-am ‘NEG uphold.PART do.PRES-1ST.SING’ ¼ ‘I cannot uphold’, ne¯ a¯pa¯t bo¯-t ‘NEG reach.PART become.PRES-3RD.SING’ ¼ ‘it cannot be reached’, cˇa¯no¯ xwart xurt kun-and ‘when food eat.PART do.IMPERF-3RD.PL’ ¼ ‘when they had eaten’). There are minor dialect differences between texts written in the Sogdian, Manichean, and Nestorian scripts (e.g., Sogd. wan-, kwn- ‘to do’, Man., Chr. kun-). Christian Sogdian also has phonetically more developed forms (see also on the progressive and future above), e.g., *kertu-da¯r-am ‘I did, I have done’ > Buddhist Sogdian ektu-da¯r-am > Christian Sogdian k-ya¯r-am.
Bibliography Gershevitch I (1954). A grammar of Manichean Sogdian. Oxford: Blackwell. Henning W B (1958). ‘Mitteliranisch.’ In Handbuch der Orientalistik I: Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten IV: Iranistik 1: Linguistik. Leiden-Cologne: Brill. 20–130. Sims-Williams N (1985). Berliner Turfantexte 12: The Christian Sogdian manuscript C2. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. Sims-Williams N (1989). ‘Sogdian.’ In Schmitt R (ed.) Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 173–192.
Somali 987
Somali F Serzisko, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Somali is a Cushitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family spoken by approximately 10 million speakers in and around Somalia. There are five major Somali dialects (Lamberti, 1986).
Phonology The following consonant phonemes are distinguished as shown in Table 1. There are five vowels: a, e, i, o, u and vowel length, in standard orthography indicated by doubling the vowels, is distinctive. The following shows the letters used in Standard Somali orthography IPA Somali Orthography
0
¿ c
h x
S sh
x kh
B dh
Tone appears to be distinctive in Somali both on the lexical level and on the grammatical level. It is, however, still a matter of debate whether this tonal distinction is really a tonal distinction or pitch accent (Hyman, 1981 for discussion). In terms of syllable structure, no word-initial or -final consonant clusters are allowed.
Morphology Verbs
Somali has a rather rich system of lexical affixes by which new stems can be derived. The main derivational affixes are listed below. Causative in jabay ‘is broken’ jab-i-yey ‘to break’ Stative/passive am jeex ‘to tear’ jeex-an’ ‘to be torn’ Autobenefactive an wa´dayaa ‘to drive’ wada´-na-yaa ‘to drive for oneself’
B
td
kg
Wuu fu´rayaa Wuu fu´rmayaa Wuu fura´nayaa
Past Non-Past Non-Progressive Keen-ay ‘brought’ Keen-aa ‘brings’ Progressive Keen-ay-ay ‘was bringing’ Keen-ay-aa ‘is bringing’
The progressive form is historically derived from an auxiliary construction with the verb hay ‘to have’. The verb agrees with the subject in gender and number. Inflection is mainly done by suffixes (weak verbs) but there is a small group of five verbs that still have at least partly prefix conjugation (strong verbs). The following sample shows the main verbal forms for the weak and the strong verbs. It should be noted that at least in the main paradigms the forms for 1st and 3rd person masculine and the forms for 2nd and 3rd person feminine are identical. A sample paradigm for the simple past is given for keen ‘bring’ and yimi ‘come’
q
Past: J
f w
Present: S y
x (W)
h¿
Weak verbs ‘bring’ keenay keentay keennay keenteen keeneen
Strong verbs ‘come’ imid ti-mid nimid timaaddeen yimaaddeen
Predicate negation is expressed by preverbal particles and verbal inflection. An invariable form is used for all persons in the past. The present form inflects regularly.
n l r s
‘He is opening it. ‘It’s getting opened, it is opening’ ‘He is openening it for himself’
Morphosyntactic categories of the verb are tense, aspect, and person. There is also an inflectional distinction between main and subordinate predications. The basic tense distinction is past/non-past, whereby non-past usually has a habitual meaning. Future is expressed by periphrastic construction with the auxiliary doon ‘want’. There is furthermore an aspectual distinction between progressive and non-progressive.
1st/3sm 2nd/3sf 1pl 2pl 3pl
Table 1 Consonant phonemes b m
The following examples demonstrate the use of these derivational affixes with the verb fur ‘to open’:
h
Ma´ keenı´n ma´ iman ma´ keeno´ ma´ imaaddo´ Ma´ keento´ ma´ timaaddo´
‘I/you/he etc. didn’t bring’ ‘I/you/he/etc. didn’t come’ ‘I don’t bring’ ‘I don’t come’ ‘she doesn’t bring’ ‘she doesn’t come’
988 Somali Nouns
Adjectives
Nominal morphosyntactic categories are case, number, and gender. There is a twofold gender distinction based on masculine and feminine. Gender is marked by tonal distinction and by agreement on determiners like possessives, demonstratives, articles, and the verb. The masculine marker is basically k the feminine marker t. For a discussion of the status of these, see Lecarme, 2002.
Qualitative concepts are expressed by elements whose status is not entirely clear (For a discussion, see the contributions in Bechhaus-Gerst and Serzisko (eds.), 1988). In predicative usage these elements occur with the copula:
Nin-ka inan-kayga
‘the man’ ‘my son
naag-ta gacan-tayga
‘the woman’ ‘my arm’
The basic distinction with number is singular/ plural. Plural is marked by several means depending on the length and the gender of the noun. The following examples demonstrate the diverse plural forms. Woman Road Shoulderblade Man Bull Story Father
Singular na´ag darı`iq ga´rab nı´n dı´bi she´eko a´abbe
Plural naago dariiqyo garbo niman dibı´ sheeko´oyin aabbayaal
There are mainly two cases: subject case and absolutive. The absolutive is the base form and the subject case is marked by a tonal distinction and optionally by the segmental elements -i with indefinite and ku/tu with definite nouns. This subject marking occurs at the end of the entire noun phrase: Buug-ga cusub ee wiil-kan-i Book-DET new COORD boy-DEM-SUBJ wux-uu yaala miis-ka guud-kiisa wax-3sm located table-DET top-poss3sm ‘The new book of this boy is lying on the table’
Possession is marked on the noun by pronominal suffixes: aabe-hiis-a ‘his father’. If the possessor is expressed by a noun then the two nouns are juxtaposed and the order is possessee possessor: faras-ka nin-ka (horse man) ‘the horse of the man’. Alienability is not expressed in Somali, with the exception that kin relationships cannot be simply juxtaposed but use an inverted construction where the possessor is additionally expressed: ı´nanka aabi-hiis ‘the father of the boy’ (lit. the boy his father). This construction is optional with other possessive relations. Numerals are nouns and within the noun phrase they precede the noun and actually function as the head of the complex construction. Laba nı´n ‘two men’
sa´ddex nı´n ‘three men’
a´far nı´n ‘four men’
Buug-gan waa wanaagsa´n yahay. Book-DEM DM good COP:3sm ‘This book is good.’
In attributive usage, adjectives may agree with their head noun in number; agreement is indicated by reduplication of the first syllable: Guri cusub guriyo cuscusub
‘a new house’ ‘new houses’
The comparative is expressed by means of verbal case particles: Nı´n-kanu nı´n-ka´as wuu ka´ we`yn yahay Man-this man-that DM than(ABL) big COP That man is bigger than that man.
The superlative is formed with the preverbal particle cluster ugu´: Nı´nkanu wuu ugu´ Man-this DM most ‘This man is the tallest’
dhe`er tall
yahay COP
Syntax The structure of a simple sentence can roughly be described as consisting of a verb complex, which contains all the necessary information, and noun phrases, which stand in a kind of appositive relation to this verbal complex. The structure of the verbal complex is as follows: waa Impersonal object pronoun case marker directional verb stem
waa is a declarative marker that stands in complementary distribution with the negative marker. The declarative marker in main clauses, which has also been described as a verbal focus marker (see below), is the left-most element in the verbal complex. The next position may be filled by an impersonal marker. Object pronouns for 1st and 2nd person follow. The 3rd person object is always zero. These pronouns combine with the following case markers. Four cases are distinguished: benefactive /u/, locative/instrumental /ku/, ablative /ka/ and comitative /la/. The following shows the combinations of object pronouns and case marker for the singular pronouns:
Somali 989
1st sing. 2nd sing.
Benefactive Loc/Instr Ablative Comitative ii igu iga ila kuu kugu kaa kula
Directional particles indicate whether the action is directed toward the speaker /soo/ or away from speaker /sii/, as in the following examples. w-aan DM-1sg w-aan DM-1sg w-uu
ku 2sgOBJ ku-gu 2sgOBJ-LOC ku soo
ark-ay see-1sg ark-ay see-1sg noqd-ay
DM-3sm LOC back
‘I saw you’ ‘I saw you in it’ ‘He came back to it.’
came-3sg
The negation particle also occurs within the verbal complex: I-i-ma soo iibinin 1sgOBJ-DAT-NEG DIR bought-NEG ‘He didn’t buy them for me.’
The most striking feature of Somali is the use of focus particle. Noun focus is expressed by the particles ayaa/baa, which are alternants whose use is determined by regional and stylistic factors, following the noun in focus. The particle waa, which has been described as a declarative marker above, is by some authors called verbal focus marker. Nominal and verbal focus markers stand in complementary distribution, i.e., there can only be one focus marker in a main clause. The form of the focus marker is as a rule dependent on whether the noun in focus is the subject of the sentence or not. If the subject is in focus the marker occurs in its simple form and the predicate occurs in the restricted form. This indicates that the source of the focus construction may be a relative clause. If a non-subject is focused the subject pronoun combines with the focus marker, which yields the following paradigm of forms: 1st sing 2nd 3rd masc. 3rd fem
The unmarked word order in a main clause is SOV, the order of the nominal participants is relatively free and interacts with the focus marking system. Nin-kii libaax-ii ayuu dilay Man-DET lion-DET FOC3sg kill-3sg Libaax-ii ninkii ayaa dilay Nin-kii ayaa libaax-ii dilay
‘The man killed the lion.’
‘The lion was killed by the man’ ‘It was the man who killed the lion’
Since there is an obligatory syntactic and morphological marking of aspects of discourse structure, Somali can be considered to be an example of a discourse configurational language (Svolacchia et al., 1995). Questions
Yes-No questions are formed by replacing the declarative marker waa by the question particle ma:
Sentence Structure
Singular ay-aan ay-aad ay-uu ay-ay
Word Order
Plural ay-aynu/ay-aanu ay-aad ay-ay
There is, furthermore, a presentative marker waxa, which also attracts the subject pronoun. This construction is used to highlight a nominal participant in a kind of clefting construction. The highlighted noun phrase occurs after the verbal complex. Shaah b-aan doonayaa. waxaan doonayaa shaah.
‘I want some tea’ ‘What I want is tea’
Cali wuu yimid. ‘Ali came’
Cali ma yimid? ‘Did Ali come?’
If the sentence contains a nominal focus the question particle is placed before the focused noun phrase: Cali baa keenay. ‘ALI brought it.’
Ma Cali baa keenay. ‘Did ALI bring it?’
WH-questions always involve nominal focus and the questioned noun phrase stands with the interrogative article kee/tee: Ninkee ayaa yimi? Xaggee buu tegay? Sidee baad u sameysey? Intee baad joogaysaa?
‘Which man came?’ ‘Which place did he go? ¼ Where’ ‘In which manner did you do it? ¼ How’ ‘What amount did you stay? ¼ How long’
Complex Sentences
Complex sentences can be coordinated or subordinated. Clauses may be coordinated by the particle oo as in: Cali hı´libkı´i ayu`u keenay oo wa`anu cunay ‘Ali brought the meat and we ate it.’
Or they may be conjoined by attaching an element -na to the first element of the second clause: Cali w-uu I arkay w-u`u-na FOC-3s 1sgOBJ see-3sg FOC-3sm-COORD C. i-la´ had lay 1sgOBJ-COM speak-3sm ‘Ali saw me and he spoke to me’
990 Songhay Languages
In subordinated clauses, there is no classifier or focus particle and the verb occurs in its subordinated form. There is a formal distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. The former are simply juxtaposed to the noun they qualify while the latter are coordinated by oo: Nı´nkı´i Sooma´aliya ka´ yimı´ ‘The man who came from Somalia . . .’ Nı´nkı´i oo Sooma´aliya ka´ yimı´ ‘The man, who came from Somalia, . . .’
Complement clauses are introduced by the particle in: In-uu imanayo ay-aan FOC-1sg Comp-3sm come-SUB ‘I know that he is coming’
ogahay know-1sg
Adverbial clauses expressing temporal, local, and causal circumstances are formed with relative clauses to a noun like marka ‘time’. Markii Time-DET
aan 1sg
casheynayay dining-PROG-PAST-1s
saaxiibkay baa soo galay FOC DIR come:in friend-POSS1sg ‘When I was dining my friend came in.’
Bibliography Abraham R C (1964). Somali-English dictionary. London: University of London Press. Bechhaus-Gerst M & Serzisko F (eds.) (1988). CushiticOmotic-Papers from the International Symposium on Cushitic and Omotic Languages. Hamburg: Buske. Berchem J (1991). Referenzgrammatik des Somali. Cologne: OMIMEE Intercultural Publishers. Cardona G R & Agostini F (eds.) (1981). ‘Fonologia e lessico.’ Studi Somali 1, Mimistero degli Affari esteri-dipartemento per la Cooperazione allo Sviluppo
Comitato tecnico linguistico per L’universita’ Nazionale Somalia. Hyman L (1981). ‘Tonal accent in Somali.’ Studies in African Lingusitics 12(2), 160–202. Labahn T (ed.) (1983). Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Somali Studies, vol. 1: linguistics and literature. Hamburg: Buske Verlag. Lamberti M (1986). Die Somali-Dialekte. Hamburg: Buske Verlag (¼ Kuschitische Sprachstudien 5). Lecarme J (1991). ‘Focus in Somali: syntax and interpretation; Focus en somali: syntaxe et interpre´tation.’ Linguistique Africaine 7, 33–63. Lecarme J (2002). ‘Gender ‘‘polarity’’: theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology.’ In Boucher P (ed.) Many morphologies. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 109–141. Livnat M A (1983). ‘The indicator particle baa in Somali.’ Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 13(1), 89–132. Puglielli A (ed.) (1981). ‘Sintassi della lingua somala.’ Studi somali 2, Mimistero degli Affari esteri-dipartemento per la Cooperazione allo Sviluppo Comitato tecnico linguistico per L’universita’ Nazionale Somalia. Reinisch L (1900). Die Somali Sprache (3 vols). Vienna: Alfred Ho¨lder. Saeed J I (1984). The syntax of focus & topic in Somali. Hamburg: Buske Verlag (¼ Kuschitische Sprachstudien 3). Saeed J I (1993). Somali reference grammar. Kensington, Maryland: Dunwoody Press. (2nd rev. edn.). Serzisko F (1984). Der Ausdruck der Possessivita¨t im Somali. Tu¨bingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Serzisko F (1992). ‘Collective and transnumeral nouns in Somali.’ In Adam H M & Geshekter C L (eds.). Proceedings of the First International Congress of Somali Studies [Held in 1980]. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. 513–525. Svolaccia M, Mereu L & Puglielli A (1995). ‘Aspects of discourse configurationality in Somali.’ In Kiss K (ed.) Discourse configurational languages. New York: Oxford University Press. 65–98. Tosco M (2004). ‘Between zero and nothing. Transitivity and noun incorporation in Somali.’ Studies in Language 28(1), 83–104.
Songhay Languages G J Dimmendaal, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The name Songai (also Songhay, Songhai, Sonrai) refers to a range of lects spoken mainly along the Niger River in Mali and Niger, as well as in Burkina Faso, and centering around major towns in the area. There are three major varieties: Western Songai (which includes Koyra Chiini, the town language of
Timbuktu, and Djenne Chiini, spoken in Djenne´), Central Songai (which includes Humburi Senni, with Hombori as the major city, and Kaado), and Eastern Songai (with Koyraboro Senni as a major lect) with Gao as a major urban centre. The Gao variety has been designated as the standard for Songai in Mali. The total number of speakers in these countries is estimated to be at least 1.1 million. Zarma (Dyerma), which is spoken by some 2 million people mainly in Niger and Nigeria, and Dendi, with around 72 000 speakers mainly in Niger and Benin,
Sorbian 991
are closely related, but constitute separate languages. In addition, there are varieties in Mali and Algeria whose grammatical structure is similar to Songai, but whose lexical structure is rather deviant. Their speakers, who are culturally Tuareg, are known under a variety of names, e.g., as Tasawaq or Tadaksahak in Mali, and Korandje´ in Algeria. According to Greenberg (1963), Songai constitutes one of the six primary branches of the Nilo-Saharan phylum. Nicolaı¨ (1990) has argued that Songai is nongenetic in origin, with a Tuareg (Berber) variety playing a major lexifying role. The documentation of the Songai cluster has improved dramatically as a result of a series of monographs by Nicolaı¨ (1981) and Heath (1998, 1999a, 1999b). The spreading of the Songai lects probably is related to the expansion of the Song(h)ai Empire from the 9th century until the late Middle Ages. Areal contact with neighboring languages belonging to different language families, such as Mande, Kwa, Gur (all Niger-Congo), and Berber (Afroasiatic) appears to have resulted in considerable typological variation within this cluster. Thus, whereas Central Songai varieties such as Humburi Senni or Kaado are tonal, western varieties such as Koyra Chiini appear to be nontonal. Also, in Western Songai varieties, SVO order appears to be common, with markers for mood, aspect, and negation occurring between the subject and the verb, and with complements other than the object following the verb. However, the object precedes the verb in Central and Eastern Songai varieties, which also use a transitive marker before the object noun phrase. All Songai lects
appear to use postpositions. Nominal modifiers tend to follow the head noun, but possessors precede the latter. The use of a one-term deictic marker appears to be a more common areal phenomenon, also attested in neighboring Mande languages. Affixational morphology is somewhat restricted (derivational morphology in the verb, for example, appears to involve mainly causative and centripetal marking), but cliticization of morphemes is highly common in Songai, frequently resulting in a mismatch between phonological and grammatical words. Logophoric marking, as a reference tracking mechanism and evidential hedging strategy, is also used across sentence boundaries; compare Heath (1999a: 322–328).
Bibliography Greenberg J H (1963). ‘The languages of Africa.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 29(1,2). Heath J (1998). Wortkunst und Dokumentartexte in afrikanischen Sprachen 6: Texts in Koroboro Senni: Songhay of Gao, Mali. Cologne: Ru¨diger Ko¨ppe. Heath J (1999a). Mouton Grammar Library 19: A grammar of Koyra Chiini: the Songay of Timbuktu. Berlin/ Philadelphia: Mouton de Gruyter. Heath J (1999b). Westafrikanische Studien 19: A grammar of Koyraboro (Koroboro) Senni: the Songhay of Gao, Mali. Cologne: Ru¨diger Ko¨ppe. Nicolaı¨ R (1981). Les dialectes du songhay. Paris: SELAF. Nicolaı¨ R (1990). Parente´s lingistiques (a` propos du songhay). Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Sorbian G H Toops, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sorbian is one of three branches of the West Slavic languages comprising Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian (the other two branches being the CzechSlovak and the Lechitic). ‘Sorbian’ thus serves as a convenient cover term for one or both of the Sorbian literary languages and their respective dialects. The Lower Sorbian (hereafter, LSo) and the Upper Sorbian (USo) literary languages constitute supradialectal norms generally used in writing and public or mass communication (print media, radio, and television); in informal settings Sorbs (both Lower and Upper) tend to speak the dialect characteristic of their native
village, with occasional admixtures of literary elements and German vocabulary. Sorbian as defined here is spoken today as a native language entirely within the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany (from 1949 to 1990, within the borders of the former German Democratic Republic); more precisely, it is spoken completely within the eastern German region of Lusatia (LSo Łuzˇyca, USo Łuzˇica, German die Lausitz), situated partly in the German state of Saxony (Freistaat Sachsen) and partly in the state of Brandenburg (see Figure 1). The Brandenburg portion includes what is traditionally known as Lower Lusatia (German Niederlausitz), while the Saxon portion includes most of Upper Lusatia (German Oberlausitz). These geographic designations are sometimes applied to the languages spoken there, whence
992 Sorbian
Figure 1 Sorbian speech communities. Schiller K J and Thiemann M (1979), Stawizny Serbow (vol. 4), Bautzen: Domowina, with permission.
the terms ‘Lower Lusatian’ and ‘Upper Lusatian’ in lieu of ‘Lower Sorbian’ and ‘Upper Sorbian,’ respectively. The Sorbian-language area, like the Sorbian speech community itself, has shrunk considerably in the past
100–150 years, so that it now extends at most only about 90 kilometers north-south and some 55 kilometers from west to east inside Lusatia proper. The Lower Sorbs call themselves Serby in their own
Sorbian 993
language but reveal a preference for the appellation Wenden ‘Wends’ in German; the Upper Sorbs call themselves Serbja (Sorben [or, more specifically, Obersorben] in German). Descendants of Sorbs (now all English-speaking) who settled in the American state of Texas (some 60 kilometers east of the state’s capital city, Austin) in 1854 describe their heritage as ‘Wendish.’ As far as anyone has determined, all Lusatian Sorbs – to the extent that they still speak some form of Sorbian – are bilingual in Sorbian and German and have been so since the early decades of the 20th century. Partly as a result of this universal bilingualism, ethnic Sorbs have tended increasingly to become unilingual German-speakers. Estimates of the current number of native Sorbian speakers vary. An ethnosociological poll conducted by the Institute of Sorbian Ethnography (Institut za serbski ludospyt) in 1987 suggested 67 000 as the maximum number of Sorbian speakers in both Lower and Upper Lusatia (Faska, 1998: 20). A more recent compendium of USo grammar puts the number of USo speakers at no more than 53 600 (Schaarschmidt, 2002). Assuming that such estimates are accurate, one is led to surmise a maximum of 13 400 speakers of LSo (67 000 minus 53 600), a figure that is not substantially at odds with the estimate of 16 000 LSo speakers cited by Sˇatava on the basis of data also collected in 1987 (Sˇatava, 1994: 198). The overwhelming majority of today’s native LSo speakers are more than 60 years old; consequently, the LSo dialects are expected to be extinct within the next 15–25 years (Jodlbauer et al., 2001: 204). Schaarschmidt reckons that USo should be extinct by the year 2070; however, given current efforts at language maintenance, the USo literary language and at least some of its dialects (notably the so-called ‘Kamjenc’ [German: Kamenz] dialect of the approximately 15 000 Catholic Sorbs northwest of Budysˇin [Bautzen]) stand a good chance of surviving well beyond the year 2100 (Schaarschmidt, 2002: 5–6). The center of LSo literary and cultural activity (including radio and television broadcasting) is the city of Chos´ebuz (Cottbus); the center of USo literary and cultural activity is the city of Budysˇin (Bautzen). This reflects the emergence of these two cities as ‘dialect centers’ in the 17th–18th centuries, owing to the fact that: (a) the majority of those educated Sorbs who translated (mostly religious) texts from German into Sorbian hailed from, or from the vicinity of, these cities; and (b) these cities already occupied major economic and political positions in Lusatia at that time. The first cohesive text written in Sorbian that we know of is the so-called ‘Budysˇin Oath’ (Budyska prˇisaha) or ‘Wendish Citizen’s Oath’ (Bu¨rgereid Wendisch) dating from the year 1532. The early production of longer Sorbian texts is connected with the
spread of the Protestant Reformation in Lusatia and the ensuing Thirty Years’ War (1618–48). The first Sorbian religious text, as far as we know, is an eastern LSo translation of the New Testament of Martin Luther’s Bible, which was written by hand in 1548. The first Sorbian printed book is a LSo collection of church hymns and a small Lutheran catechism published by the preacher Albin Moller in 1574. The first printed book in USo is a translation of the Lutheran catechism published by the preacher Wenzeslaus Warichius in 1587. Such 16th-century texts already exhibited varying degrees of German lexical and grammatical influences (e.g., Sorbian use of the demonstrative pronoun/adjective as a reflection of the German definite article). Because Protestantism did not completely take hold among the Upper Sorbs, Budysˇin emerged as a dialect center only for the USo Protestants; among the USo Catholics, the dialect spoken in and around Kulow (Wittichenau) emerged in the 17th century as the basis for a Catholic variant of a nascent USo literary language. The dialectal basis for this variant eventually broadened in the direction of a West Sorbian Catholic dialect situated in the vicinity of Chro´sc´icy (Crostwitz). Thus, by the 18th century, two literary languages – one of them with two variants – existed among the Sorbs: LSo, Protestant USo, and Catholic USo. Like German books printed at the time, the earliest Sorbian publications were printed in German blackletter, or Fraktur. Sorbian spelling was based on sound correspondences with German graphemes or phonetic approximations of them. Thus, the German might correspond to the graphemes rˇ, sˇ, trigraph or even zˇ (representing palatal continuants) in today’s USo orthography. The palatal affricates, in contrast, were graphically influenced to some extent by Polish – was used where today one finds USo cˇ or c´. For example, in Warichius’s catechism of 1597, we find (in contemporary USo orthography: Te dz´esac´ kazni Bozˇe) ‘God’s ten commandments’ (cf. Schuster-Sˇewc, 1967: 52). Around the middle of the 19th century, efforts were made to reconcile the Catholic and the Protestant variants of literary USo by standardizing their orthographies. The resulting orthography, set forth in the 1848 publication of Hornjołuzˇiski serbski prawopis z kro´tkim reˇcˇnicˇnym prˇehladom (‘Upper Lusatian Sorbian orthography with a brief grammatical overview’) by Christian Traugott Pfuhl (Krˇesc´an Bohuweˇr Pful), incorporated Czech and Polish conventions – use of diacritics like the Czech ha´cˇek (cˇ, eˇ, rˇ, sˇ, zˇ) and the Polish acute accent (c´, dz´, n´, o´) as well as the Polish velar l (ł) – and was therefore labeled ‘analogical.’ The new orthography, however, was
994 Sorbian
also etymologically based, introducing graphemes – particularly in word-initial consonant clusters – that had no phonetic value: łowa ! hłowa ‘head,’ cyc´ ! chcyc´ ‘to want,’ dz´e ! hdz´e ‘where,’ zac´ ! wzac´ ‘to take.’ On the one hand, the etymologically based orthography has since led to a number of artificial spelling pronunciations; on the other hand, it has made written USo more readily interpretable for those familiar with other Slavic languages. Moreover, it disambiguates a large number of homophones – e.g., wo´z ‘wagon, car,’ ło´s ‘elk,’ hło´s ‘voice,’ and wło´s ‘hair’ – all of which are pronounced [ u´Os]. LSo remains less reflective of etymology, cf. LSo cu ‘I want,’ z´o ‘there,’ ned ‘right away,’ and cora ‘yesterday’ vs. USo chcu, hdz´e, hnydom, and wcˇera, respectively. An USo spelling reform was introduced again in 1948. Several USo orthographic conventions have been adopted for LSo (inter alia, representing palatalization by means of the letter j rather than an acute accent—m ´ od ! mjod ‘honey,’ n´asc´ ! njasc´ ‘to carry’; cf. Schuster-Sˇewc, 1996: 253 and 260). LSo influence on USo spelling can be seen in the substitution of word-initial ch for earlier kh (USo khodz´ic´ ! chodz´ic´ ‘to go’; LSo cho´jz´is´ ‘idem’). Today’s USo alphabet consists of the following graphemes: a, b, c, cˇ, d, dz´, e, eˇ, f, g, h, ch, i, j, k, ł, l, m, n, n´, o, o´, p, r, rˇ, s, sˇ, t, c´, u, w, y, z, zˇ. The letters v and x occur in foreign names. The letters cˇ and c0 represent the same phoneme /tS/ while reflecting different etymologies; the same holds true for the letters ł and w (phonetically [ ]). The letter rˇ occurs only after k, p, and t and is pronounced like sˇ except where trˇ constitutes a digraph representing the phoneme /c0 / (e.g., trˇi /c0 ı´/ ‘three’). Today’s LSo alphabet includes: a, b, c, cˇ, c´, d, e, eˇ, f, g, h, ch, i, j, k, ł, l, m, n, n´, o, p, r, r´, s, sˇ, s´, t, u, w, y, z, zˇ, z´. Unlike USo, LSo alphabetizes ch with c, rather than after h. In 1995, the LSo Language Commission relegated o´ (phonetically [E] or [y] after labials and velars) to language-teaching materials, replacing it with o (Starosta, 1999: 19). Both LSo and USo exhibit grammatical features that set them apart from other contemporary Slavic languages. The LSo verb paradigm still includes the supine found in early Slavic. USo retains a rich system of tenses – present, preterite (also called ‘aorist’ if the verb is aspectually perfective, ‘imperfect’ if it is imperfective), future, perfect, and pluperfect; in addition, the literary language and a number of USo dialects retain the iterative preterite tense (formally identical to the conditional mood). The LSo dialects exhibit only one past tense, formed with the auxiliary bys´ ‘to be’ and the ł-participle; literary LSo, in contrast, exhibits all the tenses of USo, artificially
(re)created and phonologically adapted. The Sorbian grammatical category of number is expressed as singular, dual, and plural, which is marked both on the noun or pronoun and on the verb. The dual is gradually giving way to the plural in the dialects, often surviving only exceptionally after the quantifier ‘two’ (USo dwaj, dweˇ) with plural agreement in the verb (Dweˇ knize su na blidz´e lezˇeli in lieu of literary USo Dweˇ knize stej na blidz´e lezˇałoj ‘Two books lay on the table’). Nouns (substantive and adjective) and pronouns exhibit six cases – nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, and locative. A vocative form exists in USo, but only for masculine nouns (Sˇc´eˇpan ! Sˇc´eˇpano! Sˇc´eˇpanje!) and one feminine noun – mac´ (mac´i!) ‘mother.’ Sorbian word order is basically SOV (SubjectObject-Verb); however, compound verb tenses and the clitic status of the auxiliary verbs usually produce a ‘bracket construction’ like that found in German (so-called Rahmenkonstruktion). Sorbian subordinate clauses, in contrast, generally do not imitate the German clause-final placement of finite verbs. The LSo and the USo dialects are connected by a zone of ‘transitional’ dialects. Here, LSo lexical and morphophonological features increase and USo ones decrease as one moves from south to north, while USo features increase and LSo ones decrease as one moves from north to south. Although this might suggest a single dialectal continuum (hence, a single Sorbian language), in fact, the degree of mutual intelligibility between LSo and USo proper is perceptibly less than that which exists today between Czech and Slovak.
Bibliography Faska H (ed.) (1998). Serbsˇc´ina. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. (Najnowsze dzieje je( zyko´w słowian´skich.) Jodlbauer R, Spieß G & Steenwijk H (2001). Die aktuelle Situation der niedersorbischen Sprache. Ergebnisse einer soziolinguistischen Untersuchung der Jahre 1993–1995. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Sˇatava L (1994). Na´rodnı´ mensˇiny v Evropeˇ. Encyklopedicka´ prˇı´rucˇka. Praha: Ivo Zˇelezny´. Schaarschmidt G (2002). Upper Sorbian. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Schuster-Sˇewc H (1967). Sorbische Sprachdenkma¨ler: 16–18 Jahrhundert. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. (Spisy Instituta za serbski ludospyt, 31.) Schuster-Sˇewc H (1996). Grammar of the Upper Sorbian language: Phonology and morphology. Toops G H (trans.). Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Starosta M (1999). Dolnoserbsko-nimski słownik/Niedersorbisch-deutsches Wo¨rterbuch. Budysˇyn: Domowina-Verlag.
South Asia as a Linguistic Area 995
South Asia as a Linguistic Area K Ebert, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
consonants in the successive books of the Rigveda is generally accepted as proof of DRAV substratum influence.
Introduction
OV Word Order
The roughly 450 languages of South Asia belong to four different language families: Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic, and Sino-Tibetan. There are three small isolates, Burushaski, Nahali, and Kusunda (probably extinct). Speakers of Indo-Aryan (IA) languages constitute 78% of the inhabitants of South Asia, followed by Dravidian (DRAV) speakers with 20%; speakers of Austroasiatic, i.e., Khasi and Munda (MU), and Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages together do not constitute more than 2%. The number of speakers is reflected in the space devoted to languages in the sprachbund literature. Emeneau, the first authority on the subject, wrote about ‘India as a linguistic area’ (1956). Although Nepal and Bhutan also belong to South Asia, languages of the Himalayas are seldom included in the sprachbund literature, nor are languages of Nagaland or Meghalaya. I shall first look at the features most often mentioned as characterizing the area. After a brief summary of the history of the field, I shall discuss the possibility of interpreting the linguistic data as evidence for earlier settlement patterns and migrations. The last section stresses the need for more detailed investigation of subareas.
The second feature, OV word order, holds for languages from Pakistan to Assam and from Nepal to Sri Lanka. The only two exceptions are Kashmiri (IA) and Khasi (AA), which are both VO. However, OV word order also characterizes the languages of Central and Northeast Asia, including Korean and Japanese.
Areal Features The following features are mentioned in most of the literature on the South Asian sprachbund: . . . . . . .
retroflex consonants OV word order converbs (‘conjunctive participles’) compound verbs the quotative morphological causatives dative subjects.
Retroflex Consonants
All the major languages of South Asia have a phonemic opposition between retroflex and dental consonants (Ramanujan and Masica, 1969). Many IA and most DRAV languages also have retroflex r. , n. , and l. . There are no retroflexes in Assamese and in South MU nor in Indo-European. Kuiper’s (1967) demonstration of the increasing frequency of retroflex
Converbs
This feature has been extensively discussed in the sprachbund literature. But although most languages of the subcontinent have at least one converb (conjunctive participle, gerund), there are considerable differences in detail. The most general or sequential converb can fulfill a number of functions, depending on the existence of more specific converbs. Hindi has only one form (-kar/-ke), which has a broad range of applications. The following examples illustrate sequential, modifying, and causal interpretations of the Hindi and Tamil general converbs. (1) HINDI (IA) a. us-ne nahaa-kar khaanaa khaa-yaa he-ERG bathe-CONV meal eat-PFV:3SG:MASC ‘Having bathed he ate his meal’ b. vah dhaur. -kar aa-yaa he run-CONV come-PFV:3:SG:MASC ‘He came running’
c. vah raat din kaam kar-ke biimar he night day work do-CONV ill par ga-yaa fall GO-PFV:3SG:MASC ‘He fell ill because he worked day and night’ (2) TAMIL (DRAV) a. avan iNkee va-ntu enn-ai.k kuuppit. .t-aan he here come-CONV I-ACC call:PT-3SG:MASC ‘He came here and called me’ va-nt-aan b. avan oot. -i he run-CONV come-PT-3SG:MASC ‘He came running’ kul. am nir. ai-yum c. maz. ai peytu rain fall:CONV pond fill-FUT:3SG:NEUT ‘It rained and (therefore) the pond will fill’
Most languages have a simultaneous or modifying converb different from the conjunctive participle, which is often reduplicated. See the following examples with Hindi (1b), and Tamil (2b).
996 South Asia as a Linguistic Area (3) ORIYA (IA) MALTO (DR) ATHPARE (TB)
bat. Ore ja-u ja-u ‘walking along the road’ eek-no eek-no paawno ‘walking along the road’ huk-sa huk-sa abe ‘he came down barking’
(The sequential converbs are Nepali -ii, -era, Oriya -i, -iki, Malto /-ka/ þ person markers, Athpare -ung after finite markers.) The eastern IA languages (Assamese, Bengali, Oriya) moreover have a conditional converb, as do most Dravidian languages. (4) ASSAMESE (IA) ORIYA (IA) TAMIL (DR) KANNADA (DR)
mOi se maz. ai avaru
aahi-le asi-le peyt-aal oodid-are
‘if I come’ ‘if he comes’ ‘if it rains’ ‘if he studies’
Santali has nonfinite forms in -kate and -te (5a); the quasi-converbs carry finite tense-aspect and person markers, though they lack the finite marker -a (5b). (5) SANTALI (MU) a. calak’-calak’-te mit’-t. aN go:MID-REDPL-CONV.SIM one-CLASS toyo-ko JEl-tiok’-ked-e-a jackal-S:3PL see-reach-PT-O:3SG-FIN ‘While they were walking, they got sight of a jackal’ d. aNgra-dO-e b. kOt. Ec0 -ked-e-khcn castrate-PT-O:3SG-ABL bullock-TOP-S:3SG lut. kum-en-a fat-PT:MID-FIN ‘Since they castrated it, the bullock became fat’
The South Asian picture is far from uniform, and the number of converbs can vary from one to ten or more (e.g., Hayu), although three or four is the norm. Converbs are even more characteristic of Central and Northeast Asian languages, where converbal forms mark all types of adverbial subordination. Moreover, converbs seem to go together with OV word order (Ethiopian Semitic and Quechua). So do adnominal ‘relative participles,’ which are sometimes mentioned together with converbs as an areal trait of South Asia. Compound Verbs
South Asian languages form compound verbs consisting of the general/sequential converb form of the main verb (V1) followed by a finite form of a second verb (V2). The second verb, which also occurs as a full verb, is semantically bleached, but not fully grammaticized. The inventory of second verbs listed in grammars differs somewhat from language to language, and – as the list is not closed – also from author to author. The most frequent V2s include:
1. directionals with the full verb meanings ‘go’, ‘come’; 2. disposals that express that something is done away with, such as ‘throw’, ‘send’, ‘put aside’; 3. verbs that express the suddenness or unexpectedness of an event, such as ‘fall’, ‘rise’; 4. ‘give’ and ‘take’ have auto- and other-benefactive meanings as V2. (6) MARATHI (IA) t. aak-le sagl. e kaagad mi phaar. -un all paper I tear-CONV V2:THROW-PT ‘I tore up all the papers’ BENGALI (IA) se mar-e gela he die-CONV V2:GO:PT ‘He died’ KANNADA (DR) avaru sattu-hoo-daru s/he die:CONV-V2:GO-PT:3PL(HON) ‘He died’
The terminology used for this construction is rather inconsistent. Apart from a plethora of names for the V2 (explicator, vector, aspectivizer, light verb), some authors use the term serial verb instead of compound verb. Sometimes constructions with phasal verbs (which are not semantically bleached and often combine with the infinitive) and grammaticized forms are included. As with converbs, a closer look at compound verbs yields a rather diverse picture. First, the shape often differs from the canonical ‘V1-CONV þ V2 finite’ pattern. Some languages have developed new converb suffixes or an optional long form. The new or long forms are used in clause combining, but not in compound verbs. Thus Hindi and Panjabi never have the converbal suffixes -kar or -ke in compound verbs, but use an old form now reduced to the bare stem of V1 (see par ga-yaa in (1c)); Oriya never has -iki or -ik ri; Kod. ava never has the converb in -iti, but the old converb, which is identical with the past stem (see the Tamil and Kannada examples above). (7) ORIYA (IA) ghOr-u pila-mane pOr. h-iki child-PL study-CONV house-ABL bahar-i-gcl-e go.out-CONV-V2:GO:PT-3:PL ‘After studying the children went out of the house’ KOD. AVA (DR) ava seebi$ tind-iti$ she apple eat:PT-CONV catti$ -pooc-i die:PT:CONV-V2:GO:PT-3 ‘She ate the apple and died’
South Asia as a Linguistic Area 997
Santali root compounds look much like the Hindi and Panjabi forms. Languages that make little use of converbs often have finite markers on both verbs, such as Kurukh and some MU and TB languages. (8) SANTALI (MU)
KURUKH (DR)
PARENGI(MU)
CAMLING(TB)
tOl-uric0 -ked-e-a-e tie-V2:FIRMPT-O:3SG-FIN-S:3SG ‘he tied him up firmly’ iirk-an-cicck-an see:PT-1SG-V2:GIVE:PT-1SG ‘I looked after it’ silay-ing-ta’y-ing sew-1SG-V2:GIVE-1SG ‘sew for me!’ c-ung-pak-ung-a eat-1SG-V2:PUT-1SG-PT ‘I ate it up’
Second, the inventory and semantics of second verbs sometimes differ in substantial ways from more canonical patterns, especially in MU and N-DRAV. The unusual V2s include Santali jaora ‘gather’, uric0 ‘make firm’, s t0 ‘close’, nyam ‘find’, anga ‘dawn’, and Kurukh xacc- ‘break’, bi - ‘cook’. Tamil also has unusual second verbs, and even the common ones show irregular semantics, often conveying purely emotional meanings. Compound verbs of the form ‘‘V1-CONV þ V2 finite’’ are typical of Altaic (with V2 called postverb, descriptive verb, or auxiliary). Turkic and Mongolic languages share the second verbs mentioned under (a) to (d) above. But unlike South Asian languages they make regular use of postural verbs as atelicizers or durative markers. Otherwise the use of second verbs in languages in the northern part of India appears to be more similar to Turkic-Mongolian than to South Dravidian, though further detailed studies are needed. Quotatives
Quotatives of the form ‘say’-CONV, such as Bengali (IA) bole, Nepali (IA) bhanera, Telugu (DR) ani, Santali (MU) mente, and Sora (MU) gamle correspond to Uzbek (TURKIC) deb, Mongolian ge (and to Ethiopic Inor bare Quechua nishpa). There is nothing remarkable about the development into complementizers, which are then used together with verbs characterizing speech or mental acts, or with onomatopoetic words. The development from ‘say’ to complementizer is also attested in African languages and Creoles. It is an ongoing process that can be observed in South Asia, and not all languages are at the same stage. The last stage, comparatives marked by the quotative, is attested only in some languages of Nepal (e.g., Newar, Nepali) and South Dravidian. Further detailed
studies are necessary to describe the use of quotatives in the single languages and to distinguish borrowings from internal developments. Morphological Causatives
All languages of South Asia show morphological causatives, and most have secondary or indirect forms. (9) HINDI (IA) KASHMIRI (IA) MALAYAL (DR)
siikh- / sikhaa- / sikhwaa‘learn /teach / have taught’ con- / caavun- / caavinaavun‘drink / give to drink / let give to drink’ ot. i- / ot. ikk- / ot. ippik‘break (intr/tr) /let break’
The patterns differ toward the east, where prefixes prevail. AA languages thus conform to their relatives in Southeast Asia: Khasi tip / pn-tip ‘know / inform’, iap / pn-iap ‘die / kill’, and Sora jum / a-jumjum ‘eat / feed’. TB languages of the east also have prefixes, e.g., Mao Naga apo / so-pho ‘break (intr/tr)’; Mikir thı` ‘die’, pe-thı` ‘kill’, pa-pe-thı` ‘let kill’. In some languages, double causatives can receive a simple causative interpretation; Kharia (MU) d. oko ‘sit down’, ob-d. o-b-ko-yo (CAUS-sit-CAUS-sit-PTII) ‘he made him make her sit’ or ‘he made him sit’ (Zide and Anderson, 2001: 521, 523). Morphological causatives, including double causatives, are also found in the languages of Central and Northeast Asia. Dative Subjects
This construction is familiar from some European languages such as Latin and German. An experiencer is coded by the dative (in Eastern IA languages by the genitive), and the dative constituent behaves like a subject in some respects (Verma and Mohanan, 1990). (10) HINDI (IA) bacce-ko .than. d. lag rahii hai. child-DAT cold feel PROG:FEM:SG is ‘The child is/feels cold’ TAMIL (DR) ena-kku kul. iraa iru-kk-utu. he-DAT cold be-PRES-3SG:NEUT ‘He is/feels cold’
The construction is less prominent in MU and TB; some languages even lack a dative or an oblique case marker. Nevertheless, it counts as a strong areal feature; as in contrast to the constructions mentioned above, it does not exist in Altaic languages. As it is not typical of Sanskrit, DRAV is usually considered a likely source. Other Features
Several other features were claimed to be characteristic of South Asia, but most were dropped later, e.g., aspirated consonants, nasalized vowels, classifiers,
998 South Asia as a Linguistic Area
ergative constructions, no prefixes, no verb for ‘have’. The proposed features were evaluated by Masica (1976: 187–190); most of them turned out to be irrelevant or of little relevance for the South Asian linguistic area. Classifiers and echo formations were suggested in Emeneau’s pioneering article ‘India as a linguistic area’ (1956). Emeneau erroneusly considered classifiers, which occur especially in eastern and central India, as borrowings from IA into the individual MU and DRAV languages. But classifiers clearly have swept over from Southeast Asia. Emeneau’s conclusion probably has to be ascribed to the fact that the classifiers of MU and N-DRAV languages often have an IA shape; i.e., the morphemes are borrowed, but the function is not. Most South Asian languages have a construction in which a word is reduplicated, replacing the first consonant (sometimes also the following vowel), so that the second word constitutes an echo of the first one. The echo expresses ‘and such things’, e.g., Tamil kudirai-gidirai ‘horses and such things’. The consonants used in echo formation are distributed in areal patterns (see map in Trivedi, 1990: 80–81). Dravidian languages of the south show exclusively k, g; Orissa and Bengal have p, ph or .t. The patterns are independent of genetic affiliation; compare Oriya (IA) iskul-phiskul ‘school and such’, cini-phini ‘sugar and such’ with Ho (MU), cpis-pcpis ‘office and such’; Bengali (IA) ghusur-t. usur ‘pigs and such’ with Nocte (TB) san-t. an ‘sun and such’, and Santali (MU) bckcp.tckcp ‘brothers and such’. Emeneau considered this feature to be borrowed from DRAV, as he took it to be otherwise unknown in Indo-European. (It is rare in IE, though not in Altaic; Turkish kitap mitap ‘books and such things’, Uzbek na˚n pa˚n ‘bread and other baked goods’). A more promising candidate seemed to be the Sanskrit particle api, corresponding to Tamil -um, which has five functions reconstructable for Proto-Dravidian: 1. additive focus, ‘also’, 2. ‘and’, 3. ‘even’, 4. totality with numerals (‘every’), 5. together with question words it yields indefinite pronouns. Emeneau found the five functions in all subgroups of DRAV, but only in a few modern IA languages (e.g., Marathi, Oriya). As not all functions exist in early Vedic, he concluded that the functions of Sanskrit api developed by analogy with the DRAV model (Emeneau, 1980: 218). No parallels in MU or TB are mentioned. Nevertheless, it is one of the few features that Masica considers to be areadefining, though the criteria are not further discussed and remain unclear. The bundle of functions 1.5. is far from rare for a particle meaning ‘also, even’, and parallels could be cited from Altaic and many other languages.
History of the Field South Asia counts as a classic example of a linguistic area. As early as the 19th century, Indologists noticed some common traits between IA and DRAV. The discussion centered around the question of whether IA could have adopted certain features from DRAV, e.g., retroflex consonants or converbs. Sanskritists have at all times tried to minimize such possible influence and proposed internal developments (Hock, 2001). Emeneau, doing intensive research on DRAV, was the first to put the comparison on a more solid base. In his early article ‘India as a linguistic area,’ he came to the conclusion that ‘‘the languages of the two families, Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, seem in many respects more akin to one another than Indo-Aryan does to other Indo-European languages’’ (1980: 119– 120; 1956). His definition of the term linguistic area as ‘‘an area which includes languages belonging to more than one family but showing traits in common which are found not to belong to the other members of (at least) one of the families’’ is still useful, in contrast to his later proposals. In the introductory article to the reprint volume (Emeneau, 1980), he critically reviews his own earlier work and adds the conditions: For a feature to be area-defining it has to be ‘‘pan-Indic and not extra-Indic’’ (1980: 2). Only if several such features are found and the area is delimited by a bundle of near isoglosses can the linguistic area, in his view, be considered established. A second step has to show the origin of the areal features and their distribution. If a feature can be reconstructed for language X, it must have been borrowed into language Y. The newly formulated conditions turn out to be problematic. If a South Asian areal trait must not be extra-Indic, most of the proposed features have to be abandoned. But this criterion does not seem to have been taken too seriously anyway; few researchers have bothered to look outside the borders of South Asia. This is true even of Emeneau himself, as evidenced by his proposals for classifiers and echo words as areal traits. And the criterion of panIndianness was not tested. Areal relevance was mostly claimed on the basis of a few examples from IA and DRAV, sometimes adding one or two examples from a MU language. Isogloss bundles were not shown, as Emeneau remarks: ‘‘Unfortunately I know of no demonstration of such a bundling of isoglosses’’ (1980: 128). In an important article, Kuiper (1967) examined Vedic and Sanskrit texts that could shed light on the origin of the South Asian linguistic area. He investigated the appearance of retroflex consonants, converbs (‘gerunds’), and the development of
South Asia as a Linguistic Area 999
the quotative ı´ti in IA. Regarding retroflexes, he comes to the conclusion that prehistoric bilingual speakers of IA – presumably native speakers of a Dravidian language – reinterpreted IA allophones in terms of their native system, thus establishing a novel phonemic distinction in IA. Kuiper further traces the gradual increase of converbs in the successive Rigveda texts and ascribes the development again to bilinguals, who would have used converbal constructions first in colloquial speech, from where it crept into more formal registers. The Sanskrit particle ı´ti ‘thus’ originally introduced quotations and is attested in initial position in Vedic texts. Gradually it became post-quotative by analogy with the Dravidian ‘say’-CONV, and in later Sanskrit this was the standard. A further influential article was Southworth’s contribution to the volume edited by himself and Apte (1974). Southworth found that the frequencies of retroflex consonants in modern IA languages decreases from west to east. Western IA languages such as Marathi, Gujarati, and Panjabi show a ratio of 3:1 for dentals and retroflexes, which corresponds to the ratio in DRAV, but Bengali has 12:1 (1974: 212). Southworth interprets this, together with gender marking, as evidence for a DRAV substratum in the west; the lower number of retroflexes and the presence of classifiers is interpreted as a reflex of a TB substratum in the Ganges delta and the east. The assumption that the distribution of features today mirrors the situation that obtained 2000 years ago is of course problematic. The first comprehensive and systematic study on some features in South Asia and beyond, Masica’s Defining a linguistic area: South Asia (1976), has become a standard text. Whereas earlier publications on the sprachbund were confined to demonstrating shared features of South Asian languages (if not just IA and DRAV), Masica’s concern was to find out to what extent these features are purely South Asian. The results are rather devastating for the sprachbund hypothesis if based on the conditions formulated by Emeneau: of the five traits investigated, only one, namely dative subjects, turned out to be specific for South Asia. The other four – morphological causatives, OV word order, converbs, and compound verbs – are equally characteristic of most languages of Central and Northeast Asia, as already mentioned. Researchers have since also spoken of an Indo-Turanian area. The idea of a South Asian sprachbund is thereby not invalidated. The clustering of the two essential features, dative subject and retroflexes, together with shared idioms and semantics (Emeneau, 1980: 236, 250; Masica, 2001: 258) and the OV characteristics,
some of which demonstrably spread from South Asian centers, together add up to the often perceived ‘Indianness’ of South Asian languages.
Historical Evidence One of the aims of identifying linguistic areas is to find evidence for earlier settlements and migrations. Documentation of South Asian languages reaches back to the second millennium B.C. for Sanskrit and back two millennia for Tamil, but little is known about earlier stages of MU and TB. And in spite of the early attestations of IA and DRAV, the substratal influence of the latter on the former remains controversial. According to Hock (2001), IA and DRAV were typologically more similar at the time of the earliest contacts than is commonly assumed. Similarities such as the combination of finite marked forms, as still preferred in North and Central Dravidian, have been demonstrated by Steever (1993) for older stages of South Dravidian. Many of the South Asian traits could be retentions, being strengthened of course by area-specific preferences. Hock criticizes the still prevailing practice of drawing conclusions from comparisons of Sanskrit with (mainly) modern South Dravidian, ignoring older traits of Dravidian and setting aside 2000 years of history. Even the DRAV origin of retroflexes, a seemingly solid cornerstone of the substratum hypothesis, has been questioned. This also casts doubt on the general assumption that Dravidians were the inhabitants of the Indus Valley at the time the Indo-Aryan infiltration into South Asia started. Witzel (1999) posits a ‘Para-Munda’ substratum of the oldest IA documents, i.e., the Vedic texts, which originate from the valley. More recent influences can be traced by means of quantitative areal investigations. Hook (1987), trying to get ‘‘at the grain of history,’’ reports an interesting finding from a questionnaire investigation. In the returns from south of Goa, all subordinate clauses were preposed; the percentage gradually decreased toward the northwest, i.e., with the distance from the Dravidian model. West of the Indus, all clauses were postposed. This pattern is independent of the fact that OV word order typologically often goes together with preposed clauses and demonstrates the fading out of a typical feature toward the edge. A quantitative analysis of this type can sometimes show the areal spread of a trait, though not its origin. The inference from present-day frequencies to situations 2000–3000 years back (Southworth, 1974) is hardly reliable. Hook’s endeavors to trace the possible origin of compound verbs on the basis
1000 South Asia as a Linguistic Area
of frequency counts lead to no satisfying results. Today compound verbs are most abundant in the Ganges plains (Hindi 15–20% of total verbs, modern Bangla 10–13%, modern Marwari 13–18%). But comparison with the situation in 16th century Bangla (2%) and Marwari (1.5%) shows this to be a recent phenomenon (Hook, 2001: 109). If borrowed at all, the further development of the construction must be ascribed to internal forces. Hook’s answer to the question of what we can conclude from the present-day distribution of the compound verb in the languages of South Asia is: ‘‘Not much.’’ (2001: 110). Various processes of borrowing, internal developments, and even of loss are possible scenarios. Much of the linguistic history of South Asia remains in the dark. Shifts in language have not been uncommon, and in some cases have occurred more than once, e.g., from MU to DRAV to IA. Widespread bilingualism and multilingualism have repeatedly lead to pidginization and the development of lingua francas, such as Calcutta-Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu in Bombay. Nagamese, based on IA Assamese, has become the mother tongue of the Tibeto-Burman Kachari. It is at present the only common medium of speakers of the 30 or so TibetoBurman Naga languages. Sadari, a Hindi based pidgin, has become the language of identification for groups who have abandoned their former DRAV or MU tongues. Some of the modern literary languages may have started out as pidgins too, as Southworth (1971) suggests for Marathi. Historical investigations are restricted to what has been accepted into the written language. But written texts are far from an ideal basis for areal investigations, and written norms are especially conservative in South Asia. At all times, the spoken language has differed a great deal from the written one, and borrowings must have been much more abundant than texts reveal. Present investigations into languages used for everyday communication show remarkable structural convergences in some areas. The most well-known case is Kupwar, as described by Gumperz and Wilson (1971). The contact situation between Kannada, Marathi, and Urdu at the border between Maharashtra and Karnataka has lead to one single grammatical system with language-specific lexemes. This study also reveals another characteristic of linguistic areas: structural traits, especially in syntax, are largely unconscious and easily borrowed, whereas there may be considerable resistance toward lexical borrowing, especially if the language functions as a means of identification.
Subareas Setting up isoglosses simply on the basis of the occurrence of a feature, as in Masica (1976), is apparently not an adequate technique for showing the intricate patterns of a linguistic area. In Masica’s map of the dative subject, for example, the isogloss for this construction includes the northeastern corner of India. The map does not show that this feature is mainly restricted to IA and that numerous small languages of the area have not adopted it. As Masica himself notes (1976: 172), the isogloss maps do not show the gradual fading out of features. They also do not indicate different codings. If causatives are marked by suffixes in the west, but by prefixes in the east of the subcontinent, this is highly relevant for areal studies. One of Masica’s four Indo-Altaic isoglosses deviates from the others: The line for secondary causatives runs approximately along the 84th meridian, i.e., cutting off Bihar, parts of Orissa, and the northeastern provinces from the rest of South Asia. This line is indeed relevant, though not primarily for the feature intended by Masica. Double causatives do exist to the east of it. East of the 84th meridian, two areas can be set off: (A) a former contact zone between TB, AA, and DRAV, stretching from eastern Nepal to Orissa, and (B) the predominantly TB northeast. Only a few of the more than 100 languages of those tribal areas have been described, and hardly any of them has been considered in areal studies. The NonIA languages from Nepal to Orissa (zone A) are characterized by a complex verbal morphology, which is not characteristic of the TB relatives farther north and east and may be due either to MU, which seems to have had a complex morphology at all times (Zide and Anderson, 2001), or to an unidentified third substratum (referred to, e.g., in Hook, 2001: 124; Witzel, 1999: 40). Different from the converbal structures typical of OV languages, much of the complex pattern of person and tense-aspect marking is retained in subordination in MU languages, in Kurukh, and in Kiranti languages of eastern Nepal. Sometimes only the finite or final marker is missing, as in Santali and Athpare. It seems that long contact between DRAV, MU, TB, and possibly other language groups have lead to an area little affected by the rest of South Asian language developments (Ebert, 1999: 392). Subareas have been claimed for the Khondmals, for Jharkhand, for the Northwest Frontier, and others. This does not invalidate the hypothesis of a South Asian linguistic area, just as sharing the OV characteristics with Central Asia does not. We should not be surprised to find subareas within subareas without
South Philippine Languages 1001
clear boundaries. ‘‘Sprachbund situations are notoriously messy,’’ as Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 95) put it. But we should not look for ‘‘pan-Indic and not extra-Indic’’ features, as Emeneau suggested. Instead, research must concentrate on more detailed investigations of certain phenomena, such as compound verbs or converbs, which show uneven frequencies and idiosyncratic forms in subareas. The clustering of features in certain subareas is characteristic of linguistic areas, just as is their diffusion into a number of unrelated languages.
Bibliography Apte M L (1974). ‘Pidginization of a lingua franca: A linguistic analysis of Hindi-Urdu spoken in Bombay.’ In Southworth F C & Apte M L (eds.). 21–41. Bhaskararao P & Subbarao K V (eds.) (2001). The yearbook of South Asian language and linguistics 2001. Tokyo symposium on South Asian languages. Contact, convergence and typology. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Ebert K H (1999). ‘Kiranti non-finite forms – An areal perspective.’ In Yadava Y P & Glover W W (eds.) Topics in Nepalese linguistics. Kathmandu: Royal Nepalese Academy. 371–400. Emeneau M B (1956). ‘India as a linguistic area.’ Language 32(1), 3–16. [also 1980: 1–18]. Emeneau M B (1980). Language and linguistic area. Essays by Murray B. Emeneau. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gumperz J J & Wilson R (1971). ‘Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border.’ In Hymes D (ed.). 151–167. Hock H H (2001). ‘Typology vs. convergence: The issue of Dravidian/Indo-Aryan syntactic similarities revisited.’ In Bhaskararao P & Subbarao K V (eds.). 63–99. Hook P E (1987). ‘Linguistic areas: Getting at the grain of history.’ In Cardona G & Zide N (eds.) Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald. Tu¨bingen: Narr. 155–168. Hook P E (2001). ‘Where do compound verbs come from? (And where are they going?).’ In Bhaskararao P & Subbarao K V (eds.). 101–130.
Hymes D (ed.) (1971). Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuiper F B J (1967). ‘The genesis of a linguistic area.’ IndoIranian Journal 10, 81–102. [Repr. In Southworth F C & Apte M L (eds.) (1974). 135–153.] Masica C P (1976). Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Masica C P (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Masica C P (2001). ‘The definition and significance of linguistic areas: Methods, pitfalls, and possibilities (with special reference to the validity of South Asia as a linguistic area).’ In Bhaskararao P & Subbarao K V (eds.). 205–267. Ramanujan A K & Masica C (1969). ‘Toward a phonological typology of the Indian linguistic area.’ In Sebeok T E (ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 5: Linguistics in South Asia. 543–577. Southworth F C (1971). ‘Detecting prior creolization. An analysis of the historical origins of Marathi.’ In Hymes D (ed.). 255–273. Southworth F C (1974). ‘Linguistic stratigraphy of North India.’ In Southworth F C & Apte M L (eds.). 201–223. Southworth F C & Apte M L (eds.) (1974). Contact and convergence in South Asian languages. The Issue of International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 3(1). Steever S B (1993). Analysis to synthesis. The development of complex verb morphology in the Dravidian languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomason S G & Kaufman T (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Trivedi G M (1990). ‘Echo formation.’ In Krishan S (ed.) Linguistic traits across language boundaries. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India. 51–82. Verma M K & Mohanan K P (eds.) (1990). Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages. Stanford: Stanford University. Witzel M (1999). ‘Substrate languages of Old Indo-Aryan (R. gvedic, Middle and Late Vedic).’ Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 5(1), 1–67. Zide N H & Anderson G D S (2001). ‘The Proto-Munda verb system and some connections with Mon-Khmer.’ In Bhaskararao P & Subbarao K V (eds.). 517–540.
South Philippine Languages S Brainard, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Philippines, Manila, Philippines ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction South Philippine languages form one of three major language groups found in the Philippines, all of which
belong to the Western Malayo–Polynesian branch of the Austronesian family. The South Philippine language family includes the Subanon, the Danao, and the Manobo subgroups. The Subanon subgroup is spoken on the Zamboanga peninsula of Mindanao, the Danao subgroup is spoken in central Mindanao, and the Manobo subgroup is spoken in central and eastern Mindanao. Two other groups of languages spoken in the Philippines are not South Philippine languages but
1002 South Philippine Languages Table 1 South Philippine, South Mindanao, and Sama languagesa South Philippine
South Mindinao
Sama
Subanon subgroup Eastern Subanun – Central Subanen, Northern Subanen, Lapuyan Subanun Kalibugan – Kolibugan Subanon, Western Subanon Danao subgroup Maguindanao – Maguindanaon Maranao-Iranon – Ilanun, Maranao Manobo subgroup North Manobo – Binukid, Higaonon, Kagayanen, Cinamiguin Manobo Central Manobo East Central Manobo – Agusan Manobo, Dibabawon Manobo, Rajah Kabunsuwan Manobo South Central Manobo – Obo Manobo Ata-Tigwa – Ata Manobo, Matigsalug Manobo West Central Manobo – Ilianen Manobo, Western Bukidnon Manobo South Manobo – Cotabato Manobo, Sarangani Manobo, Tagabawa Manobo
Bilic Blaan – Koronadal Blaan, Sarangani Blaan Tboli Tiruray Tiruray Bagobo Giangan
Sama Sibuguey Sama, Northern Sama, Western Sama, Central Sama, Southern Sama Yakan Yakan Jama Mapun Jama Mapun Abaknon Abaknon
a
Based on data from McFarland (1980).
are more likely related to languages of Indonesia and Malaysia. These languages, found in the southern Philippines, are the South Mindanao languages, spoken in southern Mindanao, and the Sama languages, spoken on the Zamboanga peninsula and the Sulu Archipelago (see Table 1). Although considerable research has been devoted to identifying and grouping languages of the southern Philippines, less effort has been spent on describing the grammar of these languages. Most of the available descriptions, completed in the 1960s and 1970s, emphasized phonology, verb morphology, sentence structure, and discourse features. A number of important findings from cross-linguistic studies in the 1980s resulted in significant reanalyses of the basic verbal sentences of Philippine languages. The outcome is that the sentence type traditionally called the ‘goalfocus’ construction was confirmed to be the basic transitive sentence. Later studies have also suggested that the ‘actor-focus’ construction is not one but two distinct sentences types: an active intransitive sentence (in which the verb is semantically intransitive) and an antipassive construction (in which the verb is semantically transitive). The few descriptions of languages in the southern Philippines completed after the 1970s generally reflect these reanalyses and also provide more information about syntactic processes, giving attention to the function and behavior of constructions as well as their structure. In the following discussion, grammatical relations are labeled as follows: the only grammatical relation of a single-argument sentence is S, the more
agent-like grammatical relation of a transitive sentence is A, and the less agent-like grammatical relation of a transitive sentence is O. Case markers are morphemes that formally distinguish between A and O in a transitive sentence. These markers form three patterns: nominative–accusative (henceforth ‘nominative’), ergative–absolutive (henceforth ‘ergative’), and tripartite. In the nominative pattern, S and A are marked the same, but O is marked differently; in the ergative (ERG) pattern, S and O are marked the same, but A is marked differently; in the tripartite pattern, S, A, and O are each marked differently. In a split ergative pattern, S, A, and O display ergative case marking in some sentences and nonergative case marking in others. If S, A, and O are all marked the same, the forms are said to be neutralized for case.
Phonology South Philippine, South Mindanao, and Sama languages have relatively straightforward phonemic inventories. Vowel systems have four, five, six, or, more rarely, seven vowels. Consonants consist of voiced and voiceless stops (including glottal stop), a few fricatives (often /s/ and /h/), nasals, /l/ and a rhotic (which, depending on the language, is a flap, /&/ or /8/, or a trill, /r/), and the semivowels /w/ and /j/. Some of the Sama languages also have / /. Long vowels and geminate consonants are common. Word stress occurs on the penultimate or, less commonly, the ultimate syllable and may or may not be predictable, depending on the language.
South Philippine Languages 1003
In the Subanon and Manobo subgroups and in the Sama languages, intervocalic consonants (C), particularly /l/, tend to be deleted over time. This appears to be the source for two common phonological features noted in these languages: long vowels (V) and the syllable V(C). In a significant number of Philippine languages, an epenthetic glottal stop is inserted in syllable onsets (but not codas) when no other phonetic material is available; however, this strategy is apparently not available when an intervocalic consonant is lost in these languages. Thus, the loss of an intervocalic consonant opens a pathway for the resulting sequence of vowels to become long vowels or to coalesce into a new vowel: e.g., /o/ þ /i/ ! /e/ in Obo Manobo (Khor and Vander Molen, 1996: 31) and /a:/ þ /i/ ! /æ/ and /a/ þ /u/ ! /O:/ in Northern Subanen (Daguman and Sanicas-Daguman, 1997: 103). The loss of /l/ or some other intervocalic consonant also seems to be the source for word-medial V(C) syllables, also noted for Subanon and Manobo subgroups and Sama languages. Only Maguindanaon allows a word-initial V(C) syllable (the facts are not available for Maranao). Thus, syllable types for Maguindanaon, Obo Manobo, Northern Subanen, and Southern Sama are CV(C) and V(C). On the other hand, the loss of a mid-central vowel in the South Mindanao subgroup has led to the development of word-initial CCV(C) syllables. For Tboli, the loss appears to have occurred in words beginnings with CV syllables. For Blaan, it occurred in words beginning with CVC syllables. This claim is based on the fact that in Tboli, a mid-central vowel can be inserted optionally after the first consonant of the root (e.g., btang betang ‘to fall’) (Forsberg, 1992: 6), but in Blaan, the mid-central vowel is inserted optionally before the first consonant of the root (e.g., bgang ebgang (adj.) ‘broken’) (Sally Winter, personal communication). Thus, syllable types for South Mindanao languages are CV(C) and CCV(C). Word-initial CCV(C) syllables also occur in Maranao but are limited to homorganic nasals followed by stops: e.g., /mb/, /nd/, /Nk/, /Ng/ (no occurrences of /mp/ or /nt/ are listed in McKaughan and Al-Macaraya (1996)). Three other phonological features are also notable. One is a unique set of phonological alternations triggered by the syntactic category marker G- in Subanon languages. These alternations involve change in voicing, nasalization, point of articulation, spirantization, and deletion of G-, depending on the identity of the following consonant (Sanicas-Daguman, 1996: 63–64) (see later, Morphology). The second notable feature is neutralization of contrast between /a/ and certain other vowels in Manobo languages. Specifically, in several Manobo languages, /a/ contrasts with
all vowels only in the last two syllables of a word. It never occurs in any syllable to the left of the penultimate. When /a/ moves into one of these positions, it is replaced by one particular vowel: e.g., /a/ ! /o/ in Obo Manobo (Khor and Vander Molen, 1996: 30), /a/ ! /e/[e] in Western Bukidnon Manobo (Elkins, 1963), and /a/ ! /O/ in Matigsalug Manobo (Elkins, 1984). The third feature is the tendency for high vowels in Maguindanaon to lose their moras under certain conditions, such that high vowels surface as palatalization and labialization on preceding consonants (if they are the first vowel in the sequence) or as glides of diphthongs (if they are the second vowel in the sequence) (Lee, 1964; Skoropinski, 2004).
Morphology Morphology tends to be more complex in South Philippine languages than in South Mindanao and Sama languages. Taking verbal morphology as an example, South Philippine languages display a fairly extensive range of verbal affixes, some of which undergo complex phonological alternations. These affixes function as portmanteau morphemes, signaling a variety of syntactic and semantic information. The most common information is transitivity (intransitive vs. transitive), dynamism (dynamic vs. stative), and the semantic role of S or O. Aspect, mood, and, less commonly, tense are marked on the verb, but for at least one South Philippine language (Obo Manobo), a mood contrast (realis vs. irrealis) is signaled by clause-level clitics, as well as by verb affixes. Other types of information that may be marked on the verb are abilitative, habitual, reciprocal, distributive, and multiple participants. South Mindanao and Sama languages typically take fewer verbal affixes, and at least some tense, aspect, and mood contrasts are indicated by words or clitics, rather than by verbal affixes. On the other hand, Sama languages gain in complexity through the ubiquitous presence of the affix pa-, which attaches to many verb stems and performs several functions. Most commonly, pa- creates new words and adds arguments to the sentence (e.g., an agent to a basic verbal sentence or a causer to a causative construction). Three other morphemes are also of interest. The first is the Subanon syntactic category marker G-, undoubtedly the single most interesting morphophonological feature of this subgroup. The marker G- attaches to nouns and to all lexical constituents of noun phrases (NPs), marking the constructions as nominals. Evidence suggests that G- is the final consonant of an old case marker that over time became phonologically attached to the first consonant of the following nominal; it has subsequently
1004 South Philippine Languages
been reanalyzed as a syntactic category marker, i.e., a nominal marker in the literal sense. The second morpheme of note is the verbal affix -an. This affix occurs in most Philippine languages and functions as a valence increaser, i.e., it occurs on a verb when an oblique NP, usually a location, a recipient, or a beneficiary, is promoted to the O argument (direct object) (see later, Syntactic Processes). Although -an performs this function in certain Sama languages (Southern Sama and Balangingi Sama), in these languages it also has a second function – that of verb classifier. As a verb classifier, -an occurs on some but not all verbs when O is a patient (PAT). (For most semantically transitive verbs, a patient is the unmarked choice for O; consequently, -an cannot be functioning as a valence increaser when it crossreferences an O patient.) Since -an occurs on some, but not all, verbs when O is a patient, it divides verbs into two classes, those that require -an when O is a patient and those that do not. This function of -an seems to be unique to the Sama subgroup. The third morpheme is the Yakan clitic -in. This clitic occurs on NPs and nominalized sentences and has two functions. First, it signals that a nominal is definite (DEF). In Yakan transitive (TRANS) sentences, O must be definite but not A. Consider Example (1) (Brainard and Behrens, 2002: 42): (1) tinnennun we0 dende bunga-samahin -in-tennun we0 dende bunga-sama-in TRANS-weave ERG woman bunga-sama.type-DEF ‘a woman wove the bunga-sama type of weaving.’
Second, -in marks S of a single-argument sentence (i.e., term (TRM)), whether or not S is definite (Example (2)) (Brainard and Behrens, 2002: 52): (2) lakkes kura0 -in fast horse-TRM ‘a/the horse is fast.’
A phonologically identical morpheme that appears to have a similar function also occurs in Balangingi Sama (Gault, 1999: 18).
Morphosyntax of Basic Sentence Types South Philippine, South Mindanao, and Sama languages display typical Philippine-type sentence structure: sentences are verb-initial and main verbs usually take an affix that cross-references one, and only one, NP in the sentence (i.e., S in a single-argument sentence and O in a transitive sentence). Sentences that express identity, attribute, possession, location, and existence are usually verbless. Sentences that express states may pattern like verbless sentences (in which case the state is coded as an adjective), or like verbal
sentences (in which case the state is coded as a stative verb). Sentences that express actions are verbal sentences and are grouped into four types: active intransitive, transitive, antipassive, and passive. The active intransitive sentence has a semantically intransitive verb; all the other sentence types have semantically transitive verbs (or verbs that pattern like semantically transitive verbs). In some Philippine languages, transitive sentences have two word orders: VAO and VOA. Traditionally, this pattern has been explained in terms of phonology (i.e., the phonologically shorter argument precedes the phonologically longer one) or in terms of morphology or topicality (i.e., a pronoun precedes a full NP); however, neither explanation has accounted for all the facts. Brainard and Vander Molen (2003) suggested that the VOA sentence is a word-order inverse (a voice construction first proposed by Givo´n (1994)). Selection of the VOA inverse construction over the VAO active construction is determined either by a person hierarchy (if only first and second persons are involved) or a topicality hierarchy (if only third persons are involved), or a combination of both hierarchies (if first, second, and third persons are all involved). If full NPs as well as pronouns are involved in the selection, then the hierarchy looks like that in Figure 1. In general, if A outranks O on the hierarchy, the VAO active construction is selected, but if O outranks A, the VOA inverse construction is selected. Antipassives and passives are detransitivized constructions, i.e., constructions in which one grammatical relation of a transitive sentence has been demoted to oblique or deleted. In Philippine antipassives, O of the transitive counterpart is demoted or deleted. Although the demoted NP is often indefinite, it may be definite. Following demotion or deletion of O, A becomes S. In a Philippine passive, A of the transitive counterpart is obligatorily deleted, and following deletion, O becomes S. Two types of passives occur in Philippine languages: a morphological passive and a nonmorphological passive. In the morphological passive, the verb takes stative affixes, but in the nonmorphological passive, the verb takes the same affixes that occur on it in a transitive sentence. Thus, the only difference between a nonmorphological passive and a transitive sentence is the obligatory absence of A in the passive. As it happens, some Philippine languages have both types of passives. The factors determining the selection of
Figure 1 Person–topicality hierarchy governing VAO and VOA selection.
South Philippine Languages 1005
one passive over the other appear to be language specific and have not yet been fully investigated. With the identification of the goal-focus construction as the basic transitive sentence, case-marking patterns have undergone reexamination. In South Philippine and Sama languages, case marking displays either a consistently ergative pattern or a split ergative pattern (the precise details of the split ergative patterns vary from language to language). In South Mindanao languages, nominal markers do not function as case markers, although pronouns are marked for case. At this point, it may be useful to compare actual data from representative languages. When discussing nominal markers, only the marking of S, A, and O will be considered. Maguindanaon
Common nouns and personal names are marked for case and display an ergative pattern (see Table 2) (it is unclear if the VOA inverse is possible when A and O are both full NPs). Pronouns are also marked for case (see Table 3). In a VAO active construction, second-person pronouns have a tripartite pattern, but third-person pronouns have an ergative pattern. In a VOA inverse construction, second-person pronouns have an ergative pattern (for all other persons, either
Marker
Common nouns Definite Indefinite Personal names
(3) lemu aku saguna leave 1SG now ‘I will leave now.’
Selection of a VAO active construction (Example (4); Bruce Skoropinski, personal communication) and a VOA inverse construction (Example (5); Fleischman, 1986: 30) is governed by a person–topicality hierarchy identical to that in Figure 1 (in the following examples, COMP means ‘completed aspect’): (4) in-umbal-an ku seka COMP-make-BEN 1SG 2SG ‘I made you an airplane.’
S
A
O
su i si
nu na ni
su i si
sa OBL
liplanu airplane
(5) in-enggat aku nengka kanu walay nengka COMP-invite 1SG 2SG OBL house GEN.2SG ‘you invited me to your house.’
Example (6) (Fleischman, 1986: 30) is the antipassive. (Example (7) is its transitive counterpart.) (6) min-umbal aku sa liplanu sa leka COMP-make 1SG OBL airplane OBL OBL.2SG ‘I made an airplane for you.’ (7) in-umbal ku su liplanu COMP-make 1SG ABS airplane ‘I made the airplane for you.’
Table 2 Maguindanaon case markers Noun type
A or O does not occur in the construction). Maguindanaon has five types of verbal sentences: active intransitive, VAO active construction, VOA inverse construction, antipassive, and passive. Example (3) is an active intransitive sentence (Bruce Skoropinski, personal communication):
sa
leka
OBL
OBL.2SG
The Maguindanaon passive is a nonmorphological passive. Compare the passive in Example (8) (Bruce Skoropinski, personal communication) with its transitive counterpart in Example (6): (8) in-umbal su liplanu COMP-make ABS airplane ‘the airplane was made for you’
sa
leka
OBL
OBL.2SG
Obo Manobo Table 3 Maguindanaon pronouns Person/ number
Singular 1 2 3 Plural 1INCL 1DU 1EXCL 2 3
VS sentence, S
VAO sentence
VOA sentence
A
O
O
A
aku ka sekanin
ku nengka nin
– seka sekanin
aku ka –
– nengka nin
tanu ta kami kanu silan
tanu ta nami nu nilan
– – – sekanu silan
tanu ta kami kanu –
– – – nu nilan
Obo Manobo has two types of transitive sentences, a VAO active construction and a VOA inverse construction. Case marking of common nouns and personal names in both constructions is identical and displays a consistently ergative pattern (see Table 4). Pronouns are also case marked (see Table 5). In a VAO active construction, first- and second-person pronouns have a tripartite pattern and third-person pronouns have an ergative pattern. On the other hand, in a VOA inverse construction, first-person plural exclusive pronouns and second- and third-person pronouns have an ergative pattern. (The pronouns nikoddi ‘1SG’ and niketa ‘1PL.INCL’ have recently come to notice and also appear
1006 South Philippine Languages
to be possible for A in VOA constructions, although this needs to be confirmed.) Obo Manobo has six types of verbal sentences: intransitive, VAO active construction, VOA inverse construction, antipassive, morphological passive, and nonmorphological passive. Example (9) (Edna Vander Molen, personal communication) is an active intransitive sentence: (9) od
usok ka diyon to IRR enter 2SG there OBL ‘you will enter into the house’
baoy house
Examples (10) and (11) (Vera Khor, personal communication) show, respectively, a VAO active construction and a VOA inverse construction: (10) od
suntuk-on hit-PAT ‘he will hit you’ IRR
(11) od
suntuk-on hit-PAT ‘he will hit you’ IRR
din 3SG ka 2SG
sikkow 2SG
tampod iddos anak cut ABS child ‘the child will cut a rope’ IRR
tompoddon to anak tampod-on to anak IRR cut-PAT ERG child ‘the child will cut the rope’
Marker S
A
O
idda (so) ko/do ko (so)/do (so)
(tadda) to to to
idda (so) ko/do ko (so)/do (so)
si onsi
ni onni
si onsi
tali rope
iddos iddos ABS
tali tali rope
Examples (14) and (15) (Ena Vander Molen, personal communication) are, respectively, a morphological passive and a nonmorphological passive (Example (13) is the transitive counterpart): ko-tampod iddos PASS-cut ABS ‘the rope will be cut’
nikandin 3SG
to OBL
(13) od od
IRR
Table 4 Obo Manobo case markers
Common nouns Definite General Specific Personal names Singular Plural
(12) od
(14) od
Selection of the active construction and the inverse construction is controlled by a person–topicality hierarchy identical to that in Figure 1. Obo Manobo is notable in that both constructions are possible for most person combinations. Word-order inverses have also been noted for Agusan Manobo, Matigsalug Manobo, Sarangani Manobo, Tagabawa Manobo,
Noun type
and Western Bukidnon Manobo. Example (12) is the antipassive. (Example (13) is its transitive counterpart (Ena Vander Molen, personal communication):
tali rope
(15) od od
tompoddon iddos tampod-on iddos IRR cut-PAT ABS ‘the rope will be cut’
tali tali rope
Tboli
Tboli common nouns and personal names are not marked for case, but pronouns are and display a split case-marking system (see Table 6) (some pronouns have allomorphs, not all of which are listed in Table 6). The first split occurs between singular and plural forms. Singular forms have a tripartite pattern. The second split occurs between plural forms: all plural forms except first-person inclusive have a nominative pattern, and first-person inclusive forms are neutralized for case. Table 6 shows the distribution of pronouns in affirmative sentences. A notable feature of Tboli is that the negation of a sentence triggers a change in pronoun sets for S and O. This change also alters the case-marking pattern slightly (see Table 7). In negated sentences, singular first and second persons still display a tripartite pattern, but singular
Table 5 Obo Manobo pronouns Person/number
Singular 1 2 3 Plural 1INCL 1EXCL 2 3
VS sentence, S
VAO sentence
VOA sentence
A
O
O
A
a ka sikandin
ku du/ru din/rin
siyak sikkow sikandin
a ka sikandin
– nikkow nikandin
ki koy kow sikandan
ta doy/roy dow/row dan/ran
siketa sikami sikiyu sikandan
ki koy kow sikandan
– nikami nikiyu nikandan
South Philippine Languages 1007 Table 6 Distribution of pronoun sets in affirmative Tboli sentencesa Pronoun
Singular 1 2 3 Plural 1INCL 1DU 1EXCL 2 3
Person/number S
A
O
-e -i ø
-u -em -en
ou/o uu/u du
tekuy te me ye le
tekuy te me ye le
tekuy tu mi yu lu
a
Based on data from Forsberg (1992: 22), with permission.
Table 7 Distribution of pronoun sets in negated Tboli sentences Pronoun
Singular 1 2 3 Plural 1INCL 1DU 1EXCL 2 3
Person/number S
A
O
-e -i -en
-u -em -en
dou/do ko´m du
tekuy te me ye le
tekuy te me ye le
tekuy kut kum kuy kul
third persons now display a nominative pattern. All other persons except first-person plural inclusive continue to display a nominative pattern; first-person plural inclusive continues to be neutralized for case (the alternation of pronouns in affirmative and negated sentences does not occur in Blaan). Examples (16)–(19) illustrate the changes in pronouns. When a single-argument sentence is negated, S changes only when it is a singular third person (Examples (16) and (19) from Lillian Underwood (personal communication); Examples (17) and (18) from Forsberg (1992: 101, 102)): (16) mung-e go-1SG ‘I’m going along’ (17) la` mung-e not go-1SG ‘I’m not going along’ (18) mung go ‘he is going along’
(19) la` mung-en not go-3SG ‘he is not going along’
When a transitive sentence is negated, O changes when it is any person except third-person singular and first-person plural inclusive (Examples (20) and (21); Porter, 1977: 114, 115): (20) nwit
Kasi ou elem Kasi 1SG to ‘Kasi took me to the mountains’ TRANS.take
bulul mountains
(21) la` nwit Kasi dou elem bulul mountains not TRANS.take Kasi 1SG to ‘Kasi didn’t take me to the mountains’
As might be expected, word order is relatively rigid and a primary means of distinguishing between A and O in transitive sentences; however, when S, A, or O is an expanded full NP, the NP moves to the end of the sentence, and a coreferential pronoun is left in the normal sentence position (Example (22); Forsberg, 1992: 57) (in the following example, PREP means ‘preposition’): (22) ko´l arrive [kem
lei be´leˆ me 3PL PREP 1PL.EXCL tau dmadu]i PL person INTRANS.plow ‘the men who are to plow have arrived to us’
If both A and O are expanded NPs, both NPs move to the end of the sentence, with A coming last. Coreferential pronouns are left for A and O in their normal positions (Example (23); Porter, 1977: 99) (in the following example, SPEC means ‘specific’): (23) eted lei luj [yo´ kem deliver 3PL 3PL SPEC PL nga` lemnek]j [yo´ kem child small SPEC PL tau lemwo´t gu leged]i person INTRANS.come from upstream ‘the people from upstream delivered the small children’
If only one expanded NP is present at the end of a transitive sentence, it always refers to O (Example (24); Porter, 1977: 98): (24) eted le lui [yo´ kem nga` lemnek]i deliver 3PL 3PL SPEC PL child small ‘they delivered the little children’
Expanded NPs in Blaan do not change sentence position. Southern Sama
Southern Sama common nouns and personal names display a consistently ergative case-marking pattern.
1008 South Philippine Languages Table 8 Southern Sama pronouns Pronoun
Singular 1 2 3 Plural 1INCL 1DU 1EXCL 2 3
Person/number S
A
O
aku´ kow iya´
ku nu na
aku´ kow iya´
kitabı´ kita´ kamı´ kam siga´
tabı´ ta ka´mi bi siga´
kitabı´ kita´ kamı´ kam siga´
For common nouns and personal names, S and O have no case marker, but A is obligatorily marked by heh. For pronouns, all persons except plural third persons display an ergative pattern (see Table 8). Plural thirdperson pronouns are neutralized for case. Note that phonological contrast is minimal for first-person plural exclusive: S, A, and O are identical except for word stress (represented in Table 8 by an acute accent). When A is a pronoun in a transitive sentence of type 1 (see Examples (26) and (27)), it is also obligatorily marked by heh. Southern Sama has five types of verbal sentences: active intransitive, transitive type 1, transitive type 2, antipassive, and passive. Example (25) is an active intransitive sentence (Trick, 1997: 126): (25) paso´d anak-anak ni lumah OBL house enter child ‘the child will enter into the house’
Transitive sentences are of two types. Transitive sentence type 1 is more morphologically complex, compared to type 2, because the verb must occur with the affix ni- (or its allomorph -in-), A is either a full NP or a pronoun and must be preceded by the ergative marker heh, and word order may be VAO or VOA, with VOA being the more common order (transitive type 1, Examples (26) and (27), VOA and VAO order, respectively; Trick, 1997: 128): (26) sinampak eroh heh anak-anak sampak-in- eroh heh anak-anak slap-TRANS dog ERG child ‘the child will slap the dog’ (27) sinampak heh anak-anak sampak-in- heh anak-anak slap-TRANS ERG child ‘the child will slap the dog’
eroh eroh dog
Transitive sentence type 2 is morphologically simpler: the verb never occurs with ni-, A must be a pronoun and is never preceded by heh, and word order is
obligatorily VAO (Example (28); Doug Trick, personal communication) (similar pairs of transitive sentences have also been noted for Balangingi Sama, Pangutaran Sama, and Yakan): (28) sampak-ku eroh slap-ERG.1SG eroh ‘I will slap the dog’
Example (29) (Trick, 1997: 132) is the antipassive. (Example (30) (Trick, 1997: 132): is its transitive counterpart.) (29) ngan-dugsuh aku AGT-stab ABS.1SG ‘I will stab a/the snake’ (30) ni-dugsu-an sowa TRANS-stab-PAT snake ‘I will stab the snake’
sowa snake heh-ku ERG-ERG.1SG
Passive sentences in Southern Sama are nonmorphological passives (Example (31); Trick, 1997: 133); compare Example (31) with its transitive counterpart, Example (29): (31) ni-dugsu-an sowa TRANS-stab-PAT snake ‘the snake will be stabbed’
Syntactic Processes Although syntactic processes have been investigated in a few languages, e.g., Sama, Yakan, and Northern Subanen, this is an area of Phillipine linguistics that still needs more research. What has been noted to date is that South Philippine, South Mindanao, and Sama languages, like all Philippine languages, allow an oblique NP to be promoted to O (i.e., direct object), although languages vary as to which semantic roles may undergo promotion. The promoted NP is always cross-referenced by an affix on the verb. A variation of this process occurs in some Sama languages. In cleft constructions in Philippine languages, S and O are the only arguments eligible to be the head of the construction, in which case they are usually cross-referenced by a verbal affix. For certain verbs, however, the verbal affix may cross-reference an oblique NP. For these NPs, morphological and syntactic evidence shows that the cross-referenced NP has changed its relation to the verb, but has not become a grammatical relation (i.e., O). (This process has been noted for Southern Sama and Yakan. In Southern Sama, a similar process also occurs in antipassive constructions.) For those languages in which other syntactic processes have been described (e.g., relativization, clefting, raising, coreferential deletion, and control of second-position clitics), the following
Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area 1009
preliminary generalization can be made: in South Philippine languages, control of syntactic processes seems to be more or less evenly distributed between A and O in transitive sentences, but in Sama languages, control for nearly all of these processes (including second-position clitics) is governed exclusively by O in transitive sentences, making the Sama languages highly syntactically ergative languages. As for all Philippine languages, S is always the syntactic control in single-argument sentences.
Bibliography Abrams N (1961). ‘Word base classes in Bilaan.’ Lingua 10(4), 391–402. Abrams N (1970). ‘Bilaan morphology.’ Papers in Philippine Linguistics No. 3. Pacific Linguistics, Series A No. 24, 1–62. Brainard S & Behrens D (2002). A grammar of Yakan. Special monograph issue no. 40 (vol. 1). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Elkins R (1963). ‘Partial loss of contrast between a and e in Western Bukidnon Manobo.’ Lingua 12(2), 205–210.
Forsberg V M (1992). ‘A pedagogical grammar of Tboli.’ Studies in Philippine Linguistics 9(1), 1–110. Gault J M (1999). An ergative description of Sama Bangingi0 . Special monograph issue no. 46. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Kerr H (1988). ‘Cotabato Manobo grammar.’ Studies in Philippine Linguistics 7(1), 1–123. McKaughan H P & Al-Macaraya B (1996). A Maranao dictionary (rev. edn.). Manila: De La Salle University Press and Summer Institute of Linguistics. Sanicas Daguman J (2004). A grammar of Northern Subanen. Ph.D. thesis (unpubl.), La Trobe University, Bundoora, VI, Australia. Schlegel S A (1971). Tiruray-English lexicon. University ofCalifornia publications in linguistics, vol. 67. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Sullivan R E (compiler) (1986). A Maguindanaon dictionary. Cotabato City, Philippines: Notre Dame University. Trick D (1997). ‘Equi-NP deletion in Sama Southern.’ Philippine Journal of Linguistics 28, 125–144. Walton C (1986). Sama verbal semantics: classification, derivation and inflection. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area W Bisang, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mainland Southeast Asia – the Area, Its Languages and Language Families, Its History Mainland Southeast Asia geographically covers the area of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, peninsular Malaysia, and southern and southwestern China. This area is characterized by at least two millennia of lively exchange and interaction among speakers of languages that belong to no fewer than five families: Sino-Tibetan, Mon-Khmer (a subfamily of Austroasiatic), Tai (the core group of the Tai-Kadai languages), Hmong-Mien (also called Miao-Yao) and Chamic (Malayo-Polynesian subfamily of Austronesian). The families forming the core of mainland Southeast Asia as a zone of contact-induced convergence are Mon-Khmer, Tai, Hmong-Mien and Sinitic. The Hmong-Mian languages are divided into the Hmong (Miao) and the Mien (Yao) subfamilies. They are spoken in small areas of southern China and in northern Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. The architecture of the other
families is presented in Tables 1–3: Table 1 is on Mon-Khmer, Table 2 on Tai, and Table 3 on Sinitic. The present linguistic situation in mainland Southeast Asia is the result of extensive migrations, the rise and fall of many kingdoms, and innumerable contact situations (on the historical facts, see Wyatt, 1982). In the first millennium A.D., the inhabitants of this area had contacts with China and India. Vietnam, in the east, was governed by China between 179 B.C. and 938 A.D., while the west and the south were influenced by Theravada Buddhism through the mediation of the Mon (cf. the large corpus of Sanskrit and Pali words in modern Thai and Khmer). The geography of mainland Southeast Asia and its large rivers in particular directed migration from southern China toward Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam. Apart from Chinese and Indian influence, the first millennium A.D. is characterized by the steady emergence of greater political structures. At its end, we find the state of Vietnam, the kingdom of Champa (on the coast of central Vietnam; Austronesian: Chamic), the Khmer empire of Angkor, the kingdoms of central and northern Thailand, and the Burmese kingdoms of Mon and Pyu. At about the same time, numerous speakers of Tai languages migrated from inland southern China (Guizhou, Guangxi) to the south
1010 Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area Table 1 Subgrouping of Mon-Khmer (MK) languages (according to Diffloth & Zide, 1992) Northern
Khmuic (N Laos/N Thailand) Palaungic (N Laos/N Thailand, E Burma, SW Yunnan) Khasian (NE India) Khmeric Bahnaric (35 languages in Central and S Vietnam, S Laos, E Cambodia)
Eastern
Katuic (Central Vietnam/Laos, NE Thailand, N Cambodia) Pearic (Central Cambodia; affiliation uncertain) Viet-Muong (is probably a branch of Eastern MK) South
Vietnamese, Muong, etc. Monic Aslian (interior Malaysia, 16 languages) Nicobarese (Nicobar Islands, may be another direct branch of MK)
Table 2 Subgrouping of Tai languages (according to Li, 1977; for more information, see Edmondson and Solnit, 1997) Southwestern
Central Tai
Northern Tai
Khmu, Mal-Phrai, Mlabri Eastern: Riang dialects, Danau Western: Waic, Angkuic, Lametic Khasi Khmer South: Sreˆ, Mnong, Stieng, Chrau Central: Bahnar, etc. West: Brao (Lave), Nya-heuny (Nyaheun), etc. North: Rengao, Sedang, etc. West: Kuy, Bru, Soˆ, etc. East: Katu, Pacoh, Ngeq, etc. Samreˆ, Pear, Sa-och (Sa’och), Chong
Ahom (Assam/India; extinct) Central Thai (= Siamese) East Central: Black Tai (Tai Dam) (N Vietnam), Red Tai (Tai Daeng) (North Central Vietnam), Phu Tai (Phuan) (Laos/Thailand) Khamti (NW Myanmar; Assam) Lanna (N Thailand): Mueang, Northern Thai, Yuan Lao (Laotian, including Isan in Thailand) Lue (Lu¨) (called Dai in China; situated in Yunnan) Shan (SE Myanmar, Thailand) Southern Thai White Tai (Tai Do´n) (N Vietnam) etc. Nung (on both sides of the Chinese-Vietnamese border), Southern Zhuang (China, Zhuang Autonomous Region), Tho (= Tay and Caolan; NE Vietnam, S China) Bouyei (Buyi), Saek (Central Laos near Vietnamese border, NE Thailand), Northern Zhuang (across S China)
and changed the balance in the north towards the Tai population, which simultaneously became an important reservoir of manpower and a potentially dangerous rival for the adjacent kingdoms. Cambodia moved its center of gravity from Angkor further south to Phnom Penh, and the newly developed Thai kingdoms of Sukhothai (?1240–1438) and Ayudhya (1351–1767) were characterized by intensive contact and presumably by a considerable proportion of bilinguals. As a consequence, there is a high degree of structural similarity and some lexical similarity between the two languages. Finally, the
Mon (Myanmar, Thailand), Nyahkur (E Central Thailand) Senoic: Semai, Temiar; North: Kintaq, Jahai (Jehai), Batek; South: Mah Meri (Besisi), Semelai; Jah Hut Four subgroups
Table 3 List of Sinitic languages/dialects (Chappell, 2001: 6) Northern Chinese (N China, W China, par of central China, Sichuan basin, Guizhou and Yunnan provinces) Xia¯ng (Xiang Chinese) (Hunan province) Ga`n (Gan Chinese) (Jiangxi province) Wu´ (Wu Chinese) (coastal area of lower Yangze River in the provinces of Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Anhui) Miˇ n (Min Nan Chinese) (Southern coastal province of Fujian and the island of Taiwan, Leizhou peninsula plus Hainan island) Ke`jia¯ or Hakka (Hakka Chinese) (scattered throughout SE China in small communities in the Yue` and Miˇ n areas) Yue` (Yue Chinese) (Guangdong and Guangxi provinces; Cantonese) Recently identified dialect groups: Jı` n (Jinyu Chinese) (Shanxi province and Inner Mongolia) Pı´ nghua` (Guangxi) Hu¯ı (Huizhoun Chinese) (in parts of Anhui, Jiangxi and Zhejiang provinces)
migration of a considerable number of HmongMien from southern and southwestern China to Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand started in the middle of the 19th century. Given the long-lasting and very complex patterns of interaction among speakers of a large number of languages from different families, structural convergence comes as no surprise. Studies dealing with mainland Southeast Asia from an areal perspective are Huffman (1973), Clark (1978), Capell (1979), Clark (1989), Matisoff (1991), Bisang (1992), Bisang (1996), and Enfield (2003). Huffman (1986) is an excellent bibliography on the languages and linguistics of this area.
Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area 1011
General Properties of the Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia – the Relevance of Pragmatics
Table 4 Some nonobligatory categories in mainland SE Asian languages Verb
Noun
Mainland Southeast Asian languages are characterized by a high degree of indeterminateness, which as a consequence endorses the relevance of pragmatic inferencing and produces a special type of pragmaticsoriented grammaticalization (see ‘Indeterminateness and the Role of Pragmatics’ below). The pragmaticsoriented character of grammaticalization may be one reason for a syllable-based morphology (see ‘Syllabic Morphology’ below). Another consequence of this type of grammaticalization may be the comparatively weak correlation between the lexicon and individual lexical items (see ‘Versatility’ below). The above pragmatics-based properties will be discussed in this section. Two additional general properties will be treated in the subsection ‘Directional Verbs, Coverbs and TAM Markers, and Syntactic Patterns’ with the necessary language-specific details. The properties are the existence of rigid syntactic patterns with fixed functionally determined positions and the functional motivations of these patterns.
Person/Number Tense/Aspect/Modality (TAM) Transitivity (transitive vs. intransitive) Diathesis Causativity
Number Noun class Reference (definite, specific, indefinite) Relationality (possession) Case
Indeterminateness and the Role of Pragmatics
East and mainland Southeast Asian languages are well known for their indeterminateness, i.e., their lack of obligatory categories (Bisang, 1992, 2001, see also context dependency in Enfield, 2003: 55). One famous instance is the lack of obligatory arguments. In the following example from Modern Standard Chinese (Mandarin Chinese), the agent argument wo˘ ‘I’ and the patient argument ta¯ ‘he’ are no longer mentioned in the second clause with the predicate jia`n ‘see’ because they are already known from the previous context. (1) wo˘1 bu´ jia`n ta¯2 yı˘ shı` sa¯n NEG see he already be 30 I shı´duo¯ nia´n; jı¯ntia¯n ø1 jia`n ø2 le more year today see PF ‘I haven’t seen him for more than 30 years. Today [I] saw [him]’ (from Lu Xun, Kuangren riji [Diary of a Madman], second sentence).
Dropping arguments (prodrop) is not the only instance of indeterminateness. There are also a large number of grammatical categories which are optional (cf. Table 4), i.e., the speaker is not committed to select a particular subcategory (e.g., past, present, or future) from a particular obligatory category (e.g., tense). Indeterminateness implies that grammatical categories which are expressed obligatorily in other languages must often be inferred from the context in mainland Southeast Asian languages. If these
categories are expressed, however, they are very often expressed by lexical items which occur in a special syntactic position of a construction where they get reanalyzed as grammatical markers. This type of grammaticalization differs from grammaticalization as described in the literature by dint of the vast functional range of many markers (see ‘Classifiers’ and ‘‘The Verb ‘Come to Have’’’ below) and the lack of a form– meaning correspondence (see ‘Directional Verbs, Coverbs and TAM Markers, and Syntactic Patterns’). The mainland Southeast Asian languages show that a high degree of abstraction (semantic generality, cf. Bybee, 1985) does not automatically lead to morphological reduction (see ‘Syllabic Morphology’ below); in other words, the semantic integrity of a linguistic sign is not fully reflected in its phonological integrity (Lehmann, 1995). The high functional range of individual markers is sometimes observed within an individual language, sometimes across languages. In the latter case, individual languages select certain domains out of the whole inferential potential of a marker common to a wider contact zone (see ‘Directional Verbs, Coverbs and TAM Markers, and Syntactic Patterns’ on verbs with the meaning ‘finish’ and the end of ‘‘The Verb ‘Come to Have’’’). The high relevance of pragmatics led to a more general discussion of the relevance of syntax in mainland Southeast Asian languages. Diller (1988) talked about ‘‘pragmatically organised syntax’’ in the context of Thai and other languages. Huang (1994) argued, against Huang (1984), that the interaction of syntax and pragmatics is subject to typological variance: There seems to exist a class of language (such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) where pragmatics appears to play a central role which in familiar European languages (such as English, French, and German) is alleged to be played by grammar. In these ‘pragmatic’ languages . . . (Huang, 1994: xiv) Syllabic Morphology
Mainland Southeast Asian languages are characterized by or drift towards a morphology whose smallest meaningful element is the syllable. This definition
1012 Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area
encompasses the well-known monosyllabism of languages such as Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) or Vietnamese (each syllable has its own meaning) but it also covers such cases as Thai or Khmer, which easily accept strings of semantically unanalyzable syllables, as in the elegant word for ‘restaurant’ in Thai (pha´ttaakhaan) or in Khmer (pho`:c`enı`:et. .tha:n). This does not mean that subsyllabic morphology does not exist in mainland Southeast Asia, but the integration into that area seems to engender a drift towards syllabic morphology. This can be illustrated by Mon-Khmer. Vietnamese, which was under the strong influence of monosyllabic Chinese for more than a millennium (see above), has completely lost its subsyllabic morphology, while Khmer, which had weaker contacts with China and was even able to transfer a lot of its vocabulary to Thai, probably has the richest morphology within the Mon-Khmer family (on Khmer morphology see Jenner and Pou, 1980–1981; Haiman, 1998). In spite of this, Khmer morphology is basically a lexical phenomenon, i.e., the affixes are not used productively. The productive strategies are all based on products of grammaticalization (as described in the subsections ‘Classifiers,’ ‘Directional Verbs, Coverbs and TAM Markers, and Syntactic Patterns,’ and ‘‘The Verb ‘Come to Have’’’). In addition, Khmer subsyllabic morphology is characterized by the following two properties: (1) a large number of Khmer affixes lack functional consistency, i.e., the same marker can express different functions depending on its base (the prefix premarks causativity/factivity, change of word class and reciprocity); and (2) the same function can be expressed by different affixes (e.g., derivation of nouns from verbs belongs to the functional range of the following affixes: k-, s-, m-, N-, bvN-, kvN-, svN-, -b-, -m-, -n-, -vmn-/-vN-) (Bisang, 2001: 195–200). Versatility
The term ‘versatility’ refers to the fact that the occurrence of a given linguistic item is not limited to a single syntactic position (Matisoff, 1969). A word’s freedom to occur in the N-position as well as in the V-position is one instance of versatility. In the extreme case of Late Archaic Chinese (5th–3rd century BC), any lexical item can take the verbal position, even a proper name: (2) Late Archaic Chinese (Zuo, Ding 10) Go¯ng Ruo` yue¯: e˘r Wu´ wa´ng wo˘ hu¯? Q Gong Ruo say you Wu king I ‘Gong Ruo said: ‘‘Do you want to deal with me as King Wu was dealt with?’’’ (King Wu was murdered. ! ‘‘Do you want to kill me?’’)
Versatility may also enhance grammaticalization in the sense that full lexemes can take positions associated with grammatical functions. As is typical of versatility, one lexical item can take different functions depending on the construction in which it is used. Thus, the verb aoy ‘give’ in Khmer can occur as a coverb (3), as a causative verb (4), or as an adverbial subordinator (5). The same applies to Vietnamese cho ‘give’ and to Thai haˆy ‘give’ (cf. Bisang, 1996: 577–578). (3) kOA et baek tvı`:e(r) aoy he open door give.COVERB ‘he opens the door for me’
khJom I
(4) mda:y-mı`:N sovan. (n. ) aoy sva:mWy cu`:n husband give a lift aunt Sovan give.CAUS phJiev tWA u phtEAeh guest Vd:go house/home ‘Aunt Sovan had her husband bring the guests back home’ (Bisang, 1992: 440) (5) khJom khOm thveA :-ka:(r) aoy I try hard work so that.COMP o:pu`k khJom sOpba:y-cWt(t) father I be-pleased ‘I am working hard so that my father will be pleased.’
The versatility of lexical items may turn out to be another consequence of the high relevance of pragmatics in the sense that the positioning of lexical items into syntax is governed to a lesser or to a greater degree by pragmatics.
Some Individual Structural Properties of the Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia This section will mostly refer to one or more of the following languages: Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) (Sinitic), White Hmong (Hmong Daw) (HmongMien), Vietnamese (Mon-Khmer), Thai (Tai) and Khmer (Mon-Khmer). Apart from word order; classifiers; directional verbs (Vd), coverbs (COV), and TAM markers derived from verbs; and different functions of the verb ‘come to have,’ there are other characteristics of mainland Southeast Asia as a zone of convergence which will not be discussed here. I would like to refer to relational nouns (nouns such as Thai naˆa ‘front’ in adpositional function with the meaning ‘in front of’), causatives marked by the verbs ‘make, do’ and ‘give, allow’ in Vietnamese, Thai, and Khmer (Bisang, 1992: 42–44; see also example (4) above), passivelike constructions with a tendency to adversative meaning, complementizers and adverbial subordinators derived from verbs such as ‘say,’ ‘give’ (cf. example (5) above), ‘finish’ and others, and,
Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area 1013 Table 5 Word order in mainland southeast Asia
Chinese Hmong Vietnamese Thai Khmer
Verb/Object
Adposition
Demonstrative
Classifier
Possessor/Genitive
Relative Clause
VO VO VO VO VO
Prep/Postp Prep Prep Prep Prep
DemN NDem NDem NDem NDem
CIN CIN CIN NCl NCl
GenN NGen NGen NGen NGen
RelN NRel NRel NRel NRel
finally, comparative constructions based on verbs with the meaning ‘surpass’ (e.g., in Cantonese, Thai, Vietnamese). Word Order
The large majority of the languages belonging to the mainland Southeast Asian convergence zone are VO (verb middle, including Chinese [Mandarin Chinese]). The noun phrase is subject to variance. While Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) is consistently head final, Thai and Khmer are consistently head initial. Hmong and Vietnamese are head initial with the exception of the classifier phrase, which follows the Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) example. There are prepositions (coverbs) in all the languages; Chinese also has postpositions (relational nouns, i.e., nouns in adpositional function). Since numerals covary with classifiers, there is no extra column for them in Table 5. Classifiers
Classifiers are minimally used with numerals, where their presence is overwhelmingly compulsory in mainland Southeast Asian languages. Thus, a Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) noun like xı`n ‘letter’ must take a classifier (fe¯ng) if it is counted: (6) sa¯n fe¯ng three CLASS ‘three letters’
xı`n letter
There is an implicational correlation between the existence of a classifier and the lack of obligatory number distinction (transnumerality): ‘‘Numeral classifier languages generally do not have compulsory expression of nominal plurality, but at most facultative expression’’ (Greenberg, 1974: 25). Since nouns in mainland Southeast Asian languages only denote a concept without any commitment to number, one of the functions of the classifier is to make that concept accessible by individuating it, i.e., by highlighting one of its conceptual boundaries which qualify it as a unit (Bisang, 1999). The semantic criteria for highlighting a concept also classify that concept. Typical criteria for classification are material (animate,
abstract, inanimate), shape (one-/two-/threedimensional), consistency (flexible, hard or rigid, discrete), size (big, small), location (classifiers for plots of land, countries, gardens, fields, etc.) and spatial arrangement (Allan, 1977). Other criteria are based on physical, functional, and social interaction with the concept to be classified (Denny, 1976). Classification can not only be used to individuate a concept by highlighting some of its properties; it can also be used for identifying one or more relevant objects denoted by a concept. While identification can take place without referring to individuation – one can identify an ‘apple’ without referring to its conceptual boundaries – it seems difficult to individuate it without simultaneously identifying it. Departing from classification, one can thus establish the following hierarchy: (7) classification > identification > individuation
Identification can be used either to mark the definiteness or specificity of a concept (referentialization) or to make it accessible for construction with for example a possessor or a relative clause (relationalization). Taking together the functional range of classifiers in mainland Southeast Asia, there are no fewer than four functions: classification, individuation, referentialization, and relationalization. These functions are not equally distributed across Southeast Asia. The minimal functions operating in all the languages are classification and identification. Table 6 provides a survey (Bisang, 1999). The following examples from Hmong illustrate the functions of classification/individuation (8a) and of relationalization (possession) (8b). (8a) peb rab three CLASS ‘three knives’ (8b) nws rab CLASS he ‘his knife’
riam knife riam knife
The referential function of classifiers is more difficult to show because this needs a lot of text. Once a concept is introduced, it can be marked as definite, sometimes by the classifier alone, sometimes by classifier plus demonstrative, sometimes only by the
1014 Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area
demonstrative (for more, see Bisang, 1999: 152–153). It is, however, necessary to point out that reference marking is not compulsory. Thus, an unmarked noun can get any possible referential interpretation depending on context. Directional Verbs, Coverbs and TAM Markers, and Syntactic Patterns
Markers derived from lexical items used for expressing directionality, adpositional functions, and tense-aspect-modality (TAM) are widespread in mainland Southeast Asia. The direction taken by a state of affairs can be overtly expressed with directional verbs (Vd). Verbs belonging to this category have the meanings of ‘come,’ ‘go,’ ‘move upwards,’ ‘move downwards,’ ‘move into,’ and ‘move out of.’ In Khmer, there is a maximum of three slots (9), while Thai has only two slots and Vietnamese only one. (9) kOA et yOA :k Wyvan coh he take luggage move. down.DIR ce¨N mcA :k. move. out.DIR come.DIR ‘He takes [his] luggage down and out [of his room upstairs towards the speaker]’
Verbal lexemes in adpositional function are called coverbs (COV) (see Clark, 1978). An instance of the verb ‘give’ in that function is discussed in the subsection ‘Versatility.’ Other frequently used verbs Table 6 Functions of classifiers in individual languages I. Classification & individualization Modern Standard Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) (classifiers with numerals and demonstratives) Vietnamese (individualization, but not necessarily in the context of counting) II. Classification & individualization & referentialization Thai (secondary function in combination with stative verbs in N-CLASS-ADJ) III. Classification & individualization & relationalization Cantonese (yue Chinese) (classifiers can be used in possessive and relative constructions) IV. Classification & individualization & referentialization & relationalization Hmong (with referentialization being a secondary function)
are ‘be at’ (locatives or directionals), ‘arrive’ (directionals), ‘move along something’ (path), ‘use’ (instrumental), ‘be equal to’ (work as, do something in the function of), and ‘replace’ (instead of). The following example is from Vietnamese: (10) toˆi la`m vieˆ. c I do work ‘I work in Saigon’
be.at.COV
Sa`i go`n. Saigon
Verbs in the function of TAM markers can occur in the preverbal position or clause finally (in Chinese [Mandarin Chinese], there are also the three TAM markers -le, -zhe and -guo, which are suffixed to the verb). The verb ‘finish’ in clause-final position, which is very widespread, is briefly looked at in this subsection (see also the next subsection on ‘come to have’). In Chinese (Mandarin Chinese), the clause-final marker le (derived from lia˘o ‘finish’) marks a wide range of functions from perfect to the pragmatic function of reference to a preconstructed domain (Li et al., 1982; Bisang and Sonaiya, 1997). Thai lEBEw, which is borrowed from Chinese lia˘o ‘finish,’ is an aspectual marker highlighting event-initial or event-final temporal boundaries. The functions of Hmong lawm (again related to Chinese lia˘o) or tas (lawm) ‘finish,’ Vietnamese ro`ˆ i ‘finish,’ and Khmer haey (nowadays only used as a TAM marker, but cf. its transitive form bcnhaey ‘finish’) cover the same functional range as le and lEBEw. Unfortunately, there is no detailed comparative analysis available. If directional verbs, coverbs, and TAM markers are part of the same state of affairs, they follow a fixed pattern of word order (cf. serial unit in Bisang, 2001) described in Table 7 and illustrated by example (11) from Khmer. (11) kOA et ba:n yOA :k Wyvan coh the be.able.TAM take luggage move.down.DIR ce¨N mcA :k. aoy khJom. come. DIR give.COV I move.out.DIR ‘he was able to bring [his] luggage down and out [of his room upstairs towards the speaker] to/for me.’
As can be seen from Table 7, the structure of the serial unit follows a certain areal clustering. Vietnamese, Thai, and Khmer, in the south, follow exactly the same pattern. Chinese (Mandarin Chinese), in the
Table 7 Positions within the serial unit Chinese Hmong Vietnamese Thai Khmer
TAM TAM TAM TAM TAM
COV COV
V-TAM V TAM V V V
COV Vd Vd Vd Vd
Vd COV COV COV COV
TAM TAM TAM TAM TAM
Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area 1015
north, differs with regard to the following three properties: preverbal coverbs, TAM markers immediately after the verb and COV–Vd word order. Hmong lies in between. It shares the former two word order properties with Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) and the last property with the southern languages. The above word order is not arbitrary even if one looks at languages spoken outside mainland Southeast Asia with comparable structures (Bisang, 2001: 202– 214). It can be accounted for in terms of semantic generality as introduced by Bybee (1985). Increasing semantic generality of a marker is related to compatibility with more lexical stems and to greater morphosyntactic fusion with the stem. Thus, maximally general grammatical categories are prototypically expressed inflectionally. Although there is no iconic correlation between the degree of semantic abstraction and morphological attrition in mainland Southeast Asia (see ‘Syllabic Morphology’ above), there is a form–meaning iconicity if one looks at the relative distance of the markers to the main verb. The further away a marker is from the main verb the more general it is. Directional verbs and coverbs still have enough semantic weight to be incompatible with many verbs. This is not the case with the semantically more general TAM markers. Therefore, TAM markers are situated at a greater distance from the verb than coverbs and directional verbs. Coverbs and directional verbs seem to share about the same degree of generality. Consequently, we find COV-Vd as well as Vd-COV. The Verb ‘Come to Have’
There is an excellent study on the grammaticalization of the verb ‘get, come to have’ from an areal perspective in mainland Southeast Asia in Enfield (2003). Verbs such as Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) de´, Hmong tau, Vietnamese 2u c, Thai daˆy, or Khmer ba:n with that meaning induce a large number of different inferences depending on the context. Enfield (2003) translates these verbs with ‘come to have.’ This translation is more adequate than the one with ‘get’ because it does not imply an agentive subject. Although ‘come to have’ verbs occur preverbally as well as postverbally, a look in this subsection at their preverbal functions will be enough to illustrate the rich inferential potential. Their basic meaning in this position is that the state of affaires expressed by the main verb is true or applies ‘‘because of something else that happened before this’’ (Enfield, 2003: 292). A set of inferences depends on whether the state of affairs denoted by the verb is understood as [þwanted] or [wanted]. If it is wanted, we get either an abilitative (be able) or a permissive (be allowed)
inference (12); if it is not wanted, we get a strong deontic (must, have to) interpretation (13). (12) Hmong (Mottin, 1980; Bisang, 1992: 241): koj mus deev hluar nkauj, you go court girl koj puas tau nrog tham? you Q PFV with.COV talk ‘you courted the girl, did you [manage to] talk to her?’ (13) Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) (in its deontic function, de´ ‘get’ becomes de˘i): ta¯ de˘i xue´xi zho¯ngwe´n. s/he must learn Chinese ‘S/he must learn Chinese’
Many grammarians of individual languages describe ‘come to have’ verbs as past markers. In spite of this, past is only another possible inference, but not a clear-cut grammatical category. The following Khmer example from Enfield (2003: 314) can also trigger other temporal inferences in other contexts: (14) khJom ba:n rı`ep-ka:(r) marry I get.TAM ta:m prepe`yn. ı`: khmae(r) according.to.COV custom Khmer ‘I married according to Khmer custom’ (could mean in other contexts ‘I would/will get to/have to marry . . .’)
A fourth inference, treated only marginally by Enfield (2003), is emphasis of the truth. This inference is related to the fact that for the agent to be able to ‘come to have’ a given state of affairs, that state of affairs needs to be true. (15) Hmong (Mottin, 1980: 94): saib yog leej twg tau look be man/CL which PFV ua txhaum zoo li cas lawm? make mistake like.this PERF ‘[we want to] see who [really] made such a mistake’
In spite of their rich inferential potential, most languages show preferred inferences or even completely exclude certain inferences. Thus, the meaning of preverbal ‘come to have’ in Chinese (Mandarin Chinese) is conventionalized into deontic modality. Vietnamese prefers the abilitative or permissive interpretation but is compatible with a must-interpretation. Thai and Khmer are more open, with a functional core of abilitative/permissive and past. Hmong shows a certain preference for past (Enfield, 2003: 319) but certainly does not exclude abilitative/permissive inferences.
1016 Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area
Conclusion – Factors Leading to a Zone of Convergence Mainland Southeast Asia is characterized by a special type of pragmatics-oriented grammaticalization and by a number of shared products of grammaticalization and syntactic patterns. The structural convergence observed in this zone is the result of a very complex interaction of cognitive (semantic and pragmatic) factors with social mechanisms of diffusion extended over a large number of different individual situations of contact. Language-internal cognition-based processes of change are combined with and sometimes enhanced or interrupted by contact-induced changes. When it comes to social factors, any of the social models accounting for the cross-linguistic diffusion of structural properties presented in the literature can contribute their part. Thus, the diffusional pattern of the properties relevant for mainland Southeast Asia as a zone of convergence is most likely a joint product of social networks, leaders of linguistic change, and invisiblehand processes.
Bibliography Allan K (1977). ‘Classifiers.’ Language 53, 285–311. Bisang W (1992). Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Vergleichende Grammatik im Rahmen der Verbserialisierung, der Grammatikalisierung und der Attraktorpositionen. Tu¨bingen: Gunter Narr. Bisang W (1996). ‘Areal typology and grammaticalization: processes of grammaticalization based on nouns and verbs in East and mainland South East Asian languages.’ Studies in Language 20(3), 519–597. Bisang W (1999). ‘Classifiers in East and Southeast Asian languages: counting and beyond.’ In Gvozdanovic´ J (ed.) Numeral types and changes worldwide. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 113–185. Bisang W (2001). ‘Areality, grammaticalization and language typology: on the explanatory power of functional criteria and the status of universal grammar.’ In Bisang W (ed.) Aspects of typology and universals. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 175–223. Bisang W & Sonaiya R (1997). ‘Perfect and beyond, from pragmatic relevance to perfect: the Chinese sentence particle le and Yoruba ti.’ Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50(2), 143–158. Bybee J (1985). Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Capell A (1979). ‘Further typological studies in Southeast Asian languages.’ In Nguyen D L (ed.) Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies, vol. 3. Canberra: Australian National University. 1–42. Chappell H (ed.) (2001). Sinitic grammar: synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark M (1978). Converbs and case in Vietnamese. Canberra: Australian National University. Clark M (1989). ‘Hmong and areal Southeast Asia.’ In Bradley D (ed.) Southeast Asian syntax. Canberra: Australian National University. 175–230. Denny P J (1976). ‘What are noun classifiers good for?’ Papers from the 12th International Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 122–132. Diffloth G & Zide N (1992). ‘Austroasiatic languages.’ In Bright W (ed.) International encyclopedia of linguistics (4 vols), vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. 137–142. Diller AV N (1988). ‘Thai syntax and ‘‘national grammar.’’’ Language Sciences 10(2), 273–312. Edmondson J A & Solnit D B (eds.) (1997). Comparative Kadai: The Tai branch. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Enfield N J (2003). Linguistic epidemiology: semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon. Greenberg J (1974). ‘Numeral classifiers and substantival number: problems in the genesis of a linguistic type.’ In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguistics, Bologna–Florence, Aug–Sept 1972. 17–37. Haiman J (1998). ‘Possible origins of infixation in Khmer.’ Studies in Language 22(3), 597–617. Huang C-T J (1984). ‘On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.’ Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574. Huang Y (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: a study with special reference to anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huffman F E (1973). ‘Thai and Cambodian: a case of syntactic borrowing?’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 93(4), 488–509. Huffman F E (1986). Bibliography and index of mainland Southeast Asian languages and linguistics. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Jenner P N & Pou S (1980–1981). A lexicon of Khmer morphology. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Lehmann C (1995). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Li F (1977). A handbook of comparative Tai. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Li C N, Thompson S A & Thompson R M (1982). ‘The discourse motivation for the perfect aspect: the Mandarin particle le.’ In Hopper P J (ed.) Tense-Aspect: between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 19–44. Matisoff J A (1969). ‘Verb concatenation in Lahu: the syntax and semantics of ‘‘simple’’ juxtaposition.’ Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 12(1), 69–120. Matisoff J A (1991). ‘Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticization in Lahu.’ In Traugott E C & Heine B (eds.) Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 383–453. Mottin J (1980). Contes et le´gendes Hmong Blanc. Bangkok: Don Bosco. Wyatt D K (1982). Thailand: a short history. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
Southern Bantu Languages 1017
Southern Bantu Languages L Marten, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Southern Bantu languages include Bantu languages spoken in South Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and southern Mozambique. The term ‘southern Bantu languages’ is usually taken to refer to the geographical-referential classification, and hence as not implying genetic relations, of the following languages and language groups: the Nguni group (including Zulu, Xhosa, Swati, Ndebele), the Sotho-Tswana group (including Northern Sotho, Sesotho [Sotho, Southern], Tswana), the Tswa-Ronga group, the Imhambane group, and also Shona and Venda. The Bantu languages of Angola and Namibia, such as Herero or Wambo, are usually not included under southern Bantu, but are referred to as southwestern Bantu. In terms of Guthrie’s (1967–1971) classification, southern Bantu languages are grouped as zone S. The designation ‘southern Bantu languages’ was re-enforced by Doke’s monograph with the same title published in 1954. Historically, the southern Bantu languages provide the endpoint of the so-called Bantu expansion, a period of migration and contact of more than 2000 years, during which Bantu languages slowly came to be spoken throughout the larger part of sub-Saharan Africa. The origin of the Bantu expansion lies in the Nigeria-Cameroon borderland, and the direction of the expansion was hence southwards and ended with Bantu languages reaching the southern African coastline about 1,500 years ago, coming from eastern and central Africa. Speakers of southern Bantu languages have probably shared an extended, and extensive, period of contact with speakers of Khoisan languages present in southern Africa when Bantu languages arrived. The differentiation of distinct Bantu languages, and the establishment of standardized forms occurred more recently. From the 19th century onwards, written literature was produced in the larger southern Bantu languages, and several are among the dominant languages in the countries where they are spoken. For example, all nine Bantu languages of the national languages of the Republic of South Africa (in other words, all national languages except for English and Afrikaans) are southern Bantu languages. Southern Bantu languages have played an important part in the history of Bantu studies. While the earliest descriptions of Bantu languages are from
west-central and eastern Africa, scholarship in southern African Bantu languages provided the impetus for a number of early comparative Bantu studies (Lichtenstein, 1808; Bleek, 1862, 1869; Torrend, 1891). Bleek (1862) is credited with coining the term ‘Bantu’ based on the plural form for ‘people’ in Xhosa and in many other Bantu languages. In the 20th century, a major figure in the study of southern Bantu languages was Clement Doke, who produced numerous grammatical descriptions of southern Bantu languages and also proposed an analytical system for the description of Bantu languages, which became particularly influential in South Africa (Doke, 1935). Due to the official status of nine southern Bantu languages in South Africa and an increase in institutions of tertiary education, there is currently a wealth of new linguistic scholarship in southern Bantu languages, often with particular emphasis on lexicography, computational linguistics, and applied linguistic topics such as language policy and language teaching. Most of the southern Bantu languages with large numbers of speakers (Zulu, Xhosa, Northern Sotho, Sesotho, Tswana) have, often recent, comprehensive reference grammars and dictionaries, as well as a range of teaching materials for schools and independent learners.
Classification The southern Bantu languages are, following Guthrie (1967–1971), classified into six groups within zone S (cf. Gowlett, 2003). The Shona group (S10) comprises six clusters: Korekore, Zezuru, Manyika, Karanga, Ndau, and Kalanga. A standardized form of Shona based on the Korekore, Zezuru, and Karanga varieties is used as an official language in Zimbabwe. In addition to Zimbabwe, languages of the Shona group are also spoken in parts of Mozambique and Botswana (Kalanga). There are close to 9 million speakers of Shona. The Venda group (S20) only includes Venda, spoken by around 800 000 speakers in South Africa’s Northern Province and adjacent southern Zimbabwe. Venda is an official language of South Africa. The Sotho-Tswana group (S30) includes Tswana, Northern Sotho, and Southern Sotho, all of which are cover terms for a number of related varieties. Sometimes also Lozi, spoken in western Zambia and Namibia’s Caprivi strip, is classified as a SothoTswana language. Standard forms of these languages are based on a majority variety, and smaller varieties are often threatened with marginalization. Tswana is an official language in Botswana and South Africa,
1018 Southern Bantu Languages
with about 4 million speakers. Northern Sotho, also Sesotho sa Leboa, is spoken in the northeast of South Africa by about 3.6 million speakers and is an official language of South Africa. Southern Sotho, or Sesotho, with more than 4 million speakers, is spoken in Lesotho and South Africa and it is an official language in both countries. The Nguni group (S40) is divided into Zunda varieties and Tekela varieties. Among the Zunda varieties are Xhosa, Zulu, and Zimbabwean Ndebele. Xhosa includes a number of different varieties. Zulu, with around 10.7 million speakers, and Xhosa, with around 7.2 million speakers, are official languages of South Africa. Zimbabwean Ndebele has official status in Zimbabwe. The Tekela varieties include Swati, South African Ndebele, and the smaller languages Phuthi and Lala (Lala-Bisa). Swati has around 1.6 million speakers and is an official language both in Swaziland and South Africa. The southern variety of South African Ndebele is an official language in South Africa, spoken by around 0.6 million speakers. The Tshwa-Ronga group (S50) includes Tshwa, Tsonga, and Ronga, all of which are spoken in Mozambique. Tshwa, with 0.7 million speakers, is also spoken in Zimbabwe, and Tsonga, with more than 3 million speakers, is also spoken in South Africa, where it is an official language. The Inhambane, or Copi, group (S60) includes two languages spoken in the Inhamabane area of Mozambique: Copi (Chopi), with around 0.5 million speakers, and GiTonga, with around 0.3 million speakers.
Structural Features Phonologically, southern Bantu languages are characterized by symmetric five (e.g., Nguni) or nine (e.g., Sotho) vowel systems, two tonal distinctions (high vs. low), and complex consonant systems, often including a three-way distinction between voiceless-aspirated, voiceless-unaspirated, and voiced stops and affricates, as well as several series of prenasalized consonants. A number of southern Bantu languages have borrowed click consonants from Khoisan languages during an extended period of contact, e.g., Xhosa, which has dental [|], alveolar [!] and lateral [||] clicks (written as c, q, and x). A comparatively untypical Bantu feature of southern Bantu languages are depressor consonants, an often phonologically heterogeneous group of consonants that cause a following high tone to lower, as in the Zulu example below, where the depressor consonant /z/ in the plural prefix causes the following high ¨ tone to shift to the following syllable, resulting in a different tone pattern:
(1) ı`sı´hla`lo` ‘chair’
ı`zı`hlaˆlo` ‘chairs’ ¨
Morphologically, southern Bantu languages, like the majority of Bantu languages, are characterized by their noun classes, and the agreement, or concord, system built on it, as well as by complex verbal morphology. Nouns are grouped into 15 to 20 noun classes that are morphologically marked by a noun class prefix, usually of CV shape and sometimes accompanied by a pre-prefix vowel (see Table 1). The noun class of the head noun triggers class agreement of dependent nominals, as well as subject and object concord (agreement) morphology in the inflected verb. The term agreement, although well established, can be misleading, as subject and object markers can function as subject and object, and no overt lexical NP is needed for a well-formed sentence, as the following Zulu example (from Poulos and Bosch, 1997) shows: (2) ngi-zo-ba-sebenz-el-a SM1sg-FUT-OM2-work-APPL-FIN ‘I will work for them’
In addition to subject and object markers, inflected verbs can show morphological marking of negation, tense, aspect and mood, typically prefixed to the verbal base. The verbal base consists of a root that may be suffixed by several derivational suffixes (so-called extensions), such as applicative, causative, stative, reciprocal, or passive. The following examples from Tswana show how causative and applicative extensions can be used to increase the number of nominal
Table 1 Noun class prefixes in southern Bantu languages Class
Shona
Venda
Sesotho
Zulu
Tsonga
Copi
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
muvamumiØmachizviNNrukatu(h)ukupakumusvizi-
muvhamumiIiˆ matshizwiNdziNluvhuufhukumukudiˆ
mobamomelemasediNdi(N)bogofagomo-
um(u)abaum(u)imii(li)amaisiizi¨ iNiziN¨ u(lu)ubuuku(pha-) (ku-) -
muvamumirimaxisviNti(N)rivukuhakumuji-
invainmidimatshisi(N-) ti(N)liwukuha-
Southern Bantu Languages 1019
complements of the verb (adapted from Creissels, 2004): (3a) ng-wa`na´ o´ no´-le´ NP1-child SM1 drink-PERF ‘the child drank milk’ (3b) ke` SM1sg.
no´-s-ı´tse´ ng-wa`na´ drink-CAUS- NP1PERF child ‘I made the child drink milk’
ma´-sˇı` NP6-milk ma´-sˇı` NP6milk
(3c) ke` no´-s-e´d-ı´tse´ Dimpho SM1sg. drink-CAUS-APPL-PERF Dimpho ng-wa`na´ ma´-sˇı` NP1-child NP6-milk ‘I made the child drink milk in Dimpho’s place’
A number of morphological features found in southern Bantu languages are not, or only rarely, found in other Bantu languages. In the domain of nominal morphology, these include the use of derivational suffixes for diminutives and feminines (e.g., in Zulu -ana and -kazi: indoda, ‘man’ and indodana, ‘son’; imbuzi ‘goat’ and imbuzikazi, ‘she-goat’), and the replacement of the locative classes by a locative prefix e-, a locative suffix -(i)ni, or a combination of both. Within verbal inflection, several southern Bantu languages show a distinction between so-called conjoint and disjoint verb forms (sometimes also called definite/indefinite or long/short forms) (Creissels, 1996); for example, in Zulu, verbs in the perfect tense may end in -e (short) or -ile (long) (Doke, 1963: 335): (4a) si-bon-e SM1pl-see-PERF ‘we saw people’
abantu people
(4b) si-ba-bon-ile abantu SM1pl-OM2-see-PERF people ‘we saw (them) the people’
The difference in use of the two forms depends on different factors, among them whether the verb is final in the verb phrase, as in (4b), where the object marker functions as the object of the verb, and the overt NP abantu following the verb is hence not part of the VP. In terms of syntax, southern Bantu languages, like most Bantu languages, have unmarked SVO order (see the examples in (3), above), but, especially in interaction with subject and object markers, the word order is syntactically comparatively free, and rather more constrained by information structure considerations. As an illustration of this, the following Xhosa examples show unmarked subject-verb order (5) and inverted verb-subject order (6) used to focus the subject a´ba´ntwa´na`, ‘children’, either existentially like in this example, or contrastively, as in
(7). Note that the subject marker in (6) and (7) is of the locative class 17 and thus does not show agreement with the subject (Du Plessis and Visser, 1992: 130–131): (5) a´ba´-ntwa´na` ba´-ya`-nge´na` NP2-children SM2-ya-enter ‘the children enter’ (6) ku`-nge´na` a´ba´-ntwa´na` NP2-children SM2-ya-enter ‘there enter children’ (7) ku`-se`be´nza` a´ma´-do´da`, ha´yi a´ba´-fa´zı` SM17-work NP6-men not NP2-women ‘there are men working, not women’
Although the major southern Bantu languages, those with large numbers of speakers and official status, are comparatively well-described, for a number of smaller southern Bantu languages, some of which are endangered, very little information exists, and descriptive studies are urgently needed. In a wider perspective, the contribution southern Bantu languages can make to general and theoretical linguistic studies has only begun to be fully addressed, and remains to be developed in all areas of linguistic research in the future.
Bibliography Bleek W H I (1862). A comparative grammar of South African languages 1: Phonology. Cape Town: J. C. Juta/ London: Tru¨bner & Co. Bleek W H I (1869). A comparative grammar of South African languages 1: The concord 1: The noun. Cape Town: J. C. Juta/London:Tru¨bner & Co. Brauner S (1995). A grammatical sketch of Shona. Ko¨ln: Ko¨ppe. Cole D T (1955). An introduction to Tswana grammar. Cape Town: Longman. Creissels D (1996). ‘Conjunctive and disjunctive verb forms in Setswana.’ South African Journal of African Languages 16, 109–114. Creissels D (2004). Non-canonical applicatives and focalization in Tswana, to appear in Syntax of the World’s Languages. Doke C (1935). Bantu linguistic terminology. London: Longman. Doke C (1954). The southern Bantu languages. London: Oxford University Press for the International African Institute. Doke C (1963). Textbook of Zulu grammar (6th edn.). Cape Town: Maskew, Miller, Longman. Du Plessis J A & Visser M (1992). Xhosa syntax. Pretoria: Via Afrika. Fortune G (1955). An analytical grammar of Shona. Cape Town: Longman. Gowlett D (2003). ‘Zone S.’ In Nurse D & Philippson G (eds.) The Bantu languages. London: Routledge. 609–638.
1020 Spanish Guthrie M (1967–1971). Comparative Bantu (4 vols). Farnborough: Gregg. Joffe D (2004). African Languages. Internet site. http:// africanlanguages.com. Accessed 18 Sept 2004. Lichtenstein M H K (1808). ‘Bemerkungen u¨ber die Sprachen der su¨dafrikanischen wilden Vo¨lkersta¨mme.’ Allgemeines Archiv fu¨r Ethnographie und Linguistik 1, 259–331. Olivier J (2004). South African Languages Web. Internet site. http://salanguages.com. Accessed 18 September 2004. Poulos G (1990). A linguistic analysis of Venda. Pretoria: Via Afrika.
Poulos G & Bosch S (1997). Zulu. Mu¨nchen: Lincom. Poulos G & Louwrens L J (1994). A linguistic analysis of Northern Sotho. Pretoria: Via Afrika. Poulos G & Msimang C (1998). A linguistic analysis of Zulu. Pretoria: Via Afrika. Torrend J (1891). A comparative grammar of the South African Bantu languages. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tru¨bner & Co. Statistics South Africa (2004). Census 2001: Primary tables South Africa. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Ziervogel D & Mabuza E J (1976). A grammar of the Swati language (siSwati). Pretoria: van Schaik.
Spanish R Wright, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Spanish is the standard language of over 300 million people in Spain, Equatorial Guinea, and 18 states in Latin America; it is also widely used in the United States, Israel, and in Western (former Spanish) Sahara. The standard is based on, and almost identical with, the Romance speech of Old Castile, which is why non-Castilians tend to call it castellano rather than espan˜ol and sometimes resent its privileged status; for according to the Spanish constitution, all Spaniards have the obligation to learn it and the right to use it, which has made both its use and its name serious and even dangerous political issues in areas where many people are native speakers of another language (see Catalan; Basque), or of the bables of Asturias.
History The Romans came to Spain during the Punic Wars of the late third century B.C. Their language has been spoken in the Peninsula ever since (see Latin; Romance Languages). Iberian Romance languages only began to acquire separate names and identities in the 13th century; until then it is simplest to envisage one single though heterogeneous Romance speech community throughout the Peninsula. The Romance (moza´rabe) of bilingual Arabic–Romance areas was probably barely influenced by Arabic and similar to that of Christian areas. The traditional writing techniques survived as the official written standard till the early 13th century, but the techniques used then in the first texts exclusively prepared in the new written form (‘Old Spanish’) are based on unofficial experimentations that can be traced from the 11th century.
Later in that century it was decided in the Kingdom of Castile (which included Leon and Galicia) to base their written standard on the speech of Castile. This written standard was extended to Aragon and Catalonia after the union of Spain in 1479, even though Aragonese and Catalan already had written standards of their own, and was the only written form exported to the New World. In the 18th century the newly founded Spanish Academy standardized written Castilian almost definitively. The spread of spoken Castilian is less easy to chart; many people fluently speak Catalan, Aragonese, Leonese, or Galician, but read or write only Castilian.
Phonetics and Phonology Standard Castilian has 18 consonantal phonemes: /b, p, d, t, g, k, f, y, s, x, tS, m, n, J, l, L, &, r/. /L/ has almost entirely delateralized to merge with /j/, often realized as [Z] or [dZ]; word-initially it derives from /pl-/ or /kl-/ (e.g., Latin clavem, Spanish llave ‘key’; cf., Portuguese chave ([S-]), Italian chiave ([kj-]), French clef ). Voiced plosives occur only breathgroup-initially or after nasal consonants, being so outnumbered by the fricative allophones used elsewhere that some linguists prefer to annotate the phonemes as /b, ð, g/. Preconsonantal nasals are homorganic. /s/ is realized [z] before a voiced consonant. In most of Andalucia and all of America there is no distinction made between /y/ and /s/; usually they merge as syllable-initial [s] and syllable-final [-h] (or ø), but in parts of rural Andalucia as [y]. The phonemic status of the two semi-vowels /w/ and /j/ is controversial; they might be allophones of /u/ and /i/, respectively. There are only five vowels: /a, e, i, o, u/. Rising diphthongs are much more common than falling. Schwa is not found, but synalepha at word boundaries is normal (diez y once /djeyionye/ [dje´yjo´nye] ‘ten and eleven’).
Spanish 1021
The preferred syllable structure is CV (ca., 56% of syllables), which overrides word boundaries (e.g., cual es, ‘which is’ [kwa þ les]). Stress is largely predictable, given morphological information; many monosyllables are clitic. Intonation rarely varies more than an octave.
Morphology The only nominal inflection is plural marking [-s] (postconsonantally [-es]). All nouns in use have to be either masculine or feminine gender, and adjectives display number and gender concord. There is an extensive system of verbal inflections; verbs are marked for number and person concord with their subjects. Several paradigms are in opposition according to mood, aspect, relative time, and subjective attitude, in ways still not entirely understood. The citation form is the infinitive, which always ends in a stressed theme vowel þ [-r]. The majority end in [-a´r], including all neologisms other than those with the inchoative affix -ecer; the rest end in [-e´r] or [-ı´r], conjugations most of whose other inflections are shared. Second person singulars tend to end in [-s], first person plurals always in [-mos], and third person plurals always in [-n]. Several verbs have systematically patterned variation in their stems, e.g., stressed [je] versus unstressed [e] (tener [tene´r] ‘to have’; tiene [tje´ne] ‘he has’), or stem-final [y] before front vowels versus [yk] before others (conocer [konoye´r] ‘to know’; conozco [kono´yko] ‘I know’). Irregular verbs usually belong to the [-er] or [-ir] category, combining irregular stems with regular inflections. Many verb forms employ auxiliaries, whose repertoire is numerous for progressives, while only haber is available for the perfect (thus he venido pensando ‘I’ve been thinking’; venir ‘come’); perfects are rarely used at all in northern Spain. Adverbs are formed off feminine adjectives with -mente. Derivational morphology is widely used; ostensible diminutives (-illo, -ito, and others) can be added to any nominal form with almost any meaning (depending on context and intonation); class-changing suffixes are used uninhibitedly (e.g., -al turns nouns into adjectives); meaningful prefixes are common, and the fashion for Verb þ Plural direct object compounds with agentive meaning is spreading (e.g., el tocadiscos, literally ‘the play-records,’ ‘the recordplayer’).
Syntax Sentences need no overt subject, e.g., comı´amos ‘we were eating,’ llueve ‘it’s raining.’ Some linguists unhelpfully postulate an underlying subject here. Adjectives follow nouns if clarifying the reference of the
NP, and precede it if the reference is already clear; if in doubt, listeners take the order to be NA. There is no general fixed order of verb and noun phrases; in general, the known precedes the unknown. Thus, Juan llego´ ‘John arrived,’ if John has already been discussed, and llego´ Juan if arrivals but not John have been discussed. SV order is never obligatory; VS is obligatory in wh-questions, outside the Caribbean, and normal in subordinate clauses (la casa en que vivı´a mi madre ‘the house my mother lived in’). OV order is obligatory when clitic pronouns accompany finite verbs (la vi, ‘I saw her’). A preposed nominal direct object requires a clitic copy, and in speech an indirect object in any position often has the same effect. Direct objects with particular reference, if misidentifiable otherwise as subjects, take a preposed a (a la reina la vio, vio a la reina, both ‘he saw the Queen’); since a marks both direct/and indirect objects, and several Spanish speakers make no formal differentiation between direct and indirect object pronouns either, this direct/indirect distinction may be lapsing. The only preposition that can normally link nouns within a noun phrase is a correspondingly meaningless de. Articles are preposed: the so-called ‘definite’ article (el, la, los, las) is also used in generalizations; partitive use is often marked by the lack of any article. The use of subjunctive or indicative mood is usually grammatically determined (e.g., pido que ‘I ask for’ is always followed by subjunctive), but the so-called ‘past subjunctive’ can also be used in subordinate clauses for already-known material; the ‘past’ subjunctive (which has two usually interchangeable paradigms) is in fact atemporal. Grammatically reflexive se is often used with passive or ‘impersonal middle’ meaning (se abrio´ la puerta ‘the door (was) opened’); occasionally, in VS sentences of this type but not SV, a plural subject is preceded by a verb with singular concord (sometimes se vende manzanas; usually se venden manzanas; never *manzanas se vende, ‘apples for sale’), but this is nowhere the normal usage; linguists have tried and signally failed to analyze this se as a subject.
Vocabulary The most startling fact about Spanish for an English speaker is the presence of two words for ‘to be’: estar (
1022 Sumerian
fish have different names, and the same word may be applied to different fish, in different ports, for example. Latin America has naturally adopted many local words of Indian provenance. Although the inherited vocabulary has been enriched by borrowings from Basque, Arabic, Catalan, French, Italian, Renaissance Latin, Nahuatl, Quechua, English, etc., most neologisms are more commonly formed via derivational morphology or semantic shift.
The Future Spanish has wide geographical variation but remains a single speech community with a general standard for all to style-shift toward in formal situations, for the Latin–American standard is very similar to the European and will remain so, given mass communications. Local variations grow beneath the standards, however. For example, bilingual Aymara speakers in Bolivia have adopted the Aymara evidential system into their Spanish morphology, and Guarani speakers in Paraguay have adopted Guarani nominal tensemarkers (e.g., mi noviakue, literally ‘my girl-friendpast,’ ‘my former girlfriend’). Areas that aspirate or lose final /s/ have thereby lost a second person singular inflection and acquired homonymy with the third person forms and use subject tu´ more in compensation; the formal second person (third person morphology, with subject usted(es)) is anyway decaying in some places but strong in others, and the system varies greatly in America. The study of linguistics in Spanish universities is now flourishing, lively, and fashionable, putting Spain (temporarily, perhaps) in the vanguard of modern Romance linguistics. There
is still a great deal to discover and explain. For that reason a bibliography largely confined to Englishlanguage works is necessarily partial and parochial.
Bibliography Corominas J & Pascual J A (1980–1991). Diccionario crı´tico etimolo´gico castellano e´ hispa´nico (6 vols). Madrid: Gredos. Del Valle J & Gabriel-Stheeman L (2002). The battle over Spanish between 1800 and 2000: language ideologies and Hispanic intellectuals. London: Routledge. Hualde J I et al. (2001). Introduccio´n a la lingu¨ı´stica espan˜ola. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipski J (1994). Latin American Spanish. London: Longman. Mackenzie I (2001). A linguistic introduction to Spanish. Munich: Lincom Europa. Mar-Molinero C (2000). The politics of language in the Spanish-speaking world. London: Routledge. Penny R (2000). Variation and change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Penny R (2002). A history of the Spanish language (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pountain C (2001). A history of the Spanish language through texts. London: Routledge. Pountain C (2003). Exploring the Spanish language. London: Arnold. Silva-Corvala´n C (1989). Sociolingu¨ı´stica: teorı´a y ana´lisis. Madrid: Alhambra. Stewart M (1999). The Spanish language today. London: Routledge. Tuten D N (2003). Koineization in Medieval Spanish. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Whitley M S (2002). Spanish/English contrasts (2nd edn.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Sumerian G Cunningham, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sumerian – a long-dead language isolate documented throughout the Middle East, in particular in the south of what is now Iraq – rivals ancient Egyptian as the earliest written language. The first sources date to the late 4th millennium B.C.E. and the last to the 1st century C.E . When the language ceased to be spoken is uncertain: some estimates date this to the early 2nd millennium B.C.E. It was subsequently an elite language, used only in royal, ritual, and scholarly contexts. The language’s users referred to it as eme gir,
possibly meaning ‘native tongue’, the term Sumerian being an anglicization of Akkadian Sˇumeru. The grammar outlined here is based on documents from the far south in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E., benefiting from unpublished work by Bram Jagersma, but it applies broadly to other places and periods.
Phonology Fifteen consonants are used in transliterating Sumerian:
Sumerian 1023
certain environments, and eight vowel phonemes, short and long
Word Classes Nouns and verbs are the primary open word classes. In addition to numerals, the language has small closed classes of adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, circumpositions, and interjections, as well as related sets of pronouns (personal, demonstrative, indefinite, interrogative, and reflexive) and determiners (possessive, demonstrative, and an indefinite). Most determiners cliticize to whatever class of word precedes them, as do plural marking and case marking. In the cuneiform script used to record Sumerian, lexical words are typically written logographically and all function morphemes (bases, clitics, and affixes) phonographically. Signs that constitute a word are linked by hyphens in transliteration, as are enclitics to their host. Given our uncertainty about the phonological form of many words, transliteration is simply a sign-by-sign representation of what was written.
Morphology In terms of morpheme segmentation, Sumerian is more agglutinating than fusional. Inflectional affixation is restricted to verbs. Like verbs, nouns and adjectives can have reduplicated bases. Possibly, in nouns this expresses universality, in dynamic verbs iterativity, and in stative verbs intensity; its function in adjectives is unclear. New nouns are mainly formed by compounding; new verbs are formed as by multiword expressions in which a noun and verb combine as a semantic unit, resulting in many three-place transitive predicates, such as: g˜isˇ tag wood touch ‘touch wood to something (i.e., sacrifice something)’
Nouns and Phrases Nouns are marked for gender, although this distinction appears morphologically in only the pronominal morphemes and syntactically only in restrictions
that relate to plural and case marking. The gender distinction is between human (people and deities) and nonhuman (animals and inanimates), with some socially conditioned exceptions; in addition, nonhuman pronominal morphemes can refer to groups of people or deities. Only human nouns are marked for number. At the level of the noun phrase, the language is left-headed, the sequence in outline being: noun, modifier(s), determiner, plural marker, case marker
although the indefinite and most demonstrative determiners do not occur with modifiers. Case markers typically indicate the syntactic role of the phrase in the clause. The core functions of the subject and direct object are marked by the ergative (e ¼ transitive subject) and absolutive (Ø ¼ intransitive subject and transitive direct object). Zero-marking is also used for personal pronouns as subject of both intransitive and transitive verbs. Noun phrases with a noun as head consequently follow ergative-absolutive alignment, whereas those with a personal pronoun as head follow nominative-accusative alignment. Personal pronouns occur infrequently (expressing emphasis or contrast); the language has person-number-gender (PNG) affixes in the finite verbal forms that index these core functions. Table 1 shows the noncore adverbial case markers, arranged to reflect their relationship with a more nuanced set of morphemes incorporated in finite verbal forms. Like case markers, the verbal prefixes are postpositional in that they can be preceded by a noncore PNG prefix (see Table 2). A further case marker, the genitive, is typically adnominal, marking noun phrase to noun phrase relations. It encompasses a much wider semantic field than possession. Genitive noun phrases may occur in the modifier(s) slot: bad3 iri kug-ga-ka-ni bad iri kug ¼ ak ¼ ani ¼ Ø wall city holy ¼ GEN ¼ POSS.3.SING ¼ ABS ‘her wall in the Holy City’
(In this example, the first line is a transliteration of the script, in which the subscript numeral in bad3 is a modern convention that distinguishes between homophonous signs; the second line is a morphemic representation, in which ¼ marks a clitic boundary.) This example indicates two characteristics of the script: (1) There is not always a one-to-one correspondence between morpheme and sign and (2) the reduplicated writings of consonants often appear to have no phonological implications.
1024 Sumerian Table 1 Sumerian noncore case morphemes Phrase-final enclitic
Local Dative (human only) Directive (nonhuman only)a Dative (human only) Directive (nonhuman only)a Dative (human only) Locative (nonhuman only) Locative (nonhuman only) Terminative Ablative Comitative Manner Equative Adverbiative a
Translation guide
Equivalent verbal prefix
r(a) e r(a) e r(a) a a sˇ(e) ta d(a)
‘to/for’
Dative
a
‘in(to) contact with’
Directivea
i
‘on(to)’
Directivea
‘in(to)’ ‘to(ward)’ ‘from’ ‘(together) with’
Locative (nonhuman only) Terminative Ablative Comitative
i and y (>e) n(i) sˇi ta da
gin esˇ
‘like’ ‘in the manner of’
None None
The directive is sometimes referred to as the locative-terminative.
Table 2 Sumerian finite verba Extra-inflectional prefixes
Noncore prefixes
Core affixes and verbal base
a(l ) or i Clause connective: nga Cislocative: m(u) Middle passive: ba
Noncore PNG
Core PNG
Dative Comitative Ablative or terminative Directive or locative
Verbal base Aspect: e(d) or Ø Core PNG
a
PNG ¼ person-number-gender marker.
When genitive noun phrases express only possession, they have two characteristics: They are in complementary distribution with possessive determiners, and they can be shifted to the beginning of the clause, in which case a possessive determiner then is added to the original phrase (NHUM stands for nonhuman): e2-a ni2 e ¼ ak ni temple ¼ GEN awesomeness gal-bi gal ¼ bi ¼ Ø great ¼ POSS.3.NHUM ¼ ABS ‘the temple’s great awesomeness’
Here the genitive is written a, the form used when it is not followed by a vowel.
Verbs and Clauses Given that the dependents of a verb can be expressed in pronominal form by verbal affixes, a clause can consist only of a finite verb. However, in a clause that
includes noun phrases, the language is right-headed, the typical order being subject(–object)–verb. A few verbs are irregular, having a different base depending on aspect and/or number; they can be divided into two major classes: reduplicating and suppletive. Plural bases are restricted to suppletive verbs; they are mostly used with a plural intransitive subject or direct object and thus follow ergativeabsolutive alignment. The Sumerian aspect and/or tense categories are difficult to reconstruct. Many Sumerologists have adopted instead two terms used by Akkadian grammarians, hamt. u (‘quick’) and maruˆ (‘fat’). However, ˘ the principal distinction in finite verbal forms may be between completive and incompletive aspects (hamt. u and maruˆ, respectively). Nonfinite forms are ˘ more nuanced and have stronger temporal connotations, distinguishing between completive (typically with past reference), habitual (typically with present reference), and incompletive (typically with nonpast reference). Stative verbs are excluded from incompletive aspect and only context indicates whether they have past or nonpast reference. In nonfinite verbal forms, intransitive stative verbs are in completive aspect and transitive ones are in habitual aspect. The copular verb is also excluded from incompletive aspect. It conjugates like an intransitive verb and is attested in both enclitic (prefixless) and independent forms. Nonfinite verbal forms function as verbal adjectives and nouns, and in nonfinite relative and adverbial clauses (for example, of purpose and time). Their inflection comprises a prefix expressing negation, base reduplication, and an aspect suffix ( a ¼ completive;
Sumerian 1025 Table 3 Sumerian core (subject and direct object) affixes in finite verb
1 HUM SING 2 HUM SING 3 HUM SING 3 NHUM 1 HUM PL 2 HUM PL 3 HUM PL
Intransitive
Transitive
Both aspects
Completive aspect
Subject suffix
Subject prefix or circumfix
en en
Ø Ø enden enzen esˇ
y( >e) n b . . . enden y(>e) . . . enzen n. . .esˇ
Ø ¼ habitual; ed(a) ¼ incompletive). In addition, irregular verbs have a different base in incompletive aspect. As Table 2 indicates, the morphology of finite verbal forms can be much more complex, although a form may be as simple as a prefix, a base, and a subject affix. In addition to the base changing of irregular verbs, finite intransitive forms are marked for aspect with a suffix and transitive forms are marked with the morphology of the core PNG affixes. Setting aside plural PNG affixes, some of which are poorly attested whereas others are circumfixes, Table 3 shows that alignment in completive aspect follows ergativeabsolutive principles; in incompletive aspect, it is nominative-accusative in the first and second persons but tripartite in the third person. Partly on morphological grounds and partly because they have clausal scope, further bound morphemes can be regarded as clitics. These include an enclitic relativizer-complementizer a and a set of proclitics that either connect clauses, such as u ‘after’, or change mood or polarity (CISL stands for cislocative): hu-mu-na-ab-sˇum2-mu h˘ u¼mu-nn-a-b-sˇum-u ˘ M¼CISL-3.SING-DAT-DO.3.NHUM-give-SUBJ.3.SING ‘he must give it to him’
This example illustrates a further characteristic of the script: There is not always a one-to-one correspondence between sound syllable and sign, [nab] being written
Incompletive aspect Direct object suffix en en
Ø Ø enden enzen esˇ
Direct object prefix
y( >e) n b or Ø me
— nne
Subject suffix en en e e enden enzen ene
Neither the cohortative (first person) nor the imperative (second person) distinguishes aspect, having instead hybrid forms that combine completive bases with incompletive direct object affixes. Both delete the singular intransitive and transitive subject and can therefore be regarded as following nominative-accusative alignment. The imperative is further irregular in that it is formed not with prefixes but with suffixes.
Resources The most comprehensive grammar of Sumerian is Attinger (1993: 141–314), although in places it requires familiarity with an earlier, subsequently expanded, publication, Thomsen (2001). No full print dictionary has been published; a web-based dictionary is under development.
Bibliography Attinger P (1993). E´le´ments de linguistique sume´rienne: la construction de duıı/e/di ‘‘dire’’. Fribourg, Switzerland/ Go¨ttingen: E´ditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Thomsen M-L (2001). The Sumerian language: an introduction to its history and grammatical structure (3rd edn.). Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Relevant Websites http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/ – Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/ – Sumerian web-based dictionary.
1026 Swahili
Swahili L Marten, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Swahili is a Bantu language spoken by over 50 million (first- and second-language) speakers in East Africa, including Tanzania and Kenya, where it is a national language, and parts of Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mozambique. In terms of classification, Swahili belongs to the Sabaki group of the Northeast Coast Bantu languages, and it is part of group G of Guthrie’s (1967–1971) referential classification. Like many Bantu languages, Swahili has elaborate noun class and agreement systems, and complex verbal morphology.
used as a language of administration, especially by the German colonialists in Tanganyika, but it was also a language of interethnic communication in the anticolonial struggle. After independence, Swahili became the national language of Tanzania and Kenya, in both countries sharing the status as official language with English. In Tanzania, and to a lesser extent in Kenya, Swahili is widely used in public administration, education (especially primary education), and the media. Especially in the urban centers, Swahili is increasingly the first language of younger Tanzanians and Kenyans. Swahili is also used to varying degrees in Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mozambique. Outside of East Africa, there are Swahili-speaking communities in the Gulf states and in many Western countries, including the UK (often East-African Indians), and Swahili is taught as a foreign language in language schools and universities throughout the world.
Language History Swahili has been spoken on the East African coast since approximately 800 A.D., after Bantu-speaking people from the Great Lakes region reached the coast. The earliest Swahili speakers, after the language separated from those Sabaki languages most closely related to it, probably settled in northern Kenya on the mouth of the river Tana. Due to the maritime trading of the Swahili, the language became established in Swahili settlements along the coast from Mogadishu in the north to Cap Delgado in the south. Still today, the majority of first-language speakers of Swahili live on the East African coast of Tanzania and Kenya and the adjacent islands. Through continuous contact with Arab traders, many Swahili became Muslims, and a large number of loanwords from Arabic have entered the language over the centuries, leading sometimes to the mistaken believe that Swahili is a mixed language. The Swahili coastal city-states became important centers of the Indian Ocean trade, and in the wake of increasing political and economic power, Swahili poetry flourished, in particular in the Lamu (Kiamu), Pate (Kipate), and Mombasa (Kimvita) dialects, with the earliest surviving Swahili manuscripts, written in Arabic script, dating to the first half of the 18th century. In the 19th century, Zanzibar became part of, and indeed the capital of, the Sultanate of Oman, and the Zanzibar Swahili dialect Kiunguja became more prestigious. During this period, Swahili traders established trade routes into the area beyond the coast, and the language spread with it. During the colonial period, Swahili was
Standard Swahili There are a number of Swahili dialects spoken today, including the dialects of the Lamu archipelago (Kiamu, Kisiu, Kipate) and Kimvita, associated with classical Swahili literature, and Kiunguja, the dialect of Zanzibar town. Chimwiini and Bajuni, the traditional Swahili dialects of the Somali coast, are currently highly endangered due to the displacement of the Swahili-speaking communities in Somalia, and there are today probably more speakers in Kenya. Comparatively little is known about the more southern Swahili dialects such as Kingome spoken on Mafia island. A distinct variety of Swahili is also spoken in Lubumbashi and the Shaba province in the Democratic Republic of Congo. More recently, distinct urban varieties of Swahili are emerging, for example, the mixed code Sheng of Nairobi. The most important variety of Swahili today is the so-called Standard Swahili (Kiswahili sanifu). Since the beginning of the 19th century, various bodies, political and missionary, have made proposals for the development of a standard variety of Swahili. Missionaries began to write Swahili in Roman script, and in 1930 the British-run Inter-territorial Language Committee established the standard form of Swahili based on Kiunguja, which is used today. After independence, strong efforts were made by East African governments to develop Swahili further through research as well as through vocabulary development and standardization, e.g., through the Baraza la Kiswahili la Taifa (National Swahili Council) and the Taasisi
Swahili 1027
ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili (Institute for Swahili Research) in Tanzania. While the development and status of Swahili is often, and rightly, cited as a successful example for the use of an African language as a modern national and official language in postcolonial Africa, it is also leading to an increasing endangerment of Swahili dialects and many of the about 200 languages spoken in Kenya and Tanzania, a problem which has been addressed only recently.
Structure Swahili exhibits typical Bantu structural characteristics such as an articulated noun class system and morphologically marked agreement between different constituents of clauses and sentences. The morphology is complex and Swahili is often classified as an agglutinating language. Word order, especially within the sentence, is syntactically comparatively free and often motivated by information structure. A remarkable difference from most other Bantu languages is the absence of tone in Swahili. Noun Classes
A noun class system can be thought of as being halfway between a grammatical gender system as in German or French, and classifier systems as found, for example, in Thai or Chinese. In Swahili, every noun is assigned to a specific noun class, and noun classes are in general marked by a class prefix. Thus, for example, the word mtoto ‘child’ consists morphologically of the noun class prefix m- and
the stem -toto. Noun classes often express number distinction, so that watoto, with a different noun class prefix wa-, means ‘children.’ It is customary in Bantu linguistics to group noun classes according to a numerical system first proposed by Bleek (1869) (see Table 1). Swahili has 16 different noun classes, which have a more or less transparent semantic base. Nouns in classes 1 and 2 denote only humans (but not all humans are in class 1/2), class 14 is used to refer to abstract qualities, class 15 has verbal infinitives, and classes 16–18 are locative classes. For the remaining classes, the semantic base is less obvious. For example, class 3/4 contains a number of words denoting plants and trees, class 9/10 contains names of animals, and class 6 contains liquids. However, in all of these, there are many words that do not fit a semantic characterization. Another use of the noun classes is for nominal derivation, by shifting nouns from one class to the other. For example, shifting nouns into class 7/8 denotes diminutive: kitoto ‘a small child,’ while class 6 can be used to express a group of individuals, rather than just plurality: fisi (class 10), ‘hyenas,’ mafisi (class 6) ‘a pack of hyenas.’ Agreement
The noun classes are important for the agreement system of Swahili, as adjectives, demonstratives, and relative clauses show their syntactic relationship with their nominal head through agreement affixes, or concords. Similarly, verbal agreement morphology
Table 1 Swahili noun classes and agreement Class
Noun class prefix a
Example word
Concord b
Relative concord
Possessive concord
Dem prox
Dem ref
Dem non-prox
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16c 17c 18c
m wa m mi ji ma ki vi n n u u ku pa ku mu
mtu ‘person’ watu ‘people’ mti ‘tree’ miti ‘trees’ jicho ‘eye’ macho ‘eyes’ kiti ‘chair’ viti ‘chairs’ ndege ‘bird’ ndege ‘birds’ ubao ‘board’ uhuru ‘freedom’ kuimba ‘to sing’
a/yu wa u i li ya ki vi i zi u u ku pa ku mu
ye o o yo lo yo cho vyo yo zo o o ko po ko mo
wa wa wa ya la ya cha vya ya za wa wa kwa pa kwa mwa
huyu hawa huu hii hili haya hiki hivi hii hizi huu huu huku hapa huku humu
huyo hao huo hiyo hilo hayo hicho hivyo hiyo hizo huo huo huko hapo huko humo
yule wale ule ile lile yale kile vile ile zile ule ule kule pale kule mule
a
Noun class prefix is also used for adjective agreement. Concord is used as SM, OM (except in class 1, where SM ¼ a-, OM ¼ m(w)-). c There are no words in classes 16–18; these are only used in agreement. b
1028 Swahili
marks subjects and objects of the verb. For example, in (1), the demonstrative pronoun and the adjective show their syntactic relation to the head noun vitabu (of class 8) by the concord morpheme vi-. (1) vi-tabu vi-le vi-zuri books those beautiful ‘those beautiful books’
The shape of agreement affixes is not always identical with the noun class prefix. While the agreement morpheme is identical to the noun class prefix in the case of adjective agreement, with demonstratives, it may have a different shape, as for example with a class 6 head noun, where the noun class prefix is ma-, but the agreement morpheme of the demonstrative is ya- (see Table 1 for an overview of these forms in all classes):
Verbs show agreement with subjects and objects, by means of subject (SM) and object markers (OM), as in (3): wa-zazi NP2parents
Inflected Swahili verbs are, as already seen above, morphologically comparatively complex. In a morphological template for Swahili verbs, ten positions can be identified. Not all of these positions can be filled at the same time, but normally, at least positions 2, 4, 8, and 9 are filled (as in example [5]). Six and seven positions are filled in (6) and (7): 1 2 3 Pre SM Post Initial Initial Neg Neg 7 8 OM Verbal Base
4 Tense Marker
5 6 Relative Stem Marker marker
9 Final
10 Post Final Plural
(5) wa-ta-som-a SM2-FUT-read-FIN ‘they will read’
(2) ma-chungwa ya-le ma-zuri oranges those beautiful ‘those beautiful oranges’
(3) m-toto a-li-wa-angali-a child SM1-PAST-OM2look_at-FIN
Verbal Morphology
w-ake CD2his/ her
‘the child looked at his/her parents’
The term ‘agreement’ in relation to verbs can be misleading, as no overt noun phrases are needed for a grammatical sentence; in (4) the subject and object marker function more like pronouns in languages like English: (4) a-li-wa-angali-a SM1-PAST-OM2-look_at-FIN ‘s/he looked at them’
The subject marker is an obligatory part of the inflected verbs in most tenses, while the object marker is (near) obligatory with human objects, but is used according to semantic and pragmatic considerations (for example, to indicate a specific object or discourse topic) with all other classes. A number of aspects of the Swahili agreement system pose interesting problems from a theoretical perspective, for example the resolution of agreement with conjoined NPs, or the exact characterization of the status of object agreement. Furthermore, the relation of the Swahili agreement system to the systems of other Bantu (and indeed non-Bantu) languages provides a good testing ground for comparative and historical studies.
(6) wa-na-o-ku-j-a SM2-PRES-REL2-STEM-come-FIN ‘they who come’ (7) ha-wa-ta-ku-ambi-e-ni NEG-SM2-FUT-OM2-tell-FIN-PL ‘they will not tell you (pl.)’
In addition to inflectional morphology, verbs can be modified by a number of derivational suffixes, or extensions, suffixed to the verbal root before the final. For example, the causative of soma ‘read’ is somesha ‘cause to read, teach.’ Verbal extensions change the meaning of the base verb and in many cases interact in complex ways with the valency of the base. Among the most productive extensions in Swahili are passive (-w-), causative (-ish-, -esh-), applicative (-i-, -e-), neutro-passive (-ik-, -ek-), separative (-u-, -o-), reciprocal (-an-), and stative-positional (-am-). The surface forms of these morphemes is determined by phonological processes such as vowel harmony. For example, funga ‘tie, open,’ fungua ‘untie, close,’ fungia ‘tie for/with someone/something,’ fungika ‘be closable,’ fungana ‘fasten together,’ fungwa ‘be closed,’ funguliwa ‘be opened’ (separative and passive), and fungiana ‘tie for each other’ (applicative and reciprocal). The last two examples show that more than one extension can be used. The exact meaning and function of extended verbs depends very much on the meaning of the base verb and on the (syntactic and nonsyntactic) context in which they are used. Syntax
The basic word order of Swahili in the phrase is headmodifier, and SVOA in the sentence (8). However,
Swahili 1029
word order can be changed to adapt to the specific discourse-pragmatic situation. Often focused elements are placed at the right periphery of the sentence or phrase, and topicalized elements at the left periphery (9, 10, adapted from Ashton, 1947: 301): (8) Asha a-li-m-kut-a Juma njia-ni. Asha SM1-PAST-OM1- Juma 9.street-LOC meet-FIN ‘Asha met Juma in the street’ (9) ndoo 10.buckets
hizi these
zi-jaz-e ma-ji OM10-fill- NP6-water SUBJ ‘these buckets, fill them with water’
(10) zi-jaz-e ma-ji ndoo OM10-fill-SUBJ NP6-water 10.buckets ‘fill the buckets (not tin cans) with water’
Within the noun phrase, a common strategy to change word order is so-called possessor raising, where in a genitive construction the possessor, which normally follows the possessed, is fronted. In (11), within the subject NP, mtoto yule is possessor-raised (cf. mambo ya(ke) mtoto yule yamenichosha). In (12), Sudi is possessor-raised (cf. wale wanaojua tabia ya(ke) Sudi): (11) m-toto yule ma-mbo yake NP1-child this NP6-affairs his ya-me-ni-chosh-a SM6-PERF-OM1sg-make_tired-FIN ‘as for this child, his affairs make me tired’ (12) . . . hasa wale . . . especially those wa-na-o-m-ju-a Sudi tabia yake SM2-PRES-REL2-OM1-know-FIN Sudi character his ‘. . . especially those who know Sudi’s character’ (Kibao, 1975: 50)
Note that in (12), the object marker agrees with Sudi, which is not actually the structural object of -jua. Similarly, Maw (1970) reports that in sentences such as (11), ‘subject’ agreement both with subject, as in (11), but also with the possessor-raised topic are possible (i.e., amenichosha). As mentioned above, further work is needed on the analysis of agreement. Another area of interaction between word order, syntactic function, and agreement are so-called locative inversion structures. In (13), the locative is fronted and the logical subject follows the verb (cf. watu wengi wamelala humu nyumbani). Note that the subject marker agrees with the locative phrase, making it the grammatical subject. In (14), the subject marker ‘agrees’ with an unexpressed locative, and
the subject follows the verb (cf. hotuba mbali mbali zikatolewa): (13) humu nyumba-ni m-me-lal-a in_here house-LOC SM18-PERF-sleep-FIN watu wengi people many ‘many people are asleep in this house’ (Ashton, 1947: 300) (14) pa-ka-tol-ew-a hotuba mbali mbali SM16-CONSECspeeches different take_out-PASS-FIN ‘and there were held different speeches’ (Kibao, 1975: 50)
Like with many Bantu languages, the formal study of Swahili syntax is only at its beginning, and many constructions, including some of the ones mentioned here, await further analysis.
Bibliography Ashton E O (1947). Swahili grammar (2nd edn.). Harlow: Longman. Bleek W H I (1869). A comparative grammar of South African languages. Part 1: the concord. Section 1: the noun. Cape Town, London: J. C. Juta and Tru¨bner & Co. Githiora C (2002). ‘Sheng: peer language, Swahili dialect or emerging creole?’ Journal of African Cultural Studies 15, 159–181. Guthrie M (1967–1971). Comparative Bantu (4 vols). Farnborough: Gregg. Johnson F (1939). A standard Swahili–English dictionary. Nairobi/Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press. Kibao S A (1975). Matatu ya thamani. Nairobi: Heinemann. Krifka M (1983). Zur semantischen und pragmatischen Motivation syntaktischer Regularita¨ten: Eine Studie zur Wortstellung und Wortstellungsvera¨nderung im Swahili. Munich: Fink. Krifka M (1995). ‘Swahili.’ In Jacobs J, Stechow A von, Sternefeld W & Vennemann T (eds.) Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1397–1418. Marten L (2000). ‘Agreement with conjoined noun phrases in Swahili.’ Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 64: Swahili Forum VII, 75–96. Maw J (1970). ‘Some problems in Swahili clause structure.’ African Language Studies 11, 257–71. Miehe G & Mo¨hlig W J G (eds.) (1995). Swahili-Handbuch. Cologne: Ko¨ppe. Mohamed M A (2001). Modern Swahili grammar. Nairobi: East Afircan Educational Publishers. Nurse D & Hinnebusch T J (1993). Swahili and Sabaki: a linguistic history. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nurse D & Spear T (1985). The Swahili: reconstructing the history and language of an African society, 800–1500. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Polome´ E C (1967). Swahili language handbook. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
1030 Swedish Sacleux C (1909). Grammaire swahilie. Paris: Procure de PP. du Saint-Esprit. Sacleux C (1939). Dictionnaire swahili-franc¸ais. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie. Schadeberg T C (1992). A sketch of Swahili morphology. Cologne: Ko¨ppe.
Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili (1981). Kamusi ya Kiswahili Sanifu (Dictionary of Standard Swahili). Nairobi, Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press. Whiteley W H (1969). Swahili: the rise of a national language. London: Methuen.
Swedish K Bo¨rjars, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Swedish is spoken natively by 8.5–9 million people in Sweden and by 250 000–300 000 people in Finland. It is a Germanic language, part of the North Germanic branch, along with Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Faroese. There is a fair degree of mutual intelligibility between Swedish and the other socalled mainland Scandinavian languages. The early historical stages of the North Germanic languages are normally divided into an eastern group (the dialects of the present Norway, Iceland, and Faroe Islands) and a western group (the dialects of Sweden and Denmark), As the language situation developed and Danish and Swedish crystallized as two separate languages, a north–south division became increasingly appropriate. The year 1526 is normally taken as the beginning of Modern Swedish, at which time Sweden won independence from Denmark and the first Swedish translation of the New Testament began to be circulated. The language was originally written in runes carved in stone, but early Christian missionaries brought the idea of writing on parchment and with it the Latin alphabet. There are books preserved from as early as the beginning of the 13th century. The modern Swedish alphabet contains 28 letters; the same as those of the English alphabet, except that there is no ‘w’ and there are three additional letters at the end of the alphabet (a˚, a¨, and o¨). Swedish underwent a spelling reform in 1906 and its spelling is now quite regular, though there are a few sounds that can be represented in a number of different ways, most notoriously /S/, which can be spelled sk, sj, stj, skj, ch, and sch, and /j/, which can be spelled j, gj, hj, dj, and lj. Phonologically, Swedish is characterized by a relatively large number of vowels. The 18 vowels are frequently grouped into nine pairs; the main difference within each pair is length, but there are also
associated differences in quality. Standard Swedish does not have phonemic diphthongs, though the pronunciation of long vowels may involve some diphthongization. The consonants are also realized as long or short, with little or no difference in quality. Long sounds may only occur in stressed syllables and every stressed syllable must contain either a long vowel or a long (or double) consonant. When any of the consonants /t d s n l/ immediately precede /r/, the two consonants are then realized as a retroflex, /< B § 0 U/, respectively. Swedish, apart from the Swedish spoken in Finland, makes a distinction that is often referred to as tonal, i.e., there is a difference between Accent I (or akut accent) and Accent II (or grav accent). The distinction is one of word accent. The difference between the two accents is mainly one of pitch, but Accent II, which is limited to bi- and polysyllabic words, has an effect of some secondary stress on the syllable immediately following the syllable with main stress. There are a number of minimal pairs in the language, distinguished only by Accent I versus Accent II, as in Examples (1a) and (1b), where I or II indicates the type of accent (abbreviation: DEF, definite): (1a) Itomten yard.DEF (1b) Ianden duck.DEF
tomten gnome/father Christmas.DEF II
anden spirit.DEF II
Swedish verb morphology is relatively simple, with no agreement marking in any tense. The present–past distinction is made morphologically, whereas perfect aspect is marked by the auxiliary ha ‘have,’ followed by a form of the verb referred to as the ‘supine.’ For passive, there is both a morphological and a syntactic version, and a number of subtle factors influence the choice between the two. A paradigm for the verb kittla ‘tickle.INFINITIVE’ is provided in Example (2) (SG, singular; PL, plural; PRES, present; PERF, perfect; S PASS, BLI PASS, morphological and syntactic passive; FEM, feminine):
Swedish 1031 (2)
SINGULAR
PLURAL
1
jag
vi
2
du
ni
3
hon(FEM)
de
PRESENT
PAST
PERFECT (PRES)
-S PASSIVE
BLI PASSIVE
kittlar
kittlade
har kittlat
kittlas
blev kittlad
Noun phrases, on the other hand, have richer morphology, including agreement marking on modifiers. The masculine and feminine genders have merged into one, usually referred to as common gender (or utrum) and marked by -n in singular, which contrasts with neuter, marked by -t. In the plural and definite noun phrases, the gender distinction is neutralized. Definiteness is marked morphologically on nouns, and a singular count noun in its definite form can function as a referential noun phrase without any need for a syntactic determiner (see Examples (3a)–(3c)); without the definiteness marking, a syntactic determiner is required for the noun to function as a full noun phrase, as illustrated by Examples (4a) and (4b). When a modifier precedes the noun, a syntactic determiner is also required. In most cases, the noun retains its morphological marking, giving rise to so-called double definiteness, as Examples (5a)–(5c) show. Most modifiers show agreement with respect to gender (in singular indefinite), number, and definiteness. This is illustrated for definite noun phrases (Example (5)) and for indefinite ones (Example (6)). The definite–indefinite distinction on modifiers is commonly referred to as a weak–strong distinction in the literature. Case marking is found only on pronouns in Swedish (DEF, definite; COM, common; NEUT, neuter; INDEF, indefinite). (3a) gris-en pig-DEF.COM. ‘the pig’
(3c) gris-ar-na pig-PL-DEF.PL ‘the pigs’ gris pig
(5b) det hungrig-a the.NEUT hungry-DEF ‘the hungry animal’
(6a) en ren a.COM clean.COM.SG.INDEF ‘a clean pig’ (6b) ett hungrig-t a.NT hungry-NEUT.SG.INDEF ‘a hungry animal’ (6c) tva˚ hungriga grisar/ two hungry.PL pigs/ ‘two hungry pigs/animals’
gris pig djur animal djur animals
There is also a participle form, distinct from the supine, that is used attributively and predicatively and that agrees in gender and number, in a way similar to adjectives; this is illustrated in Examples (7a) and (7b) (PART, participle): (7a) Brevet a¨r skrivet letter.DEF.NEUT be.PRES write.PART.NEUT fo¨r hand. by hand. ‘The letter is written by hand.’ (7b) ett slarvigt skrivet a.NEUT carelessly write.PART.NEUT.SG brev letter ‘a carelessly written letter’
(8a) Bjo¨rni a¨ter hansj smo¨rga˚sar. [i 6¼ j] Bjo¨rn eat.FIN POSS.MASC sandwich.PL ‘Bjo¨rn is eating his sandwiches.’
(4b) ett djur a.NEUT animal ‘an animal’ (5a) den ren-a the.COM clean-DEF ‘the clean pig’
gris-ar-na pig-PL-DEF.PL
A striking property of Swedish is also that the possessive determiner exists in a reflexive and a nonreflexive form. The reflexive is used roughly in those environments in which a pronoun replacing the whole noun phrase would have to occur in its reflexive form. In Example (8a), then, Bjo¨rn is eating someone else’s sandwiches, whereas in Example (8b), he is eating his own sandwiches (POSS, possessive; MASC, masculine; REFL, reflexive):
(3b) djur-et animal-DEF.NEUT ‘the animal’
(4a) en a.COM ‘a pig’
(5c) de ren-a the.PL clean.DEF ‘the clean pigs’
gris-en pig-DEF.COM djur-et animal-DEF
sinai smo¨rga˚sar. (8b) Bjo¨rni a¨ter Bjo¨rn eat.FIN POSS.REFL.PL sandwich.PL ‘Bjo¨rn is eating his (own) sandwiches.’
The possessive reflexive agrees with its noun for number and gender much like an adjective; it does not, however, mark the gender of the possessor, unlike the nonreflexive form.
1032 Swedish
Like the other North Germanic languages, Swedish is a verb-second language. This means that main clause word order is built around the finite verb in the second position. The initial phrase will either be the subject or will have some special information structural status, such as topic or focus, or will be an adverbial phrase, often a so-called scene-setting adverbial phrase. Some examples are provided in the following sentences: (9a) Philip gillar matematik. Philip like.PRES mathematics ‘Philip likes mathematics.’ (9b) Dinosaurier gillar Dinosaur.PL like.PRES ‘Nils likes dinosaurs.’
Nils. Nils
(9c) Under sa¨ngen hittade Ellen under bed.DEF find.PAST Ellen inte na˚gra sockor. not some sock.PL ‘Ellen didn’t find any socks under the bed.’
Any phrasal constituent can then precede the finite verb, including clauses, as illustrated in Example (10): (10) Att han ma˚ste ha hja¨lm na¨r that he must have.INF helemet when han cyklar gillar Robin inte. he cycle.FIN like.FIN Robin not ‘Robin does not like the fact that he has to wear a helmet when he cycles.’
The word order in the part of a main clause that follows the finite verb is usually described as relatively firm, with the order shown in Example (11): (11) Main clause word order: INITIAL CONSTITUENT ! FINITE VERB ! SUBJECT ! ADVERBIAL ! NEGATION ! NONFINITE VERBS ! OBJECTS/COMPLEMENTS
There is, however, some variation in word order also in this part of the sentence, motivated by factors such as information structure and scope. For instance, the subject Robin and the negation in Example (10) could change places. The word order in subordinate clauses differs from that in main clauses in that the verb does not normally occur in second position, and it can only do so under certain very specific circumstances. Instead, the finite verb follows the subject and adverbials – in particular,
the negation. The subordinate version of Example (9c) would then be as in Example (12): (12) . . .att Ellen inte hittade na˚gra that Ellen not find.PAST some sockor under sa¨ngen. sock.PL under bed.DEF ‘ . . . that Ellen didn’t find any socks under the bed.’
Naturally, there are many Swedish dialects, two of which deserve mention here. The first is the Swedish spoken natively in Finland: this dialect is quite distinct from the Swedish spoken in Sweden in phonology, lexicon, and syntax, one of the most striking differences being the lack of the two tones previously described (akut accent and grav accent). The other variety of Swedish of note is spoken in a small area roughly in the middle of Sweden; this dialect, A¨lvdalen, is closer to older forms of Swedish in that it preserves more morphological marking (for instance, case marking and agreement on the finite verb). Sweden has long had a generous immigration policy and hence speakers of a large number of languages now live in Sweden. Though it is a controversial issue, there have been claims that a new variety of Swedish is emerging, namely, that spoken natively by children born in Sweden to parents who are not native speakers of Swedish. In the literature, a number of terms have been used to refer to this variety of the Swedish language, the most neutral being Svenska pa˚ ma˚ngspra˚kig grund ‘Swedish on a multilingual basis.’ In 1786, Svenska Akademien ‘The Swedish Academy’ was set up to promote the purity of the language. The Academy continues to be responsible for publishing the major monolingual Swedish dictionary, Svenska akademiens ordbok, available online at www.saob.se. The Academy has also published a four-volume grammar of Swedish (see Teleman et al., 1999). An excellent collection of corpora of Swedish, written and spoken, modern and historical, is publicly available at Spra˚kbanken ‘the language bank’ at Gothenburg University (spraakbanken.gu.se).
Bibliography Holmes P & Hinchliffe I (1994). Swedish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Teleman U, Hellberg S & Andersson E (1999). Svenska akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Nordstedts.
Syriac 1033
Syriac G Kiraz, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, Piscataway, NJ, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Syriac is a form of Aramaic, a Semitic language whose many dialects have been in continuous use since the 11th century B.C. Syriac is by far the most attested dialect of Aramaic. It is used today in two forms: Classical Syriac, which is a literary form of the language, and Vernacular Neo-Syriac, which consists of many regional dialects. Syriac is used by Christian communities in the Middle East, known as Syriacs, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Maronites; and in the Indian state of Kerala, primarily as a liturgical language, by communities known as the St Thomas Christians. There are today only a few hundred speakers of Classical Syriac, fewer than one million speakers of Vernacular Neo-Syriac, but over 10 million who consider Classical Syriac their liturgical language. Classical Syriac exists in two main dialects, West Syriac and East Syriac, the difference between them being minor phonological variations. Historically, the earliest dated Syriac inscription is from 6 A.D., and the earliest parchment, a deed of sale, is from 243. The earliest dated manuscript was produced in November 411, probably the earliest dated manuscript in any language. Within a few centuries from its origin, Syriac produced a wealth of literature that surpassed all other Aramaic dialects. Early literature was produced in Mesopotamia, especially in and around Edessa, by pagans, agnostics, Jews, and Christians. The literature of the first three centuries consists mostly of anonymous texts whose date and origin cannot be established. The 4th century witnessed the first major writings that survive to this day. The 5th to 9th centuries mark the Golden Age of Syriac, with more than 70 important known authors, not counting numerous anonymous works and lesser authors. These writings cover philosophy, logic, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, alchemy, history, theology, linguistics, and literature. Under the Arabs, Syriac was the vehicle by which the Greek sciences passed to the Muslim world, and later to Europe through Spain, marking Syriac as an important stage in the history of world civilization. As Arabic began to replace Syriac as the primary language of the Middle East, Syriac became less prominent but has continued to be used until today. The Syriac writing system makes use of three scripts. The oldest, known as Estrangelo ‘rounded,’ was fully developed by the 5th century. Later, two
geographic scripts derived from it: West Syriac, whose proper name is Serto, and East Syriac. Early Syriac writing consists of consonants and long vowels only. In the 7th century, a vocalization system was developed and lent itself to Hebrew and Arabic. At the time of Genghis Khan (12th century), the Mongolian script was derived from Syriac. The phonology of Syriac makes use of 22 consonants, three of which are matres lectionis (glottal stop, w, and y), and seven vowels (five in the case of West Syriac). Six consonants, known by the mnemonic bgdkpt, undergo spirantization, where the plosives become fricatives. Traditionally, stress has been assigned to the penultimate syllable in West Syriac, and the final syllable in East Syriac. Syllabification employs long open (CVV) and closed (CVC) syllables. The short vowel of a CV syllable is almost always deleted. The morphology of Syriac is based on root-andpattern morphology, in addition to suffixation, prefixation, and circumfixation. Most roots consist of three consonants, although two- and fourconsonantal roots exist. Roots that do not contain any of the matres lectionis are called ‘strong,’ and those containing matres lectionis are called ‘weak’ and for the most part undergo various phonological processes. Most words are derived according to a CV template and a vocalism. Verbs exist in two tenses: perfect, denoting past tense, marked by zero or one suffix; and imperfect, denoting future tense, marked by a circumfix. The imperative is marked by the suffix part of the imperfect circumfix. Closely related to verbs are the participles and the infinitive. Verbal affixes mark number (singular, plural), person (1st, 2nd, 3rd), and gender (masculine, feminine). Nouns exist in three states: ‘absolute’ is the basic form and in early Syriac used to indicate nondetermination; ‘emphatic,’ by far the most frequent, is marked by a gender-sensitive suffix and is used to mark determination; and ‘construct’ (joining two nouns) is used primarily to mark a genitive like relation. Adjectival forms are formed mostly by one or more suffixes, those with fewer suffixes belonging to earlier periods of the language. More complex nouns are formed by formative prefixes, and may also contain suffixes. Personal pronouns either stand on their own, or are in the form of suffixes; they are also either in subject form or object form. Demonstrative and interrogative pronouns stand alone. The relative pronoun is in the form of a prefix.
1034 Syriac
The sentence structure does not put hard constraints on word or clause order, though idiomatic construction is not very free. Nominal sentences have a noun, an adjective, or an adverbial expression as a predicate. Copulative sentences are joined together with a conjunction in the form of a prefix (in the case of ‘and’) or a stand-alone word (in the case of ‘or’). Syriac also uses relative clauses, marked by the prefix d, indirect interrogative clauses, marked by a particle, and conditional clauses, also marked by a particle. The Syriac lexicon is either arranged by root, or in a quasialphabetical order (in the latter case, derivations of the verb with prefixes appear in the unprefixed 3rd singular masculine form). The primary Syriac lexica in use were all composed in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Bibliography Brock S (2001). The hidden pearl: the Aramaic heritage, 3 vols and videos. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press; Italy: Trans World Film. Healy J (2005). Leshono Suryoyo: first studies in Syriac. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Kiraz G (2005). The Syriac primer. London: T. & T. Clark International. No¨ldeke T (2001). Compendious Syriac grammar. Crichton J A (trans.). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Payne Smith R (1998). A compendious Syriac dictionary: founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Payne Smith J (ed.). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Robinson T H & Coakley J F (2003). Robinson’s paradigms and exercises in Syriac grammar (5th edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thackston W M (1999). Introduction to Syriac. Bethesda, MD: IBEX.
T Tagalog J U Wolff, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tagalog, spoken in the Philippines, is a member of the Austronesian group of languages. The Austronesian languages are descended from Proto-Austronesian, which is believed to have developed on the Asian mainland and to have been brought to Taiwan by around 6000 B.C., whence its descendents spread through the Philippines and Indonesia eastward to the islands of the Pacific. The earliest documents in Tagalog date from a few decades after the first Spanish colonization in 1564. The pre-Hispanic Tagalogs had a syllabary called Alibata, which has been recorded, but if there was any written literature, none of it survives. The end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th saw the publication of a catechism Doctrina Cristiana; a magnificent and thoroughgoing dictionary, a grammatical description, and a textbook that purports to teach Spanish to Tagalog speakers. These provide good documentation of what Tagalog was like at the time, and indeed the language of these texts is readily understandable today. Other literature, mostly poetry, dates from the middle of the 19th century. It was only in the beginning of the 20th century that prose literature and other types of writing were published in Tagalog. Education in the medium of Tagalog was not introduced until the 1960s, and to this day, English predominates as the medium of instruction at all levels. Tagalog has a unique status among the more than 100 indigenous languages of the Philippines in that it is the national language alongside of English. Although English still predominates in the Philippines as the language of education, public affairs, and formal occasions, Tagalog is increasingly coming into use in these settings, particularly in those areas in which Tagalog is spoken natively. At the time of the Philippine Commonwealth, Tagalog was spoken by less than a quarter of the population of the Philippines. To avoid political controversy among the speakers of other languages, the fiction was adopted that this language, with some modification of vocabulary taken
from other major Philippine languages, was an amalgam of these languages. As such it was called ‘Pilipino.’ In the 1970s, a new fiction was adopted, that the amalgamation of Philippine languages that was to serve as the national language was composed of a larger number of the indigenous languages than Pilipino had been, and this new language was termed ‘Filipino.’ However, the terms ‘Pilipino,’ ‘Filipino,’ or ‘Tagalog’ all refer to one and the same language, and all three terms are commonly used to refer to it. Tagalog is spoken indigenously in the Manila region and in the provinces surrounding it. As such, it is the language associated with the seat of Philippine power and culture, and has acquired a special cachet or prestige. In the last few decades, Tagalog has spread far beyond its original home to urban areas to the south and the north, especially those that have seen a large influx of immigrants from other regions, although in Mindanao there is strong competition from Cebuano, and in the north competition from Ilocano. However, at this point, Tagalog has become the native language of approximately one-third of the population of the Philippines and is ever increasing in number of speakers. In addition, Tagalog press, TV, and cinema, and most importantly, population mobility, have spread the knowledge of Tagalog throughout the nation, so that only few people, and those mostly in the oldest generation, do not have at least a passive knowledge of Tagalog. Further, although loyalty to the native language is strong in the Philippines (few of the indigenous languages are in danger of dying, even though some have small numbers of speakers), it is becoming increasingly acceptable to use Tagalog in social settings (even in non-Tagalog regions), where family members and guests use Tagalog instead of the native language. This usage usually occurs on the part of native sons, who have moved to Tagalog-speaking regions for employment, or their children. Many have become dominant in Tagalog. Speaking in Tagalog in a group where everyone else is speaking the native language is not remarked upon, and in fact, there is a certain prestige attached to speakers who do this, as it is a sign of having made good in the outside world. Abroad, Tagalog has become the mark of Philippine
1036 Tagalog
national identity and is used by Filipinos with other Filipinos, no matter what region they come from, and internally, Tagalog is well on its way to becoming the lingua franca of a multilingual nation.
What Tagalog Is Like Tagalog has a simple phonology. The consonants, vowels, and diphthongs are as follows (Table 1). Note that there are long and short vowels: the long vowels are marked with an accent. Glottal stops in standard Tagalog occur only before a pause. If a word with a glottal stop at the end of it occurs in a phrase with another word following it, the glottal stop is lost, and there is compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel: Wala) ‘not’ þ na ‘any longer’ produces wala´ na ‘no longer’
The spelling system ignores important parts of the phonology and does not recognize long versus short, although pedagogical texts use a cumbersome system to indicate these partially. The system also does not indicate /)/. The palatals /c/, /j/, and /S/ are written ts, dy, and sy respectively. The phoneme /N/ is written ng: /cinı´las/ tsinilas ‘slippers’; /jip/ dyip ‘jeep’;/Sa N a´ pala /sya nga pala ‘by the way’
At the time the Spaniards first came to the Philippines, Tagalog clearly did not have this phonological system. The phonemes in parentheses in Table 1 show sounds that have been added to Tagalog since that time. This addition is proven not only by comparing Tagalog with other Philippine languages (i.e., doing historical reconstruction) but also by the treatment of loanwords from Spanish at the early time and the modern time. An example is the Spanish word for ‘hat’ sombrero, which was borrowed twice in Tagalog: once early on and then again later. These two words are now perceived to be two different lexical items and refer to different things, but their phonemic make-up show how Tagalog has expanded its phonology: it has added /o/ and /e/, it has come to allow a consonant clusters with /r/, and has come to allow a vowel other than /a/ to occur three or more syllables from the end: Table 1 Tagalog phonology Consonants
p b m w
t d n s, S l, (r)
Vowels and Diphthongs
(c) (j)
k g N
) h
u,u´
i,ı´ (e, e´)
(o,o´) a,a´
iw y
uy ay, aw
sambalı´lu), ‘conical sun hat of the native variety’ sombre´ro ‘western hat’
Not all of this is due directly to Spanish influence. Much has to do with internal developments in Tagalog itself, but the contact with Spanish was a catalyst or facilitated some of these developments, in that Spanish words pronounced closer to the Spanish pronunciation made certain rare combinations or types more common. In grammar, Tagalog is characterized as a synthetic rather than an analytic language (English is an example of an analytic language). In Tagalog, single words containing a root plus affixes of all sorts express what in analytic languages would be expressed by a phrase. For example, the single word pa´papagparikitin ‘will cause him or her to make a fire’ expresses what in English takes seven words to express. The root here is dikit (the initial /d/ is changed to /r/ by rule that says /d/ between vowels is often changed to /r/). The verbal system in Tagalog expresses the relation between the verb and a word it refers to: the word referred to may signify the agent, the place, the beneficiary, the instrument, the patient, the thing moved, or the indirect object (depending on the affix). The verb contains what in English would be a verb and a preposition. An example is the root pu´tol ‘cut’: (1) (agent)
(2) (patient)
(3) (local)
Ako ang pup ´ utol ´ I the-one-who will-cut nang ta´li). object-maker string ‘Let me be the one to cut the string.’ Put ulin mo ´ Cut-it by-you ‘Cut the string.’
ang the
ta´li). string
Put ulan mo nang ´ Cut-from-it by-you object-marker ko´ntı´ ang ke´k. little the cake ‘Cut a little from the cake.’
(4) (benefactive)
Iputol ´ Cut-for by-you ako nang object-marker ‘Cut the cake for
mo I ke´k. cake me.’
(5) (instrumental) Itong kutsilyo ang This knife the-one-that cut-with-it ipangpu´tol mo by-you on string ‘Cut the string with this knife.’
Cutting across this system of voice or prepositional-like affixes is a system of four-way inflections that expresses time (past or present as opposed to future),
Tagalog 1037
ongoing or iterative action, as opposed to a single action, and an imperative inflection, which is also used to express dependence, optatitivity or uncertainty. For example, sentence (1) above exemplifies future tense, (6a) below exemplifies noncompleted action, (6b), past action, and (6c), uncertain action: (6a) Ako ang la´ging I the-one-who always cut pumup utol nang ta´li). ´ ´ object-maker string ‘I am the one who is in charge of cutting (literally, always cuts) the string.’ (6b) Sı´no ang Who the-one-who did-cut pumutol nang ta´li)? ´ object-maker string ‘Who (purposely) cut the string?’ (6c) Baka´ pumu´tol siya nang ta´li). lest cut he objectstring marker ‘He might just cut the string.’
Perfective action is not expressed by verbal inflections but rather analytically (by a phrase). (6d) Matagal na akong long-ago has-been I pumutol nang ta´li). ´ cut object-maker string ‘It has been some time since I (purposely) cut the string.’ ako (6e) Alas sayis na o’clock six have-done I pup nang ta´li). ´ utol ´ will-cut object-maker string ‘At six o’clock I will have cut the string.’
There is a large number of derivational affixes that interact with the above-mentioned inflectional affixes to produce verbal forms with a wide number of meanings. Some of these affixes are applicable to almost all roots, some are more limited in their distribution. The most productive are the causative affix pa- and the potential affix ka-, both of which are addable to almost all roots that take verbal affixes. More than one derivational affix may occur within a verb. There are affixes that transitivize intransitive verbs, others that form verbs of reflexive action, those that form plurals, those that indicate an action done by two together, by more than two together, actions done as a favor, actions involving another, actions done by accident, and so forth. There is also a large number of adjective and nominal derivations. Here are a few examples from the root sa´ma, a small percentage of the total number of derivational forms that occur with this root:
No derivational affix, ‘go along’: (7) Ayo´ kong suma´ma not-want I go-along ‘I don’t want to go along.’
With pag-, transitivizer: ‘take something. along somewhere’: ´ (8) Magsama [¼-um-þpag þ sa´ma] Bring-along
ka you
nang object-marker
ta´)o pagpunta mo do) person when-go you there ‘Bring someone with you when you go there.’
on.
With pa-, causative: (9) Hindı´ mo siyang da´pat Not by-you him should ´ pasamahin. cause-him-to-accompany ‘You should not allow him to come along.’
With ka-, potential action: ´ ´ makakas ama [¼future active þ potential þ sa´ma] Not you will-be-able-to-go-along kung ı´iyak ka. if cry you ‘You won’t be able to come along if you are going to cry.’
(10) Hindı´
ka
With ka´pa-, accidental and causative action: ´ ´ yung (11) N apas ama [¼ past-passive þ ka´accidental action þ pacausitive þ sa´ma] Was-accidently-caused-to–go-along that papel sa dala-dala ko paper with thing-brought my ‘I accidentally took that piece of paper together with the thing I was bringing (That piece of paper got caught up with the things I was bringing)’.
With pag-, ‘do together’: (12) San Miguel, ang bir na may San Miguel the beer that there-is pinagsama´han [¼ past þ local-passive þ pagþ sa´ma]. be-companions-over-it ‘San Miguel, the beer people have companionship over (while drinking).’
Influences on Tagalog and Tagalog’s Influence on Other Languages Tagalog, as a language of wider communication and as a spreading language, is being simplified. Simplification is most marked in urban areas, and the process
1038 Tahitian
is gradually spreading to the provinces. It undoubtedly begins from errors made by people (immigrants from non-Tagalog regions or Filipino Chinese) who learn Tagalog as a second language and are imitated by native speakers. One simplification is the loss of contrast between long and short vowels in certain syllables, leading to the loss of contrast between the accidental and the potential conjugations, e.g., na´pasa´ma of example (11) above is pronounced /napasa´ma/ (which in conservative Tagalog has no meaning). Similarly, ma´bibili ‘someone might buy it’ (the accidental passive future) is pronounced /mabı´bili/. Thus, the contrast is lost between ma´bibili ‘someone might buy it’ and mabı´bili ‘is able to buy it’ Another aspect of this simplification is that there is a tendency to drop many of the productive derivations, which are very much alive in conservative Tagalog and exclude any vocabulary but that of the highest frequency. This tendency is exacerbated by the secondary role of Tagalog vis-a`-vis English in public life and in education. Mutatis mutandis, Tagalog influences the other indigenous languages of the Philippines. These other languages are replete with Tagalog loanwords that stem from the language’s widespread use in the media. In some areas, Tagalog has a more intimate effect. In Samar, for example, where a large portion of the population has work experience in the Manila area and Manila has an especial cachet, the regional language is spoken by many younger people with a clearly observable Tagalog intonation. In the urban parts of the Cebuano speech area, where the managerial class is largely composed of immigrants from Tagalog regions who have learned Cebuano as a second language, complexities of Cebuano syntax that have no analogue in Tagalog are lost or regularized, and this syntax has spread to the younger generation of Cebuano natives who have no Tagalog connection (see Cebuano).
Bibliography Bautista M L S (1980). The Filipino bilingual’s competence: a model based on an analysis of Tagalog-English code switching. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Belwood P (1991). ‘The Austronesian dispersal and the origin of languages.’ Scientific American, July, 88–93. Bloomfield L (1917). ‘Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis.’ Studies in Language and Literature 3(2), 2–4. English L J (1986). Tagalog English dictionary. Manila: Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Gonzalez A (2002). ‘Language planning and intellectualization.’ Current Issues in Language Planning 3(1), 5–27. Gonzalez A & Postrado L (1976–1977). ‘Dissemination of Pilipino.’ Philippine Journal of Linguistics 1(2), 60–84. Kelz H P (1981). ‘Sprachplanung auf den Philippinen und die Entwicklung einer philippinischen Nationalprache.’ Language Problems and Language Planning 5(2), 115–136. San Buenaventura Fr P de (1613). Vocabulario de lengua Tagala, printed by Toma´s Pinpin and Doimingo Loag: Facsimile copy by Paris-Valencia, Pelayo 7, 46007 Valencia, Spain. Schachter P & Otanes F T (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Smolicz J J & Nical I (1997). ‘Exporting the European idea of a national language: some educational implications of the use of English and indigenous languages in the Philippines.’ International Review of Education 43(5–6), 507–526. Wolff J U (1993). ‘Why roots add the affixes with which they occur: a study of Tagalog and Indonesian adjective formations.’ In Reesink G P (ed.) Topics in descriptive Austronesian lingusitics 11. Vakgroup Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azie¨ en Oceanie¨ Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Wolff J, Rao D H & Centeno T (1991). Pilipino through self-instruction. Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University.
Tahitian P Geraghty, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tahitian belongs to the Eastern Polynesian branch of the Oceanic subgroup of the Austronesian language family. Its nearest relatives are other Central Eastern Polynesian languages, such as Tuamotuan, Marquesan, and Cook Islands Maori.
Until the early 19th century, Tahitian was spoken by the entire population of the Society Islands, and it remained the main language for most of that century. Annexation by France (in 1880) and educational and social policies have contributed to the decline of Tahitian, particularly in the capital, Pape’ete. At the same time, Tahitian has become the lingua franca of the Marquesas, Tuamotus, Austral Islands, and other parts of French Polynesia, at the expense of their respective indigenous languages, and it is now
Tai Languages 1039
estimated to have 150 000 speakers, including some 5000 residents of New Caledonia. Tahitian has been an official language of French Polynesia, along with French, since 1978, but more de jure than de facto. It is taught in a small way up to university level. There is a substantial amount of Tahitian language radio and television programming, but no newspaper. The recent (2004) election of a government committed to more independence from France may bring about changes in the use and status of Tahitian. Tahitian had no traditional written form and was first recorded by 18th-century explorers such as Bougainville and Cook. The latter was responsible for introducing into English the loanwords taboo and tattoo, from Tahitian tapu and tatau. A Romanbased alphabet was devised by English-speaking missionaries in 1815 and has remained in use relatively unchanged. Reliable reference works are currently available only in French. An unusual feature of Tahitian was the custom of ‘pi’i,’ by which everyday words that constituted parts of chiefs’ names were considered taboo, and in many cases the change became permanent. Tahitian is also unique among Pacific languages in having an academy (Fare Vana’a), founded in 1974, that aims to standardize, develop, and promote the language. The phoneme inventory of Tahitian consists of nine consonants (f, h, m, n, p, r, t, v, and glottal stop) and
10 vowels (a, e, i, o, u, a¯, e¯, ı¯, o¯, u¯). There are no consonant clusters, and syllables are open. In writing, vowel length and glottal stop have often not been marked systematically. Some modern writers and publishers use a macron to indicate a long vowel and an apostrophe to indicate the glottal stop, as recommended by the Fare Vana’a. There is very little morphophonemics, and most grammatical functions are performed by affixation or the use of pre- and postposed particles. Pronouns distinguish four persons (including first-person inclusive and exclusive) and three numbers (singular, dual, and plural). There are two categories of possession, depending largely on whether or not the possessor has control over the fact of possession. In noun phrases, the order is head þ attribute. The basic word order is VSO: ’ua
tai’o ‘oia i read he OBJ ‘he read the big book’ ASP
te the
puta book
rahi big
Bibliography Acade´mie tahitienne (1999). Dictionnaire tahitien-franc¸ais. [Papeete:] Fare Vana’a [Acade´mie tahitienne]. Anonymous (n.d. [1986]). La grammaire de la langue tahitienne. [Papeete:] Fare Vana’a. Lemaitre Y (1973). Lexique du Tahitien contemporain. Paris: ORSTOM.
Tai Languages D A Smyth, SOAS, University of London, London, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Geographical Location and Number of Speakers Tai languages are spoken by over 70 000 000 people across a wide area of Asia that extends from Vietnam in the east to India in the west. The most important member of the family is Thai, the national language of Thailand, which accounts for approximately twothirds of all Tai speakers. The second highest national concentration is in China, where there are an estimated 15 000 000 speakers, mainly in the southwest. Smaller Tai-speaking populations live in northern Vietnam, Laos, Burma, and northern India. The Tai language family comprises three branches: southwestern, central, and northern. The southwestern group extends over the widest geographical area
and includes the national languages of Thailand and Laos, plus Shan and Khu¨n (spoken in northern Burma); Lu¨ (China-Burma border); Khamti (BurmaIndia border); and Black Tai (Tai Dam), White Tai (Tai Do´n), and Red Tai (Tai Daeng) (Laos-Vietnam border). The central and northern branches are geographically more homogeneous, languages from both groups being spoken in both northern Vietnam and southern China. Central Tai includes Tho (Ta`y), Longzhou, and Nung, while Northern Tai includes Wu-ming (Northern Zhuang), Yoi (Dioi), and the Bouyei (Pu-yi) languages of China.
Wider Affiliations Certain lexical and grammatical similarities between the Tai and Chinese languages led linguists in the 19th century to assume that the two groups were related, and until the 1940s this was the widely accepted view.
1040 Tai Languages
Since then, however, most authorities have come to believe that there is no such genetic link and that any similarities are due to borrowings. The wider affiliation of Tai languages has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate. In 1942, Paul Benedict first linked Tai languages to a small group of languages spoken on the island of Hainan and in southwestern China, for which he coined the term ‘Kadai’. Whereas the Tai-Kadai link is, today, accepted by many – but not all – linguists, Benedict’s attempt to relate Tai-Kadai languages to the polysyllabic, nontonal, Austronesian (or Malayo-Polynesian) languages of the South Pacific, under the term ‘Austro-Tai,’ has proved more controversial.
History Researchers on comparative Tai dialects estimate that the parent language, Proto-Tai, dates back approximately 2000 years. Speakers of this language were once thought to have originated in China and migrated southward, but today the border area between Vietnam and China’s Guangxi province is regarded as a more likely origin. From the 8th century A.D., Tai speakers began to migrate westward and southwestward, gradually driving a wedge between the MonKhmer speaking peoples then dwelling in what is now Thailand. Around the 11th century, all Tai languages were affected by the Great Tone Split. Essentially, this had the effect of creating additional tones while reducing the number of initial consonant sounds. The effects of this can be seen in a number of Tai writing systems; in Thai, for example, it accounts for the fact that a single tone mark can represent two distinct tones.
Typological Characteristics The Tai languages are noninflected tonal languages with a basic monosyllabic lexicon. Among the different branches, a single lexical item will often show differences in the initial consonant, vowel, or tone; thus, the word for ‘six’ is hok in several southwestern Tai languages, but is sok, rok, lok, or huk in the central and northern branches, depending on the language. Even closely related languages within the same branch are frequently mutually unintelligible because of differences in phonology and certain basic vocabulary items.
The word order in most Tai languages is subjectverb-object, with adjectives following nouns. In Khamti, however, the order is subject-object-verb, probably due to the influence of neighboring languages from other families. Geographical location has also influenced the source of loan words; Tai languages spoken in Vietnam and China have borrowed from Chinese, and members from the southwestern branch have drawn lexical items from Sanskrit and Pali. The writing systems have been similarly influenced; some central and northern Tai languages are written in Chinese characters, whereas southwestern Tai languages are written in alphabetic scripts that can ultimately be traced back to a south Indian origin. Many Tai languages, however, have no writing system and, with small numbers of speakers and little cultural prestige attached to them, they are in serious danger of becoming extinct.
Bibliography Benedict P K (1975). Austro-Thai: language and culture, with a glossary of roots. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press. Computational Analyses of Asian and African Languages 6 (October) (1976) (much of this issue is devoted to debate on Benedict’s Austro-Thai hypothesis). Diller A V N (in press). The Tai languages. London: Routledge. Edmondson J & Solnit D (eds.) (1997). Comparative Kadai: the Tai branch. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics/University of Texas at Arlington. Gething T W, Harris J G & Kullavanijaya P (eds.) (1976). Tai linguistics in honor of Fang-Kuei Li. Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Press. Harris J G & Chamberlain J R (eds.) (1975). Studies in Tai linguistics in honor of William J. Gedney. Bangkok, Thailand: Central Institute of English Language, Office of State Universities. Huffman F E (1986). Bibliography and index of mainland Southeast Asian languages and linguistics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kalaya Tingsabadh M R & Abramson A S (eds.) (2001). Essays in Tai linguistics. Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Press. Li F-K (1977). A handbook of comparative Tai. Honolulu, HI: University Pres of Hawaii. Smalley W A (1994). Linguistic diversity and national unity: language ecology in Thailand. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Strecker D (1990). ‘Tai languages.’ In Comrie B (ed.) The major languages of East and South-East Asia. London: Routledge. 19–28.
Tajik Persian 1041
Tajik Persian J R Perry, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tajik Persian (self-designation (zabon-i) forsi-i tojikı¯; also called Tajik, Tajiki, Tojikı¯, and Tadzhik) is the variety of Persian used in Central Asia (see Persian, Modern; Persian, Old). Since the 1920s, Tajik has been fostered as the national literary language of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic (since 1991, the Republic of Tajikistan). It is also spoken in parts of Uzbekistan (notably the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand) and is the vernacular of the Bukharan Jews. It is the common written language and contact vernacular in the mountain region of Badakhshan, where people speak a variety of very different Iranian languages (see Iranian Languages). The so-called Tajiks of southwestern Xinjiang in China speak Sarikoli and Wakhi, not Persian. Tajik has been written in a modified Cyrillic script since 1940. Speakers number at least 5 million.
History Persian spread to Central Asia from its home on the Iranian plateau during the 8th century C.E ., as the language of Iranian converts attached to the invading Arab Muslim armies. At the autonomous Samanid court of Bukhara (9th–10th centuries), Persian was patronized as the literary language and displaced the indigenous Iranian language, Sogdian (a descendent of which, Yaghnobi, survives in the mountains of western Tajikistan). As a written language, Persian of Central Asia was hardly distinguishable from Classical Persian of Iran, Afghanistan, and India up until the early 20th century. However, invasions and settlement by Turkic peoples (most recently, the Uzbeks) in the Oxus basin and its foothills interrupted the dialect continuum; spoken Persian of Central Asia evolved independently of Persian of Iran, and northern dialects in particular were strongly influenced by Turkish speech. Persian speakers of the region came to be called Tajiks (from a Middle Persian word meaning ‘Arab’), in contradistinction to Turks. After the Russian revolution, in accordance with Soviet nationalities policy, an ethnic Tajik republic was established and a literary language called ‘Tajik’ was engineered on a vernacular base close to the Uzbekized spoken Persian of Bukhara and Samarkand (these Tajik cultural centers, ironically, were incorporated in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic). During the period 1948–1988, Tajik lost much of its prestige, vocabulary, and domain of use, to Russian.
With perestroika and glasnost’ came a revival and rePersianization of the national language, which continues (at a slower rate) in post-Soviet Tajikistan; policies include the replacement of Russian vocabulary by Persian (both native coinages and loans from Persian of Iran), and teaching of the Perso–Arabic writing system in schools. Tajik is fundamentally Persian in grammar and core vocabulary, though generally closer to the spoken Persian of Afghanistan (e.g., Kaboli dialect) than to Standard Persian of Iran. The following descriptions highlight features that differ substantially from Standard Persian, in particular the elements of convergence with Turkic types characteristic of the bulk of Tajik literature in the Soviet period.
Phonology and Orthography The Tajik sound system is shared almost entirely with that of Uzbek. Its Cyrillic orthography is basically Russian specific, and is illustrated here only when it involves modified or ambiguous characters. The consonant inventory differs from that of Persian only in two features: [q] < > and [X] < > are distinct phonemes (they have collapsed in the Persian of Iran), and labiodental [v] tends toward bilabial [b] or [w] in the environment of rounded vowels. The affricates [tS] will be transliterated as y, and < > [h] will be transliterated as h. The six-vowel system has diverged considerably from Standard Persian (see Figure 1). Length has been neutralized in most dialects (including literary Tajik) and replaced by a contrast between ‘stable’ [e, u, Q] and ‘unstable’ vowels [i, u, a]. In Cyrillic, [u¯] is written y¯ (transliterated u¯); i, written as b, has a variant b E (transliterated ı¯). These accents do not represent length: u¯ shows a different quality from u, and ı¯ is used for i in word-final position to distinguish a (stressed) morphological syllable from the (unstressed) enclitic of izofat (see later, Morphology and Noun Phrase Syntax). The vowel [e] represents early New Persian [e:]; [u], sounding between [u] and [y], represents early New Persian [o:] and is shared with Uzbek, in which it corresponds to Turkic [y] or [ø]. The vowel [Q]
Figure 1 Tajik vowels.
1042 Tajik Persian
Persian [A]. The three ‘unstable’ vowels correspond to the ‘short’ vowels of Persian, but [i] and [u] additionally represent the corresponding ‘long’ vowels. Examples of modern correspondences in Tajik and Persian, respectively, are kitob, ketaˆb ‘book’; imru¯z, emruz ‘today’; Bedil, Bidel ‘name of a poet’; na-budem, nabudim ‘we were not’; and sˇuda, sˇode ‘having become’ (the final [a] is not raised in Tajik). The yotated letters e¨, ., and z represent the syllables yo, yu, and ya; Cyrillic e stands for e after a consonant, ye initially or after a vowel.
Morphology and Noun Phrase Syntax There is no grammatical gender in Tajik and only a limited distinction between humans and nonhumans in the plural suffixes -ho (any noun) and -on (humans and higher animals), and in third-person singular personal pronouns, as follows: vay (general), u¯ (literary), in (dialect) ‘he, she’; on (literary), in, [h]amin (colloquial), vay (dialect) ‘it’; onho (general), in[h]o (colloquial), vay[h]o (dialect) ‘they’ (all classes). The deferential pronoun esˇon (cf. Persian isˇaˆn) ‘he, she’ (lit. ‘they’) has been replaced in Tajik by in kas ‘this person.’ Plural pronouns, which may refer deprecatingly or deferentially to a singular (SG) person, can add plural (PL) suffixes as ‘explicit plurals’: mo/mo-yon, mo-ho, mo-hon ‘we, I/we’; sˇumo/sˇumoyon, sˇumo-ho ‘you’ (SG)/‘you’ (PL; see later, discussion of verb endings). The basic noun phrases (NPs) are the nominal izofat (IZ; Persian ezaˆfe), e.g., qisˇloq-i Alijon ‘Alijon’s village’ (village-of Alijon), and adjectival izofat, e.g., qisˇloq-i kalon ‘the big village’ (village-big); in both types, the head is linked to a following modifier by the enclitic -i. There are no articles; an indefinite NP may be marked by the numeral yak ‘one’ and/or the ‘specific’ (SPEC) enclitic -e; a definite NP (supplying old information) is distinguished only in the object (OBJ) position, by the enclitic -ro. A direct object that is familiar to the speaker, but not to the listener, is marked by both enclitics, as shown in the following examples: pisar-ro did-am boy-OBJ see.PAST–1SG ‘I saw the boy.’ yak pisar(-e) did-em one boy(-SPEC) see.past–1PL ‘We saw a boy/some boy or other.’ pisar-e-ro did-em boy-SPEC-OBJ see.PAST–1PL ‘We saw a (certain) boy.’
Other case relations are expressed through prepositions (including bar ‘upon’ and be ‘without,’ no longer
active in Persian), postpositions, and circumpositions (inflectional suffix izofat): qaycˇı¯ kati noxun girift-am scissors with nail take.PAST–1SG ‘I cut my nails with scissors.’ az ibtido-i paxta-cˇinı¯ in-taraf from start-IZ cotton-picking this-side ‘Since the start of cotton-picking.’
A superlative as modifier may precede the head noun (as in Persian), or may follow it: sˇahr-i kalon-tarin-i tojikiston Tajikistan city-IZ larg-est-IZ ‘The largest city of/in T.’
Nouns take the singular after a number. A classifier may intervene, most commonly the enclitic -ta or -to ‘fold, item,’ as in yak-ta zan ‘one woman’ and sad-to kurta ‘a hundred shirts’ (or yak-sad kurta ‘one hundred shirts’). The simplex tenses of Tajik verbs are the same as in Persian, except for the vowel of the present/imperfect prefix, and of the first-person plural and second-person plural personal endings, as in me-kun-em ‘we do’ and kard-ed ‘you did.’ The second-person plural form may also add an ‘explicit plural’ supplement (cf. preceding discussion of pronouns) derived from the pronominal enclitic -ton, as in sˇin-eton, rafiq-on ‘sit down, friends’ (sˆined þ ton). In compound tenses and moods, Tajik verbal morphology has expanded beyond that of Persian. Three progressive tenses are formed on the past participle of a desemanticized istodan ‘to stand’ (in the following examples, verb glosses in bold type indicate an apparent ‘past participle’ (PP) not forming part of a tense, which is used extensively as a nonfinite verb form (gerund) in verbal conjuncts): bacˇa-ho ovoz xonda istoda-and child-PL song sing stand.PP-be.3PL ‘The children are singing’ (present progressive).
An epistemic mode of the indicative (called ‘nonwitnessed,’ or ‘evidential’) also has three tenses. Thus, the regular perfect may function as an evidential present: vay sayohat-ba rafta-ast he journey-on go.PP-be.3SG ‘He went/has gone on a trip ( – so I surmise/am told).’
Note here the Persian preposition as a Turkish-style postposition. This mode also includes progressive tenses: sˇumo yak asar-i nav navisˇta istoda-buda-ed you one work-IZ new write stand.PP-be.PP–2PL ‘You’ve been writing a new work ( – so I gather/see).’
Here the form expresses a mirative, i.e., the appreciation of a fact not previously known.
Tajik Persian 1043
The conjectural mood uses an augmented (AUG) form of the past participle in -agı¯ to form tenses expressing a probable situation or event (IMPERF, imperfect): yagon kor-i ganda karda-gi-st do.PP-AUG-be.3SG some deed-IZ bad ‘He must have done something bad’ (past). dast-u ru¯ me-sˇusta-gi-st-ed hand-and face IMPERF-wash-AUG-be–2PL ‘(I imagine) you’ll want to freshen up’ (present/ future).
The future participle (infinitive þ adjectival formative -ı¯) is used in a quasifuture tense, and adjectivally, much more than in Persian: xohar-am ba maktab omad-an-ı¯ sister-my to school come-INF-ADJ ‘My sister was eager to go to school.’
bud be.PAST
From an intransitive verb, the sense is active, and with a human subject, usually connotes intention. From a transitive verb, the sense may be passive (NEG, negation): jo-ho-i no-guft-an-ı¯ place-PL-IZ NEG-say-INF-ADJ ‘Unmentionable places; locations not to be divulged.’
The augmented past participle (also of progressive tenses) is extensively used in ways (and positions, i.e., preceding the head) similar to use in Uzbek participles, to express what, in Persian, would often be a relative clause: gurexta-istoda-gi-ho flee-stand.PP-AUG-PL ‘Those who are/were fleeing; the fugitives.’ ana kitob-i ovarda-gi-am here book-IZ bring.PP-AUG-my ‘Here is the book that I brought.’ duxtar kurta-i me-du¯xta-gi-asˇ-ro girl shirt-IZ IMPERF-sew.PP-AUG-her-OBJ ba modar-asˇ nisˇon dod tomother-her sign give.PAST ‘The girl showed the shirt that she was/had been sewing to her mother.’
The Lexicon Nominal and adjectival compounds are formed with suffixes and prefixes, some of them different from (or more productive than) their Persian counterparts. Thus -nok denotes something having the quality of the base noun, as in foida-nok ‘beneficial, profitable’ (foida ‘use, profit’) and sado-nok ‘vowel’ (sado ‘sound, voice’); ser- ‘sated, full’ indicates an abundance of the base noun, as in ser-gap ‘garrulous’
(gap ‘talk’), and to- ‘up to, until’ produces, e.g., toinqilob-ı¯ ‘prerevolutionary’ (inqilob ‘revolution,’ -ı¯ is the relative adjective formative); this use of the preposition to (unknown with Persian taˆ) is probably calqued on similar use of Russian do ‘up to, until.’ Other Russian calques use Tajik sar ‘head’ by analogy with the Russian prefix glav-, as in sar-muhandis ‘chief engineer’ (Russian glav-inzˇener). Most derivatives from Russian loans freely use Tajik Persian formatives, as in bolsˇevik-ı¯ ‘Bolshevik’ (adjective). Transitivizing denominal verbs and causatives (CAUS) (obtained by infixing -on-) are more productive than in Persian, as in, kollektiv-on-idan ‘to collectivize.’ They may also be formed from complex and composite verbs: papiros dar me-gir-on-ad cigarette in IMPERF-take-CAUS–3SG ‘She lights a cigarette.’
(Compare dar me-gir-ad ‘it catches fire.’) In some complex verbs, the preverbs dar and bar are attached to the verb stem: me-dar-o-y-ad ‘he comes in’ (cf. Persian dar mi-aˆ-y-ad). Characteristic of Tajik are conjunct verbs (serial verbs), of which the progressive tenses are grammaticalized instances. There are some 18 lexically established conjunct auxiliaries (corresponding to models in Uzbek) that, in regularly conjugated tenses, furnish adverbial ‘modes of action’ for the nonfinite participle (semantically, the main verb): dars-i nav-ro navisˇta girift-em take.PAST–1PL lesson-IZ new-OBJ write ‘We copied down the new lesson’ (‘take’: selfbenefactive). nom-i xud-ro navisˇta me-dih-am IMPERF-give.PRES–1SG name-IZ own-OBJ write ‘I’ll jot down my name (for you)’ (‘give’: otherbenefactive). berun-ho-ya toza karda ru¯fta parto! outside-PL-OBJ clean make sweep throw.IMP ‘Sweep all the outside nice and clean!’
The preceding example demonstrates a double conjunct construction: the auxiliary partoftan ‘to throw (away), toss’ adds the sense of thoroughness or completion (-ya is a dialect variant of -ro, and toza kardan ‘to clean’ is a typical Persian-type composite verb).
Syntax Verbal conjuncts, mostly of Uzbek inspiration, compete in other ways with the Persian syntax of subordinate clauses introduced by conjunctions; e.g., the favored construction for the modal verb tavonistan ‘to be able’ is as follows:
1044 Tamambo man rafta (na-)me-tavon-am I go (NEG-)IMPERF-can.PRES–1SG ‘I can(not) go.’
Also embedded in the literary language is the nominalization of sentential complements through infinitives, as in the following example: mo {kujo raft-an-i xud-ro} we {where go-INF-IZ own-OBJ} me-don-em IMPERF-know.PRES–1PL ‘We know where we are going’ (. . . our going-where).
Uzbekisms in colloquial and northern dialect usage include the question (Q) enclitic -mi and possessive NPs, with (dative) -ro replacing the izofat construction (OBL, oblique): muallim-a [-ro] pisar-asˇ raft-mı¯? boy-his go.PAST-Q teacher-OBL ‘Has the teacher’s son left?’
These features were not admitted into literary Tajik, and even some of the accepted Uzbekisms are fading from post-Soviet Tajik writing.
Bibliography Baizoyev A & Hayward J (2004). A beginner’s guide to Tajiki. London: Routledge Curzon. Bashiri I (1994). ‘Russian loanwords in Persian and Tajiki languages.’ In Marashi M (ed.) Persian studies in North
America: studies in honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery. Bethesda, MD: Iranbooks. 109–139. Lazard G (1956). ‘Caracte`res distinctifs de la langue Tadjik.’ Bulletin de la Socie´te´ de Linguı¨stique de Paris 52/1, 117–186. Perry J R (1996). ‘From Persian to Tajik to Persian: culture, politics and law reshape a Central Asian language.’ In Aronson H I (ed.) NSL.8. Linguistic studies in the nonSlavic languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic republics. Chicago: The University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistics Society. 279–305. Perry J R (1997). ‘Script and scripture: the three alphabets of Tajik Persian, 1927–1997.’ Journal of Central Asian Studies 2/1, 2–18. Perry J R (2000). ‘Epistemic verb forms in Persian of Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan.’ In Johanson L & Utas B (eds.) Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighboring languages. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 229–257. Perry J R (2005). A Tajik Persian reference grammar. Leiden: Brill. Rastorgueva V S (1963). A short sketch of Tajik grammar. Paper H H (trans./ed.). Bloomington, IA: Indiana University and The Hague: Mouton. Rzehak L (2001). Vom Persischen zum Tadschikischen. Sprachliches Handeln und Sprachplanung in Transoxanien zwischen tradition, moderne und Sowjetmacht (1900–1956). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Soper J D (1996). ‘Loan syntax in Turkic and Iranian: the verb systems of Tajik, Uzbek and Qashqay.’ In Bodrogligeti A J E (ed.) Eurasian language archives 2. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua.
Tamambo D Jauncey, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Tamabo [tamambo] (Malo) is the predominant dialect of the language of the island of Malo (previously known as St. Bartholomew) in northern Vanuatu, in the southwest Pacific (Figure 1). It is spoken by at least 3000 people including those living on Malo, and those who have settled on the nearby ‘big’ island of Espiritu Santo and in Port Vila. It is learned as a first language by most children on the island, although Bislama (Vanuatu pidgin) is strengthening in almost all social contexts. Tamabo was originally the dialect of the western side of Malo; the dialect of the east
[tamapo] is now used by no more than a handful of older speakers, although some words from that dialect are heard in several old dance songs. There is no written literature in the language, except for some copies of Presbyterian mission publications dating from the 1890s. Nevertheless, a strong oral tradition of storytelling has been maintained, and activities reflecting Kastom (traditional custom) such as dances, and ‘fighting sticks’ contests [manja] are enjoying renewed interest and participation.
Grammatical Overview The language is Oceanic (Austronesian); it belongs to the Northern Vanuatu linkage, and appears similar to languages of nearby Tangoa, Araki, and south Santo. Tamabo can be regarded as conservative in that it shares many of the same structural characteristics
Tamambo 1045
Figure 1 Malo Island within Vanuatu.
1046 Tamambo
widely distributed among Oceanic languages, and many of which are posited for Proto-Oceanic (POc). Tamabo is a nominative-accusative language, and the unmarked word order of the clause is Agent-VerbObject or Subject-Verb. Sentence types other than the declarative are based on the unmarked declarative form. Basic clauses are most commonly verbal clauses that indicate a non-future/future contrast. There are also verbless clauses where the predicate is a noun phrase, a numeral, or a prepositional phrase. Basic noun phrase structure is similar to that outlined for POc (Lynch et al., 2002: 75) with the noun as head, preceded by an article (retained only in some syntactic environments in Tamabo), and an optional premodifier such as a quantifier, and followed by an optional modifier or demonstrative. It is an agglutinating language with considerable derivational morphology and valency-changing affixes. Lexically, many words in the language are reflexes of words posited for POc. Other characteristics common to many Oceanic languages are reflected in Tamabo: they include a subject proclitic on the verb root, marking of inclusive and exclusive distinctions in pronouns, spatial concepts ‘seaward’ vs. ‘inland,’ ‘up direction’ vs. ‘down direction’ (depending on location on island) indicated by particular verbs and/or location nouns, possessive constructions with noun phrases reflecting the semantics of alienable and inalienable possession, and ‘tail-head’ linkage of clauses in procedural narrative.
Phonology Tamabo reflects many of the consonants of the reconstructed POc paradigm (Lynch et al., 2002: 63) with little or no phonetic change. Voiced stops are prenasalized. Bilabial b bw m mw b bw
Dental-alveolar t d n s r l
Pre-palatal
Examples of Particular Grammatical Characteristics Productive Derivations from Affixation, Reduplication, and Compounding Affixes to nouns -ha noun-like quality -a nominalization vo- female ta- person belonging to vu- tree lo- plural (trees only) ra- female plural/leaf
dodo ! dodo-ha
‘night’ ! ‘be cloudy/ dark’ luhu ! luhu-a ‘hide’! ‘refuge’ natuku ! ‘my child/son’ ! vo-natuku ‘my daughter’ ta-Alotu ‘Santo person’ vu-talaua ‘sago palm tree’ lo-vu-talaua ‘sago palm trees’ ra-vavine ‘women’; ra-talaua ‘sago palm leaf’
Reduplication of nouns and verbs hinau ! hina-hinau ‘thing’ ! things mata ! mata-mata ‘eye’ ! ‘signs’ bange ! bange-bange ‘stomach’ ! ‘pregnant’ mana ! mana-mana ‘laugh’ ! ‘friendly’ sahe ! sahe-sahe ‘go up’ ! ‘keep going up’ tau ! tau-tau ‘put s.t in place’ ! ‘put many things in place’ Compounding (noun þ noun; noun þ verb; verb þ verb) mara-rohai ‘man-leaf/leaves’ ! ‘medicine man’ mata-suri ‘eye-follow’ ! ‘be jealous’ bosi-mate ‘turn-die’ ! ‘extinguish (lamp)’ Valency Changing Affixes -hi, -si ‘applicatives’; ma- ‘agentless passive’; va-/vaha- ‘causative’, and vari- ‘anti-passive’ sora ! sora-hi ‘talk’ ! ‘talk about s.t.’ lua ! lua-si ‘vomit’ ! ‘vomit on s.t.’ duru ! ma-daru ‘split s.t.’ ! ‘be split’ mauru ! vaha-mauru ‘be alive’! ‘save life’ hati ! vari-hati ‘bite s.t.’ ! ‘inclined to bite’ Serial Verb Constructions for a Variety of Functions
Velar k N x
Like POc, there is a five-vowel system, sequences of unlike vowels are permitted, and syllable structure is primarily (C)V.
Orthography The four prenasalized stops are written as b, bw, d, j. Fricative /b/ is written as v, the additionally labialized fricative as w; /x/ is represented by h, /mw/ by mw and /N/ as ng.
Action in specified direction vavine le-hilo le-sahe woman ASP-look ASP-go.up ta-vonavu mo-dono mo-jivo belong-Malakula 3.sing-sink 3.sing-go.down ana tarusa PREP sea ‘while the woman was looking up, the Malakula man drowned in the sea’ Comparative heletu niani mo-suiha pig this 3.sing-strong mo-liu-ra 3.sing-win.over-O.3PL ‘this pig is the strongest of them’
Tamil 1047 Continuative aspect ku-vano ku-le ovi, ku-ovi 1.sing-go 1.sing-ASP stay 1.sing-stay mo-vano mo-vano . . . 3.sing-go 3.sing-go ‘I went and I was waiting, I kept on and on waiting . . .’
— possessive linkers ni/i indicating ‘status’ of possessor naho-ni vuti-ni Abae tamanatu-i mama vavine ridi face-POSS hill/s-POSS Ambae. husband-POSS dad woman DEF ‘dad’s face’ ‘the hills of Ambae’ ‘the woman’s husband’
Completive aspect voi mo-mule mo-iso mum 3.sing-head.home 3.sing-finish ‘mum has already gone home’
— prepositions hini/ hina hini Air Vanuatu hina siba ‘with Air Vanuatu’ ‘with a knife’
Non-result ka-te soari-a, ka-sai-a 1PL-NEG see-OBJ.3.sing 1PL-search-OBJ.3 sing mo-tete 3.sing-negative ‘we didn’t see it, we searched for it to no avail’
Possessive Constructions Classifiers for inalienable possession nopersonal property no-da vanua ‘our (INCL) house’ madrinkable ma-m reu ‘your (sing.)water (to drink)’ haedible ha-mam vetai ‘our (EXCL) bananas’ bula- living things (animals, crops þ things regarded as ‘living’) bula-ra toa ‘their chickens’; bula-ku redio ‘my radio’
Overlap between constructions or classifiers no-ku nunu ‘my photo’ (that I own) nunu-ku ‘my photo’ (of me) bula-na dam ‘his yam/s’ (growing) ha-na dam ‘his yam/s’ (to eat) Hierarchy of Individuation: Kin Terms/Proper Names! Animate! Inanimate Differentiation of kin/proper names vs. common nouns — comitatives mai/mana Voi mai Alis vavine atea mana mwera atea ‘Mum and Alice’ ‘a girl and a boy’
Differentiation of animate vs. inanimate — quantitative verbs tamalohi na-were heletu na-were sala mo-were person 3PLpig 3PLroad 3singbe.many be.many be.many ‘many people’ ‘many pigs’ ‘many roads’ — prepositions telei/ana telei-au telei bula-ku vuria ‘to me’ ‘to my dog’
ana tano ‘to the garden’
Bibliography Crowley T (1987). ‘Serial verbs in Paamese.’ Studies in Language 11(1), 35–84. Durie M (1997). ‘Grammatical structure in verb serialization: some preliminary proposals.’ In Alsina A, Bresnan J & Sells P (eds.) Complex predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 289–354. Lichtenberk F (1985). ‘Possessive constructions in Oceanic languages.’ In Pawley A & Carrington L (eds.) Austronesian linguistics at the 15th Pacific Science Congress. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 93–140. Lynch J & Crowley T (2001). Languages of Vanuatu: a new survey and bibliography. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Lynch J, Ross M & Crowley T (2002). The Oceanic languages. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.
Tamil H F Schiffman, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tamil is the Dravidian language with the most ancient literary tradition in India, dating from the early centuries A.D. or before. The earliest (3rd–1st century B.C.) inscriptions of Tamil are found in caves used
by Buddhist and Jain monks, in a form known as Tamil Brahmi script. The earliest text in Tamil is a grammar, the Tolkaappiyam, which describes centami (Old Tamil) with both literary and colloquial (koDuntami ) dialects, spoken in what is now Tamilnadu and Kerala, in South India. An early and original poetic literature, known as Sangam Tamil, has survived in the form of various anthologies; these early texts show few borrowings from Sanskrit, and
1048 Tamil
minimal Brahmanic or ‘Hindu’ influences. After Old Tamil, a Middle Tamil literature can be distinguished, marked by diverse influences, including increasing Aryanization, Buddhism, and Jainism. Two epics, the Cilappatikaram (The lay of the ankle bracelet) and Manimekalai (The girdle of jewels), a Buddhist work, date from the 4th–6th centuries A.D., and the Tirukkural, known to every Tamil and considered by many to be the apex of their literary genius. In the 6th–9th centuries, bhakti devotional poetry (the hymns of the Alvars and Nayanars), devotional literature honoring Vaishnava and Shaiva saints, developed, then spread as a phenomenon across India. From this period until the arrival of Western colonizers and missionaries, Tamil literature reflects panIndian norms devoted to philosophical and religious writings, with little originality (and heavy Sanskritization) except for the poetry of Kampan. After the consolidation of colonialism, Tamil literature shows more influences of Western, especially English, ideas. But the development of English education in India also stimulated resistance to these norms and a renaissance and revival of Tamil, focusing on purifying the language of Indo-Aryan and other loan words. The Tamil language has had its current standard written form since the thirteenth century, when codified again in the grammar nannuul, composed (according to some accounts) by the Jaina monk Pavanandi. But due to increasing diglossia (Britto, 1986), spoken Tamil dialects have now diverged so radically from earlier norms, including the written standard (LT, or Literary Tamil; Arden, 1942) that no spoken dialect (regional or social) can function as the koine´ or lingua franca. Since LT is never used for authentic informal oral communication between live speakers, there has always been a need for some sort of spoken ‘standard’ for inter-dialect communication, and what has evolved has been hastened by the development of modern communication, especially the ‘social’ film, which is the chief disseminator of this ‘standard spoken Tamil’ (SST). This form (Schiffman, 1999), based on the everyday speech of educated non-Brahman Tamils, is understood wherever Tamil is spoken, including Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Singapore. The sound system of Tamil consists of a ten-vowel system with long and short i and i:, e and e:, a and a:, o and o:, and u and u:. The diphthongs ai and au are found in LT but are not usual in ST; a few loan words contain au, but often these can be represented by avu as in pavu0Bu ‘pound.’ The vowel u has an unrounded variant [M] that occurs after the first syllable, and there are also nasalized variants [a˜], [o˜], as well as nasalized versions of [e˜] and [u˜], all found in
final position only (as the result of deletion of final nasals in SST, but not in LT). In LT, as in Proto-Dravidian, there was a series of six stop consonants: velar k, palatal c, retroflex <, alveolar t, dental t, and labial p. The apical stops < and t could not occur in initial position. In non-initial position, all stops were voiced after nasals (i.e., they were phonetically g, j, B, d , d, and b), and intervocalically, unless geminated, they were laxed (i.e., phonetically h, s, flapped , flapped r, ð, and v). Since these variants are in complementary distribution, no contrast between voiced and voiceless consonants (and the fricative variants) existed. In modern SST, because of borrowings, voiced consonants occur in other environments than these, so the phonological system now has voiced stops, though the orthography lacks provisions for this. Today because of the loss of the alveolar contrast, modern SST only has contrasts between five points of articulation in consonantal stops, with voiced variants in many loan words (but also in onomatopoeic expressions, of which there are many). Nasal consonants (despite orthographic symbols for all six positions) are only m, n, and retroflex 0. In the area of laterals and rhotics, there is confusion. Proto-Dravidian surely had contrasts between l and retroflex U, and r and a ‘retroflex frictionless continuant’ symbolized variously in transcriptions, but for which we prefer r, but because of the loss of the intervocalic alveolar stop contrast (t), which is flapped [r] in modern speech, orthographic symbols for three r’s exist. Furthermore, the retroflex continuant r, which happens to be the final segment in the name ‘Tamil’ (tamir) is often not maintained in speech in many dialects, merging instead with U, g, and even y. But sociolinguistic pressure to maintain this sound, seen as quintessentially Tamil, results in much variation in its maintenance. As for glides, both y and v (which varies sometimes to [w]) are found. Grammatically, Tamil can be characterized as ‘agglutinative,’ with long chains of easily-identifiable morphemes concatenated as suffixes. Noun morphology is fairly simple (there is no grammatical gender), and noun phrases require no agreement with adjectives and nouns. A seven-case system with a nonfinite set of postpositions recruited from lexical items both nominal and verbal, completes the picture. Example: anta periya vii<<-ukk-pakkattu-le- rundu That large house-DAT-near LOC þ ABL ‘From the vicinity of that large house’
The verbal system is morphologically more complex, with various inflectional and derivational morphemes concatenated as suffixes. Example:
Tanoan 1049 avarai eppa
Syntactically, word order is SOV and left-branching. Grammaticalization processes have resulted in the incorporation of certain lexical verbs into the morphology of the verb as ‘aspectual’ markers, a phenomenon typical in many South Asian languages.
Bibliography Arden A H (1942). A progressive grammar of Tamil. Madras: Christian Literature Society. Britto F (1986). Diglossia: a study of the theory with application to Tamil. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Schiffman Harold (1999). A reference grammar of spoken Tamil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tanoan L J Watkins, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO, USA ß 1994 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The majority of Tanoan-speaking peoples have inhabited pueblos in the American Southwest for at least two thousand years. Only the Kiowas are plains dwellers, having occupied the southern plains for about two hundred years.
Subgroups, Locations, and Speakers The Tanoan languages fall into four subgroups which show varying degrees of internal diversity. Tiwa consists of two languages, separated geographically by the Tewa-speaking pueblos. Northern Tiwa comprises two very divergent dialects spoken at the northern New Mexico pueblos of Taos, with perhaps 1000 adult speakers, and Picuris. Southern Tiwa, whose varieties differ only slightly, is spoken at the pueblos of Isleta and Sandia, located in the vicinity of Albuquerque. Numbers of fluent adult speakers range from about 2000 at Isleta to fewer than a dozen elderly individuals at Sandia. The major dialect division in Tewa reflects the emigration of Tewas usually identified as Tanos from the Rio Grande area at the time of the seventeenthcentury Pueblo Revolt. Rio Grande Tewa is spoken by roughly 1000 adults at five pueblos clustered just north of Santa Fe, New Mexico: San Juan, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Tesuque, and Nambe. These mutually intelligible dialects exhibit only minor phonological and lexical differences. Arizona Tewa (also called Hopi-Tewa) is spoken fluently by approximately 300 speakers (including some children) who live in a multilingual community located at Hopi First Mesa in north-eastern Arizona. Towa is the language of Jemez Pueblo, located in the Jemez mountains of New Mexico to the west of
the Rio Grande. It continues to be the first language of Jemez children in a population of approximately 2000. Kiowa, the only non-pueblo language of the family, is spoken today by perhaps 300 older adults in southwestern Oklahoma. Prior to 1700, when ethnohistorical research puts the Kiowas in western Montana, nothing is known of their earlier location or migration.
History and External Relationships Internal relationships within Tanoan are complex and poorly understood. Although Tiwa and Tewa have been considered to be more closely related than either is to Towa or Kiowa, and Kiowa to be the most divergent, the closer resemblances among the pueblo languages may well be attributable to centuries of contact. Hale and Harris’s (1979) proposal that Tanoan consists of four roughly coordinate branches appears to be supported by current comparative work: e.g., phonological innovations show less definitive subgrouping than previously described. A more distant relationship with Uto–Aztecan, long thought plausible and incorporated in Sapir’s Aztec–Tanoan group, remains an open question that has received little recent attention.
Phonological and Grammatical Features The Tanoan languages have fairly complex phonological inventories. They share a four-way stop contrast of voiceless unaspirated, voiceless aspirated (fricatives in Towa and for some positions in Tiwa and Tewa), glottalized, and voiced. The languages have six vowel qualities, with contrastive nasalization, and for some languages contrastive vowel length. In all four subgroups there is contrastive tone (high, falling, and low). Grammatically, the languages show triple agreement, that is, fused (or portmanteau) verbal prefixes which encode three arguments for person,
1050 Tariana
number, and case. Verbal morphology includes extensive stem alternation as well as suffixation, ablaut in stem-initial consonants, and incorporation of nominal, verbal, and adverbial roots. Nouns are classified according to animacy and number; plurals of animate nouns and singulars of some inanimate nouns are morphologically alike. Basic word order is verbfinal, but nouns may follow the verb depending on discourse context. Tiwa and Towa are noted for unusual passives constrained by a topicality hierarchy.
Future Scholarship Much of the research on Tanoan languages remains unpublished in dissertation or manuscript form. Hale (1967) provides a phonological survey with discussion of morphophonemic alternations. Grammatical sketches for Northern and Southern Tiwa
are in preparation. San Juan (Tewa) Pueblo has made available a dictionary and collection of stories. Towa, about which the least material is available, is now the topic of two dissertations. For Kiowa, a grammar (Watkins 1984) will soon be supplemented by a dictionary and collection of texts.
Bibliography Hale K L (1967). Toward a reconstruction of Kiowa–Tanoan phonology. IJAL 33, 112–120. Hale K & Harris D (1979). Historical linguistics and archeology. In Ortiz A (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians, The Southwest. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Watkins L J (1984). A Grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Tariana A Y Aikhenvald, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Tariana language belongs to the Arawak language family (see Arawak Languages). It is spoken by about 100 people in the multilingual linguistic area of the Vaupe´s River Basin (northwest Amazonia, Brazil). This area is known (Aikhenvald, 2002b; Sorensen, 1967) for its multilingual exogamy: one can only marry someone who speaks a different language and belongs to a different tribe. People usually say: ‘My brothers are those who share a language with me’ and ‘We don’t marry our sisters.’ The other languages in this area belong to the Tucanoan family, and they are still spoken by a fair number of people. The basic rule of language choice throughout the Vaupe´s area is that one should speak the interlocutor’s own language. Descent is strictly patrilineal, and consequently, one identifies with one’s father’s language group. There is a strong cultural inhibition against ‘language-mixing,’ viewed in terms of lexical loans. In its grammatical and semantic structure, Tariana combines a number of features inherited from proto-Arawak, with the areal influences from Tucanoan in the form of grammatical calques and diffused patterns. Tariana was once a dialect continuum spoken in various settlements along the Vaupe´s river and its tributaries. The Tariana clans used to form a strict
hierarchy (according to their order of appearance as stated in the creation myth: see Aikhenvald, 1999). Lower-ranking groups in this hierarchy (referred to as ‘younger siblings’ by their higher-ranking tribes people) would perform various ritual duties for their ‘elder siblings.’ Each group spoke a different variety of the language. The difference between these varieties is comparable to that between Romance languages. As the Catholic missions – and with them white influence – expanded, the groups near the top of the hierarchy abandoned the Tariana language in favor of the numerically dominant Tucano language. This process started in the early 1900s. The Tariana language is spoken nowadays just by people from two subtribes of the lowest-ranking group Wamiarikune, in two villages, Santa Rosa and Periquitos. The varieties are mutually intelligible. Most children are not learning Tariana any more. Innovative speakers of Tariana have more Tucanoan-like features in their language than traditional speakers. A literacy program in Tariana is presently under negotiation. Tariana is a polysynthetic language, agglutinating with some fusion. It has mostly suffixes, with just a few prefixes. Constituent order depends on pragmatics. Younger speakers tend to put the verb last in the sentence, just like speakers of Tucano. There are mainly postpositions, with just one preposition (borrowed from Portuguese). Tariana has 27 consonants (including a series of aspirated stops and pre-aspirated nasals and glide)
Tariana 1051
and 15 vowels (a, i, e, u, each with a long and a nasal counterpart), o (with a nasal counterpart), and high central i. Accent is distinctive and of pitch type, as a result of Tucanoan influence. Underived adjectives form a closed class of about 30 members, while classes of nouns and verbs are open. Verbs divide into transitive and intransitive active, which take prefixes cross-referencing their subject (A/Sa). As is typical for an Arawak language, the same set of prefixes marks possessor on inalienably possessed nouns and the argument of postpositions. Intransitive stative verbs do not take any cross-referencing markers. Unlike any other Arawak language, grammatical relations in Tariana are also marked with cases: topical non-subject case -nuku, focused subject case -ne/-nhe, instrumental case -ine, and locative case -se. This case system for marking core syntactic functions was developed under the Tucanoan influence. The case markers result from the reanalysis of locative suffixes of Arawak origin. A member of any word class can occupy the intransitive predicate slot. The locative and the instrumental cases can combine with the non-subject topical case if the constituent is topical (thus yielding a peculiar instance of ‘double case’). Tariana has a complex system of more than 40 classifiers that are used as agreement markers on adjectives, as derivational affixes on nouns, and also as numeral and as verbal classifiers; a slightly different system of classifiers is used with demonstratives. A two-way gender opposition (feminine vs. the rest) is used in personal pronouns (third singular and all plural forms, thus contravening established universals) and in verbal cross-referencing. Classifiers are an open class, since any noun with an inanimate referent can be used as a ‘repeater’ (or ‘self-classifier’). Repeaters can be used to mark the agreement with a topical noun while grammaticized classifiers are used for unmarked agreement. There is an obligatory distinction between singular and plural for nouns with animate referent. Nouns with inanimate referent often refer to substances, and classifier suffixes are attached to them to specify singular reference. For instance, episi means ‘iron as a substance’, while episi-da (iron-CLASSIFIER: ROUND) means ‘axe’ and episi-kha (iron-CLASSIFIER:CURVED) means ‘wire’. Number agreement is optional for inanimate nouns. The Tariana verb has a plethora of moods and aspects. It has an elaborate system of marking information source, known as evidentiality. Tariana distinguishes visual evidentials (something seen), non-visual evidentials (something heard, or smelled, or felt by touch), inferred evidential (something inferred based on visible results: as one infers that it
has rained on the basis of puddles); assumed evidentials (based on general knowledge), and reported evidential. Three tenses (present, recent past, and remote past) are combined with evidentials. Traditional stories are typically cast in remote past reported evidential, and autobiographical narratives in visual evidential. Non-visual evidential is used to relate the actions of evil spirits that are not ‘seen’, and dreams of ordinary people, while prophetic dreams by omniscient shamans are cast in visual evidentials. A reduced set of evidentials is used in questions, while imperatives have just one, reported, evidential (meaning ‘do something on someone else’s order’). This unusually complex evidentiality system has been largely calqued from Tucanoan languages. A complicated system of serial verb constructions expresses aspectual, directional, and sequential meanings, and also reciprocal and associative meanings. There are three types of causatives. Morphological causatives are formed on intransitive verbs. The same morpheme on a transitive verb indicates an advancement of a peripheral argument of the transitive verb to the core, and/or complete involvement and topicality of the O argument. Periphrastic causatives (indirect causation) and serial causative constructions (direct causation) are used to form causatives of transitive verbs. When several clauses are combined to form one sentence, all but the main clause are marked differently depending on whether their subject is the same as, or different from, that of the main clause. This feature (known as switch-reference) is shared with the Tucanoan languages. A detailed reference grammar is in Aikhenvald (2003). Aikhenvald (2002a) is a comprehensive dictionary, while Aikhenvald (1999) contains a text collection and an outline of the Tariana ethnography with an account of the kinship system (which is of Dravidian type).
Bibliography Aikhenvald A Y (1999). Tariana texts and cultural context. Munich: Lincom Europa. Aikhenvald A Y (2002a). Diciona´rio Tariana-Portugueˆs e Portugueˆs-Tariana. Bele´m: Museu Goeldi. Aikhenvald A Y (2002b). Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald A Y (2003). A grammar of Tariana, from northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sorensen A P Jr. (1967). ‘Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon.’ American Anthropologist 69, 670–684 (reprinted in 1972 in Pride, J B & Holmes, J (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Modern Linguistics Readings. 78–93).
1052 Tatar
Tatar L Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Location and Speakers Tatar (tatar te˘le˘, tatarc˘a) is the designation for Kazan Tatar and related dialects belonging to the northern subbranch of the Northwestern or Kipchak branch of the Turkic language family. It is distributed over a huge area, from Ryazan in the west to West Siberia in the east, from the Kirov region in the north to Astrakhan in the south. Most Tatar speakers live between the Volga–Kama triangle and the western slopes of southern Ural. The Republic of Tatarstan (Tatarstan Respublikası¨) with its capital Kazan is situated in the central part of the Russian Federation, at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama. It borders Bashkortostan in the east, Mari El and Udmurtia in the north, and Chuvashia in the west. This multinational republic has a total population of over 3.8 million, mainly consisting of Volga Tatars (over 50%) and Russians (over 40%). There are also speakers of Chuvash, Mordva, Udmurt, Mari, Bashkir, etc. Speakers of Misher Tatar live mainly west, southwest, and south of the republic. Kasimov Tatar was formerly spoken farther west, in the Ryazan region, on the territory of the old Kasimov Khanate. Tatarspeaking groups, often descendants of Noghays, still live along the Volga river south of the republic, down to the Astrakhan region. There are also scattered Tatarspeaking groups in other central parts of the Russian Federation. About 1 million Tatars live in Bashkortostan. The Tepter Tatars live along the Ural River. East of the Ural Mountains, in an area that was once the home of sizeable Turkic-speaking groups, West Siberian Tatar varieties of different origins are still spoken by small groups, about 150 000 persons altogether: the dialects of Irtysh, Tu¨men, Tura, Tobol, Tara, Ishim, etc. The Baraba Tatars, about 8000 persons, live in the Baraba steppe, between Novosibirsk and Omsk. Tatar is also spoken in parts of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, China, etc. The total number of Tatar speakers is about 8 million. The designation ‘Tatar’ is ambiguous. Until the end of the 19th century, it was used for all languages of Turkic Muslim groups in Russia. It is still used for Crimean Tatar (Judco Crimean Tatar), which is not identical with Volga Tatar, but a language in its own right. The so-called Tatar minority in China, mostly in Xinjiang (about 5000), consists of descendants of Volga and Crimean Tatars. Groups in Poland, Belarus,
and Lithuania, referred to as ‘Lithuanian Tatars,’ are linguistically assimilated descendants of Noghays and Crimean Tatars. The Tatars of West Siberia partly consist of emigrants from the Volga region. The Baraba Tatars go back to deported Kipchak tribes. The Tatars of Astrakhan and Siberia have strong Noghay elements. Tatar has long been one of the most firmly established Turkic languages. It has consolidated its position further in the post-Soviet era. The official languages of Tatarstan are Tatar and Russian. Of the Tatars of the Russian Federation, 86% regard Tatar as their mother-tongue.
Origin and History The designation Tatar is first mentioned in Chinese sources and in Turkic inscriptions of the 8th century. Later on it appears as a Mongol tribal name. Kipchak Turkic groups who arrived in the Volga region with the Mongols adopted it for themselves. It was used for the Turkic and Mongol population in the Golden Horde, also for Turkic groups that arrived later, and finally also for older Turkic groups of the Volga–Kama area. Tatar is a result of complex linguistic contact processes, the main elements being Kipchak Turkic, Volga Bulgar, Volga Finnic, and Mongolic. Turkic groups were probably present on the middle course of Volga River from the 5th century on, absorbing local Finno–Ugric tribes of the region. The Volga Bulgar element was of decisive importance. The powerful Volga Bulgar state was created at the end the 9th century and adopted Islam in 922. The Volga Bulgars assimilated native groups of the region. Both Tatars and Chuvash regard themselves as descendants of the Volga Bulgars. The state was destroyed by the Mongols in 1237 and the Khanate of the Golden Horde was established. Its most important element was Kipchak Turkic, which became the dominant assimilating factor. Volga Bulgars, Finno–Ugric groups, and Mongols shifted to Kipchak. The speakers of the predecessor of Chuvash, however, were not assimilated but preserved their language. After the disintegration of the Golden Horde, the Khanates of Kazan, Crimea, Kasimov, Astrakhan, and Sibir were established. The Khanate of Kazan was annexed by Russia in 1552, whereby Tatars, Bashkirs, and Chuvash came under Russian rule. The West Siberian Tatars are partly descendants of Volga Tatars, who left their homeland in this period. A Tatar Autonomous Soviet Republic was established in 1920. After
Tatar 1053
the Soviet era, the Autonomous Republic of Tatarstan became a member of the Russian Federation.
Related Languages and Language Contacts The Tatar language is related to Bashkir, Crimean Tatar, Kazakh, Karachay–Balkar, Kumyk, Karaim, etc. Tatar has influenced neighboring languages such as Bashkir, Chuvash, and the Finno-Ugric languages Mari (Cheremis), Mordva, and Udmurt (Votyak). The literary language has also had considerable influence on Turkic languages in Central Asia, e.g., Uzbek. Literary Tatar has to a certain extent served as a model for literary Kazakh. Tatar has been influenced by Russian, particularly in the lexicon. The written language was also used by the small Turkic groups of western Siberia, and thus had a strong impact on their dialects. Certain features typical of Tatar are already found in the Kuman language as attested in the Codex cumanicus (14th century), where the language is even referred to as ‘Tatar.’ The written language used in the cultural centers of the Golden Horde was Khorezmian Turkic, which had its center in Khorezm on the shore of the Aral Sea and was influenced by local Kipchak and Oghuz Turkic dialects. This tradition was continued in the Khanates that emerged after the fall of the Golden Horde. It was used, with strong Kipchak elements, as the official language in the Crimea up to the 17th century, when it was replaced by Ottoman (Turkish). Its use in the Khanate of Kazan was strongly influenced by Chaghatay (Chagatai) and Ottoman. A socalled Volga Turki developed, which is often referred to as ‘Old Tatar,’ though it must be distinguished from older spoken Tatar. It was used for an emerging Tatar literature based on Chaghatay traditions. Religious works were written in this language up to the mid-19th century. A more genuinely Tatar written language developed in the second part of the 19th century. It was based on the Kazan dialect, though strongly influenced by Chaghatay. It was also used by Mishers and Astrakhan Noghays and, for some decades, Bashkirs. It was of great cultural importance for all Turkic minorities in Russia. At the beginning of the 20th century, Tatar still had a considerable transregional validity. In the Soviet era, it was limited to a regional national language. Tatar was written with Arabic script until a Roman-based alphabet was introduced in 1927. In 1939, a variant of the Cyrillic alphabet was adopted. The Christian Tatars in the Volga region had used the
Cyrillic script already at the end of the 19th century. In the post-Soviet era, a new Roman-based alphabet has been created, although it has not yet replaced the Cyrillic-based script.
Distinctive Features Tatar exhibits most linguistic features typical of the Turkic family (see Turkic Languages). It is an agglutinative language with suffixing morphology, sound harmony, and a head-final constituent order. In the following, only a few distinctive features will be dealt with. In the notation of suffixes, capital letters indicate phonetic variation, e.g., A ¼ a/e. A segment in round brackets only occurs after consonant-final stems. Hyphens are used here to indicate morpheme boundaries. Phonology
The phonetic basis of modern standard Tatar is Kazan Tatar. The vowel system includes the high-mid vowels e˘, o¨˘, ı¨˘, o˘, which are shorter and more centralized than the low and high vowels. The vowel a of the first syllable is rounded to a˚ in the central dialect. Tatar exhibits the results of systematic vowel shifts. Low vowels of the first syllable have been raised: e > i, e.g., min ‘I’ (<men), o > u, e.g., qul ‘arm’ (< qol), o¨ > u¨, e.g., ku¨z ‘eye’ (< ko¨z). High vowels have been centralized and reduced: i > e˘, e.g., be˘r ‘one,’ u > o˘, e.g., qo˘sˇ ‘bird’ (< qusˇ), u¨ > o¨˘, e.g., ko¨˘n ‘day’ (
1054 Tatar
ending in nasal consonants, e.g., uram-nar [street-PL] ‘streets,’ urman-nan [forest-ABL] ‘from the forest.’ Nonpermissible consonant clusters are dissolved by means of epenthetic vowels, consonant deletion etc., e.g., dus ‘friend’ vs. dust-ı¨m [friend-POSS.1.SG] ‘my friend.’ Grammar
After first- and second-person possessive pronouns the possessive suffix on the head is optional, e.g., min-e˘m e˘sˇ-e˘m [I-GEN work-POSS.1.SG] or min-e˘m e˘sˇ [I-GEN work] ‘my work.’ The comparative degree of adjectives takes the suffix -rAK, e.g., o˘zo˘n-raq [long-COMP] ‘longer’ (cf. Turkish daha uzun). The third-person personal pronouns are ul ‘he, she, it’ (with the oblique stem an-) and alar ‘they.’ The demonstrative pronouns bu, sˇusˇ˘ı¨, sˇul, te˘ge˘, ul express various degrees of proximity. Approximative numerals are formed with the suffix -lAp, e.g., un-lap ‘approximately ten.’ Tatar has numerous simple and compound aspectmood-tense forms as well as verbal nouns, converbs, and participles. It has a present tense in -A (-y after stem-final vowels) plus personal markers, e.g., kil-em[e˘n] [come-PRES-1.SG] ‘I come, I am coming.’ The most frequent verbal noun ends in -(I)w, e.g., al-ı˘¨w ‘to take, taking.’ An infinitive is formed with -(I)rGA, negated -mAs-kA. Frequently used converb markers include -A (-y after stem-final vowels), -(I)p- and -GAcˇ, e.g., al-gacˇ [take-CONV] ‘after having taken.’ Like most other Turkic languages, Tatar has evidential markers of the type iken, e.g., qayt-qan iken [return-POSTTERMINAL.PAST EV] ‘has obviously returned.’ A number of auxiliary verb (postverb) constructions express modifications of the manner of action, e.g., yan-ı¨p be˘t- [burn down-AUX] ‘burn down (completely).’ Possibility and impossibility are expressed by means of a converb þ the auxiliary verb al-, e.g., yaz-a al- [write-CONV-POSS] ‘to be able to write,’ yaz-a al-ma- [write-CONV-POSS-NEG] ‘to be unable to write’ (Turkish yaz-a-bil- [write-CONVPOSS], yaz-a-ma- [write-CONV-POSS-NEG]). Lexicon
Most basic lexical elements are of Turkic origin. Many loans are of Middle Mongolian, Arabic,
Persian, and Russian origin, e.g., zur ‘big,’ az˘daha ‘dragon,’ baqcˇa ‘garden,’ atna ‘week’ (Persian), fike˘r ‘thought,’ taraf ‘side’ (Arabic), stakan ‘glass,’ par ‘steam,’ kuxnya ‘kitchen,’ vracˇ ‘doctor’ (Russian), uram ‘street,’ dala ‘steppe’ (Mongolian). Words of Finno-Ugric origin occur mainly in dialects. Tatar conjunctions are mostly of foreign origin, e.g., hem ‘and,’ emme ‘but,’ cˇo¨˘nki ‘for (causal),’ gu¨ye ‘as if,’ ki ‘that,’ eger ‘if, when.’ Dialects
Tatar comprises a central dialect group, Kazan Tatar proper. A western dialect group, consisting mainly of Misher Tatar, is spoken in the Volga region outside the republic. An eastern dialect group is spoken in West Siberia. The Irtysh–Tobol dialects hold an intermediate position between Kazan Tatar and other Siberian Tatar dialects. West Siberian dialects often exhibit the changes cˇ > ds and > dz and voicing of intervocalic consonants (like in South Siberia). The vowel shifts are not so strongly developed in these dialects as in Volga Tatar.
Bibliography Berta A´ (1989). Studia Uralo–Altaica 31: Lautgeschichte der tatarischen Dialekte. Szeged: Universitas Szegediensis de Attila Jo´zsef nominata. ´ (1998). ‘Tatar and Bashkir.’ In Johanson & Csato´ Berta A E´ A´ (ed.) The Turkic languages. London/New York: Routledge. 283–300. Dawletschin T, Dawletschin I & Tezcan S (1989). Tatarisch-deutsches Wo¨rterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Johanson L (2001). ‘Tatar.’ In Garry J & Rubino C (eds.) Facts about the world’s major languages: an encyclopedia of the world’s major languages, past and present. New York: New England Publishing Associates/Dublin: The H. W. Wilson Company. 719–721. Poppe N (1963). Tatar manual: descriptive grammar and texts with a Tatar–English glossary. Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series 25. Bloomington/ The Hague: Mouton. Thomsen K (1959). ‘Das Kasantatarische und die westsibirischen Dialekte.’ In Deny J et al. (eds.) Philologiae turcicae fundamenta 1. Aquis Mattiacis: Steiner. 407–421.
Telugu 1055
Telugu P Bhaskararao, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, Japan ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Telugu is one of the four literary languages of the Dravidian family. It is mainly spoken in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India. According to the official Census of India (1991 report) there were 66 million speakers of Telugu in the country. The state of Andhra Pradesh could be demarcated into four major dialectal regions (North, South, East, and Central). Varieties of Telugu spoken outside this state differ to a good extent from these main dialects. Like many other languages in India, in addition to regional variants, Telugu possesses a good number of social variants too. Both these variations—regional as well as social—are reflected in most of the components of the language viz., lexical, phonological, morphophonemic and grammatical. Telugu script is a derivative of the Southern Brahmi script. Though Telugu words are found in inscriptions dating back to 200 BC, we get the first inscription written entirely in Telugu sentences in 575 AD. The major literary works in Telugu start from the eleventh century BC.
Sounds Its phonemic system contains native as well as borrowed sounds (from Sanskrit, Perso–Arabic and English sources). All nasals, trills, approximants, and laterals are voiced; all fricatives are voiceless; stops are differentiated both for voicing and aspiration (Table 1). Aspirated stops are found only in educated and Sanskritized speech – even in that, /th/ is rarely found and the /th/ sound in the Sanskrit original is mostly replaced by /dh/ except after /s/. /f/ is found in words borrowed from Perso–Arabic and English sources. /ph/, which is available only in
words borrowed by Sanskrit, is generally pronounced as /f/ in non-Sanskritic but educated speech. /s/ and /sˇ/ are mostly merged into /s/ in non-Sanskritized speech. /w/ phonetically varies between [w] and voiced labio dental approximant [u]. Vowel harmony plays an important role in its phonology (Table 2). At allophonic level, the height of a vowel controls the height of the vowel that precedes it (in the preceding syllable), for example, ‘cat’ /pilli/ > [pilli]; ‘girl’ /pilla/ > [pIlla]. Sandhi changes are also very complex in the language. These include shortvowel deletion, assimilation of consonants for place, manner, phonation type, and so on. Application of these extensive Sandhi changes sometimes results in telescoping of several words into long strings. For instance, when some of the Sandhi rules are applied on the underlying form of the sentence: we¯d. i-nı¯.l ¯ wu-a¯ ‘Do you say that there is no hot .lu-le¯wu-an . t. a water?’ we get the output as: we¯n. n. i¯.l.le¯wan. .ta¯wa¯.
Pronouns and Pronominal Categories Pronouns are differentiated for the features of person, number, human-maleness, and humanness. The pronouns are ne¯nu (1¯s), me¯mu (1e-pl), manamu (1ipl), nı¯vu/nuvvu (2s), mı¯ru (2pl), wa¯d. u (3s-mh), adi (3s-nmh), wa¯ru/wa¯.l.l u (3pl-h), awi (3pl-nh) (1 ¼ 1st person, 2 ¼ 2nd person, 3 ¼ 3rd person; s ¼ singular, p ¼ plural; e ¼ exclusive [excludes the addressee], i ¼ inclusive [includes the addressee]; mh ¼ human male, nmh ¼ other than human male; h ¼ human, nh ¼ non-human). This classification of pronouns is fundamental, as it is reflected in the pronominal suffixes that are suffixed to the finite verb stems in forming full verbs (a process also known as ‘verbal concord or agreement’). The major allomorphs of the pronominal suffixes are 1s: -nu, 1e-pl/1-pl: -mu, 2s: -wu, 2pl: -ru, 3s-mh: -du, 3s-nmh: -di, 3pl-h: -ru, 3pl-nh: -yi. In the category of third-person pronouns, in addition to the remote pronouns given above, we also get proximate and interrogative pronouns.
Table 1 Consonants Labial
Stops Unaspirated Aspirated Nasals Fricatives Trills Approximants Laterals
Labio dental
p b ph bh m
Denti-Alveolar
t (th)
Alveolar
d dh
Retroflex
Palatal
Velar
t. t. h
cˇ cˇh
k g kh gh
n f
s
d. d. h n.
j jh
sˇ
s.
h
r y l
.l
w
1056 Telugu
All the third-person pronouns are listed below, along with their oblique forms (that are explained later). The 2pl and 3pl-nh pronouns are also used as honorific (‘respect’) pronouns. When honorificness is taken into account, in third person we get extra sets of pronouns that denote different degrees of ‘respect.’ The sets of pronouns with increasing degree of honorificness are 3s-mh REMOTE wa¯d. u atanu/a¯yana, wa¯ru; PROXIMATE wı¯d. u, itanu/ı¯yana, wı¯ru; INTERROGATIVE: ewad . u, ewaru; Third-person singular human feminine (as nonhumans are not differentiated for honorificness): REMOTE adi, a¯me/a¯wid. a, wa¯ru; PROXIMATE idi, ı¯me/ı¯wid . a, wı¯ru; INTERROGATIVE e¯di, ewarte, ewaru. Note that the pronouns with highest degree of honorificness (wa¯ru, wı¯ru, ewaru) are originally one of the alternants of the Plural human forms (but the other alternants viz., wa¯.l.lu, wı¯.l.lu, ewal. u are not used as third-person honorific singular forms).
Oblique Forms Nouns (simple, derived as well as plural forms) and pronouns have both direct and oblique stems. The direct stems are the nominative forms (direct stems of singular nouns and ever-plurals (e.g., pa¯lu ‘milk’) are listed in the lexicon), whereas the oblique stems are used in several of the case inflections. In the case of some nouns, both of these stems are same in form (e.g., kukka ‘dog’: kukka-ki ‘to a dog’). In the case of all pronouns and some nouns, the oblique stems differ in shape (e.g., ra¯yi ‘stone’: ra¯ti-to¯ ‘with a stone’; kukka-lu ‘dogs’: kukka-la-ki ‘to the dogs’). The oblique stems of third-person pronouns are given in Table 3. The oblique stems of the personal pronouns are na¯ (1s), ma¯- (1e-pl), mana- (1i-pl), nı¯- (2s), mı¯- (2pl).
Noun A noun is simple (monomorphemic) (e.g., kukka ‘dog’) or derived (e.g., donga ‘thief’ > donga-tanam ‘theft’; moga- ‘male’ > moga-tanam ‘manliness’; cut. t. am ‘a relative’ > cut. .ta-rikam ‘relationship’; andam ‘beauty’ > anda-gatte ‘beautiful woman’; tin. d. i ‘eating’> tin. d. i-po¯tu ‘glutton’; ju¯dam ‘gambling’> ju¯dari ‘gambler’). Verbs can give rise to two types of derived nouns: action nominals (e.g., mu¯yu ‘to close, cover’> mu¯y-ad. am ‘closing, covering’; pilucu ‘to call’> pilawa-d. am ‘calling’) or substantive nominals (mu¯yu ‘to close, cover’> mu¯-ta ‘a cover, lid’; pilucu ‘to call’> pilu-pu ‘invitation’). Number
A simple or derived noun can be inflected for plural number by the addition of a plural suffix. The plural suffix has two morphophonemic alternants: -lu and -l. u. [e.g., ‘dog’: kukka (sg.), kukka-lu (pl.); ‘backyard’: perad. u (sg.), perau¨u (pl.); ‘cat’: pilli (sg.), pillulu (pl.); ‘house’: illu (sg.), il. .lu (pl.); ‘eye’: kannu (sg.), kal. .lu (pl.)]. Some nouns require their oblique stems to receive the plural suffix [e.g., ‘pit’: goyyi/go¯yi (sg.), go¯tu-lu (pl.); ‘horse’: gurram (sg.), gurra¯-lu (pl.)]. Case
The direct stem of a singular or a plural noun functions as a noun in nominative case. Other case forms of nouns are obtained by means of several case suffixes and postpositions. Some of them are accusative -ni/-nu; dative -ki/-ku; instrumental/sociative: -to¯; ablative -nunci; comparative -kan. .te; and locative -lo¯. The oblique stem of a noun functions as its genitive form (e.g., na¯ ‘my’, ra¯ti ‘of stone’ [ra¯yi ‘stone’]). A few postpositions are: kinda ‘below,’ mı¯da ‘above,’ lo¯pala ‘inside,’ mundu ‘in front of, before,’ tarawa¯ta ‘after.’
Table 2 Vowels
Numerals FU
High Mid Low
CU
i ¯ı e e¯
BR
u u¯a o o¯ a a¯
Structure of the numerals follows the general Dravidian pattern. Cardinal numerals 1000, 100, and 1 to 10 are mono-morphemic. They are: okat. i ‘1,’ ren. d. u ‘2,’ mu¯d. u ‘3,’ na¯lugu ‘4,’ aidu ‘5,’ a¯ru ‘6,’ e¯d. u ‘7,’
Table 3 Third-person pronouns 3rd Person
s-mh s-nmh pl-h pl-nh
Remote
Proximate
Interrogative
Direct stem
Oblique stem
Direct stem
Oblique stem
wa¯d. u adi wa¯ru/wa¯l.l.u aw1
wa¯d. i da¯ni wa¯ri/wa¯l.l.a wa¯t. i
w¯ıd. u idi w¯ıru/w¯ıl.l.u iwi
w¯ıd. i d¯ıni w¯ıri/w¯ıl. l.a w¯ıt. i
Direct stem
Oblique stem
ewad. u
ewad. ı´ de¯ni ewarl./ewal. a we¯t. l.
e¯d1
ewaru/ewal. u e¯wi
Telugu 1057
enimidi ‘8,’ tommidi ‘9,’ padı´ ‘10,’ nu¯ru/wanda ‘100,’ and ve¯yi/veyyi ‘1000.’ The formula for forming decades is: 2, 3 and so on, followed by 10 (e.g., nalabhai [4–10] ‘40’). The formula for series between decades (e.g., 41–49) is: numeral for decade followed by 1–9 (e.g., nala-bhai-ren. d. u [4-10-2] ‘forty-two’). Ordinals are derived from cardinals by suffixation of -awa (> o¯) (e.g., a¯ru-awa > a¯rawa/a¯ro¯ ‘sixth’). Adjectives and Adverbs
Adjectival forms that function solely as modifiers of nouns or other adjectives (and nothing else) are very few in the language; for example, ara ‘half,’ pa¯wu ‘a quarter,’ ceri ‘each.’ These adjectives can be followed only by a noun. The demonstrative and interrogative roots: a¯ ‘that,’ ı¯ ‘this,’ e¯ ‘which,’ are also adjectives. They are used before nouns (e.g., a¯ pilla ‘that girl’, e¯ pilla ‘which girl’). Their variants can take various suffixes to give rise to different forms (e.g., akkad. a ‘there,’ appud. u ‘then,’ at. u ‘that side,’ ala¯ga ‘in that manner,’ awatala ‘on that side,’ anni ‘that many,’ anta ‘that much’). Even the third-person pronouns can be viewed as derivatives of these forms. Some adjectives are bound and require a suffix or a noun to follow it (e.g., tella ‘white’: tella-wa¯d. u ‘white man,’ tella-ni/-t. i manis. i‘ ‘white person,’ tella-ga¯ ‘whitish,’ tella-na ‘whiteness’). A large number of adjectives are derived from other forms such as nouns, adverbs, and verbs. A noun in genitive case always functions as an adjective (e.g., na¯ pustakam ‘my book,’ ra¯ti go¯d. a ‘stone wall’). Some examples of adjectives derived from adverbs are: ala¯.ti manis. i ‘a person of that type’ [ala¯(ga) ‘in that manner’]; re¯pat. i pani ‘work of tomorrow’ (re¯pu ‘tomorrow’). A majority of nouns function as modifiers when placed before another noun (e.g., goppa manis. i ‘great man’). It is difficult to find monomorphemic adverbs. Even the adverbs of time and place such as ninna ‘yesterday,’ appud. u ‘then,’ are either basically nominals or are derived from adjectival roots. The main adverb deriving suffix is -ga¯, as in gat. .ti-ga¯ ‘hard.’ Many onomatopoeic words are basically adverbial in function (e.g., gaba-gaba¯ ‘quickly’).
Verb Like in many other Dravidian languages, verb in this language has the most complex structure. A fully inflected verb contains a verb stem followed by optional suffixes. The stem is simple, derived, or compound. A simple stem is composed of one verb root (e.g., caccu ‘to die’). A derived stem contains a verbal or nominal root followed by a derivative suffix (e.g.,
cam-pu ‘to kill’, cam-pincu ‘to cause to kill’); u¯h-incu ‘to imagine’ (from u¯ha ‘imagination’). A compound verb stem contains a main verb followed by one or more auxiliary verbs (e.g., wan. d. u-konu ‘to cook for oneself’ [wan. d. u ‘to cook’], wan. d. u-kona-bo¯wu ‘to be about to cook for oneself’). A verb stem is inflected for tense/mode, which takes a further pronominal suffix (in the case of finite verbs). Most of the inflectional suffixes have two or more allomorphs. Some of the finite tense/mode forms are – Imperative: tinu [
1s 1e-pl/ 1i-pl 2s 2pl 3s-mh 3s-nmh 3pl-h 3pl-nh
Past
Nonpast
tinna¯nu tinna¯mu
tin. .ta¯nu tin. .ta¯mu
Nonpast Negative tinanu tinamu
tinna¯wu tinna¯ru tinna¯d. u tinna¯di> tinnadi>tindi tinna¯ru tinna¯yi
tin. .ta¯wu tin. .ta¯ru tin. .ta¯d. u tin. .tundi
tinawu tinaru tinad. u tinadu
tin. .ta¯ru tin. .ta¯yI
tinaru tinawu
Nonfinite verbs do not terminate in a Pronominal suffix. They form nonfinite or subordinate clauses in a sentence. The resulting forms have adverbial, adjectival, or nominal functions. Some of the nonfinite forms are obtained by a single suffix such as: Perfective (e.g., cadiw-i ‘having read’), Negative Perfective: cadaw-aka ‘not having read’; Durative: caduwu-tu¯ ‘while reading’; Conditional: cadiw-ite¯ ‘if one reads’; Concessive: cadiw-ina¯ ‘even if one reads.’ Some Nonfinite forms are obtained by adding more than one suffix or auxiliary (e.g., cadaw-aka-po¯-te¯ ‘if one does not read’). Relative participle forms are adjectival in function – they are: Past: cadiw-ina ‘one who read, one which was read’; Nonpast: cadiw-e¯ ‘one who reads, one which is/will be read’; Negative: cadawani ‘one who does/did not read, one which is/was not read.’ The other important nonfinite forms are Verbal noun (e.g., cadawad. am ‘reading’), and Infinitive which
1058 Thai
forms the basis for many further expansions (e.g., cadawa, as in cadawa-ku¯d. adu ‘one should not read’). Verbs are classified into different conjugation classes that account for the various morphophonemic changes that they undergo during the process of inflection. An extensive process of verbal compounding gives rise to forms expressing different kinds of modes. These compound verbs can be classified on the basis of the inflected form of the nuclear verb. Some examples follow. With infinitive as the nucleus: Permissive: cadawa-waccu ‘one may read’; Inceptive: cadawa-bo¯ye¯nu ‘I was about to read’; Potential: cadawa-gala-nu ‘I can read’; Negative Potential: cadawa-le¯-nu ‘I cannot read’; Negative Past: cadawa-le¯du ‘One did not read’; Obligative: cadaw-a¯li ‘One should read’; Negative Injunctive: cadawa-ku¯d. adu ‘One should not read’; Prohibitive: cadawa-waddu ‘Don’t read.’ With past participle as the nucleus: Benefactive: cadiwi-pet. .t-e¯nu ‘I read it (for somebody)’; Decisive: cadiwi-tı¯ru-ta¯nu ‘I will definitely read’; Completive: cadiwi-we¯s-e¯nu ‘I finished reading.’
Syntax Telugu is an SOV language. ‘‘It is a nominative-accusative language and hence, the verb agrees with the argument in the nominative case. It has postpositions and the genitive precedes the governing noun. The comparative marker follows the standard of comparison. The complementizer occurs in the right peripheral position. Adjectives and participial adjectives precede the head noun. There are no pleonastic or expletive constructions such as it or there. It is a prodrop language. The subject, direct object, indirect object, and adverbial phrase of the finite embedded and matrix sentence may be pro-dropped. There occur clefts in Telugu and the clefted constituent occurs as the rightmost element just as in other Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman languages and Sinhalese’’ (Subbarao and Bhaskararao, 2004: 161). It has four
kinds of nonnominative constructions and different types of verb-less sentences.
Vocabulary Like many other Dravidian languages, the vocabulary of Telugu contains native Dravidian as well as borrowed vocabulary. The earliest borrowings were mostly from Sanskrit and Prakrit. Some of the borrowings were assimilated to fit the native phonology. Later borrowings came from Perso–Arabic sources through Urdu, Portuguese, and English in that order. Except for the sound [f] all the other sounds of the borrowed sources that are not native to Telugu were replaced by nearer native sounds. Because verbal vocabulary is more resistant to accepting borrowals, although borrowing verbal concepts, the corresponding nouns from the source language were borrowed, which were verbalized by means of suffixation (e.g., u¯hincu ‘to imagine’ [Sanskrit u¯ha ‘imagination’], a¯nandincu ‘to enjoy’ [Sanskrit a¯nanda ‘happiness’ or by means of verbal conjuncts (e.g., d. raywu-ce¯yu ‘to drive’ [English drive]; pu¯ja-ce¯yu ‘to worship’ [Sanskrit pu¯ja¯ ‘workship’]).
Bibliography Bhaskararao P (1975). ‘Verbal compounding in Telugu.’ Bulletin of Deccan College Research Institute 35, 9–20. Bhaskararao P (1982). ‘A re-examination of consonantal Sandhi in modern colloquial Telugu.’ Bulletin of Deccan College Research Institute 41, 16–26. Krishnamurti Bh (1998). ‘Telugu.’ In Steever S B (ed.) The Dravidian languages. London: Routledge. 202–240. Krishnamurti Bh & Gwynn J P L (1985). A grammar of modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Subbarao K V & Bhaskararao P (2004). ‘Non-nominative Subjects in Telugu.’ In Bhaskararao P & Subbarao K V (eds.) Non-nominative subjects, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 161–196. Subrahmanyam P (1974). An Introduction to modern Telugu. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University.
Thai T J Hudak, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA ß 1994 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thai (Siamese, Central Thai) serves as the national language of Thailand where it is used by the schools, the media, and the government. Of the 1990 estimated population of 54 890 000, 75 percent are considered
ethnic Thai, 14 percent Chinese, and 11 percent other. Outside of Bangkok and the central plains, other regional dialects exist: Northern Thai (Kam Muang) in the north, Southern Thai in the south, and Lao or Northeastern Thai (Isan) in the northeast. Thai belongs to the Tai language family, a subgroup of the Kadai or Kam–Tai family, and descended from the single protoparent Proto-Tai. A number of
Thai 1059
linguists have claimed that Kam–Tai and Austronesian belong to a branch of Austro–Tai; however, this claim still remains controversial. Linguistic evidence indicates that the area near the border between northern Vietnam and southeastern China is the probable place of origin of the speakers of the Tai languages. The Tai languages extend from Assam in the west through northern Burma, Laos, Thailand including the peninsula down to the Malay border, northern Vietnam, and the Chinese provinces of Yunnan, Guizhou (Kweichow), and Guangxi (Kwangsi). In discussing the Tai family, linguists often divide it into northern, central, and southwestern branches. In this division, Thai belongs to the southwestern branch.
Historical Background Late twentieth-century linguistic theory suggests that the Thai spoken in Sukhothai, the first major Thai kingdom, founded in the mid-thirteenth century, resembled Proto-Tai, particularly in tonal structure. This early system consisted of three contrasting tones on syllables ending in a vowel or sonorant, designated as ABC. A fourth category D existed on syllables ending in ptk, although no tonal differentiation appeared on these types of syllables. The phonetic nature of these contrasts still remains a matter of speculation. This sound system prevailed at the time that King Ramkhamhaeng (?1279–98) created the writing system sometime prior to 1292 AD, the date of the earliest known inscription, Inscription I or the Inscription of Ramkhamhaeng. The writing system used as a base an Indic alphabet that was originally designed to represent Sanskrit. It was borrowed first by the Khmer and then the Thai, with the eventual system bearing little resemblance to the original due to a variety of additions and modifications. In 1351, the Thai capital shifted to Ayutthaya. The most generally accepted theory holds that present-day Thai descended from the Sukhothai dialect. During the Ayutthaya period (1351–1767), Thai underwent two major changes. First, sometime between the midfourteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries, the system of three tones split into a system of five, the changes dependent upon the phonetic nature of the initial consonant of each syllable. Another significant change was the large influx of Sanskrit, Pali, and Khmer loanwords, which expanded the vocabulary and reflected the growing complexity of Ayutthayan society. Later, during the Bangkok era (1782–twentieth century), much of this terminology and its correct use became standardized by King Mongkut (1851– 68). Further emphasis upon the correct use of the language came from King Chulalongkorn (1868– 1910) and King Vajiravudh (1910–26). Since then,
there has been the growth of a prescriptivism associated with the creation of a national language (Diller 1988: 304).
Phonology A Thai syllable consists of an initial, a vocalic nucleus, a final (which may or may not be obligatory), and a tone. Initials consist of a single consonant or a cluster, and the nucleus of a long or short vowel. Only /p, t, k, m, n, N, w, and y/ occur as final consonants. There are no consonant clusters at the end of the syllable. The tone may be mid, low, falling, high, or rising. The twenty consonant phonemes are the voiceless unaspirated stops /p/, /t/, /c/, and /k/; the voiceless aspirated stops /ph/, /th/, /ch/, and /kh/; the voiced stops /b/ and /d/; the fricatives /f/, /s/, and /h/; the nasals /m/, /n/, and /N/; the lateral /l/; the trill /r/; and the semivowels /w/ and /y/. There are nine vowel phonemes, which may occur short or long: high /i/, /M/, /u/; mid /e/, /W/, /o/; low /æ/, /a/, /O/. Each of the three high vowels may be followed by a centering offglide /a:/ /ia/, /Ma/, /ua/. The question of stress in Thai remains a debated issue; however, most studies agree that the final syllable position has the greatest prominence. In disyllabic and polysyllabic words, the remaining vowels are reduced. Along with these reductions, some tone neutralization may also occur.
Syntax The most favored sentential word order is subject– verb–object (SVO): /kha´w kin khanoˇm/ ‘He eats cakes.’ The subject and object may be filled with a noun phrase that can consist of a noun, a pronoun, a demonstrative pronoun, or an interrogative–indefinite pronoun. The noun phrase may also consist of a noun þ attribute in which case the noun precedes the attribute: /baˆan pho˘m/ ‘my house.’ While SVO is traditionally described as the most favored order, other common orders frequently appear, especially in colloquial or informal conversation. In these cases the subject and object form topical noun phrases in arrangements that include SOV and OSV. In still other cases, the subject may follow the verb as in existential sentences: /mii ra´an thıˆi tala`at/ ‘There’s a shop in the market.’ Nouns or noun referents felt to be understood from the context or to be unnecessary are often deleted by the speaker. Thai verbs have no inflection for tense or number. Tense is generally determined by context or by added time words and expressions. The preverbal maˆy ‘not’ negates the verb. Characteristic complex verbal predicates consist of a collocation of verbs referred to as serial verbs:
1060 Tibetan
/pay aw maa da`t plœœn kœ ˆ œ khaˇy tham siˇa ma`y/ ‘(She) went and got it changed it around, fixed it up, and made it just like new (Diller 1988: 280). These series often consist of a main verb modified by two sets of verbs, one preceding and the other following. Those verbs preceding often translate as English modals or adverbials, while those following often convey the sense of completion. In many cases the verbs are so arranged that they reflect the temporal sequence of the action. Thai has three broad groups of particles that end utterances. One group marks a statement and forms questions that require yes–no answers; the second shows respect or deference toward the addressee; and the third indicates the mood of the speaker toward the situation at the time of speaking. One of the most characteristic features of Thai is the use of classifiers, an obligatory class when quantifiers with nouns are present. The most usual order is noun þ quantifier þ classifier: /maˇa saˇam tua/ ‘three dogs.’ For each noun þ classifier construction, the head noun determines the choice of classifier. Typical examples include /khon/ for human beings, /tua/ for animals, and /khan/ for vehicles and umbrellas.
titles and ranks during the Ayutthaya period also helped to foster the idea of classes of speakers. Another characteristic sociolinguistic feature of Thai is the complex pronoun system, with the choice of any one pronoun dependent upon factors such as age, sex, social position, and the attitude of the speaker toward the addressee. Pronouns are frequently omitted from surface syntax when the referent is understood. Kinship terms, and other nouns referring to relations, such as /phuˆan/ ‘friend,’ are often used as pronouns. Thus, /phÞc/ ‘father’ may mean ‘you, he’ when speaking to or about one’s father or ‘I, father’ when the father speaks to his child.
Future Work Continued work on Thai will undoubtedly center upon the genetic relationship between Thai and other languages of southeastern and eastern Asia. A late twentieth-century controversy has revolved around the authenticity of the earliest known inscription, the Ramkhamhaeng Inscription.
Bibliography Sociolinguistics Beginning in the nineteenth century prior to the impact of Western languages, a type of traditional diglossia developed with the ‘correct’ speech based upon the speech of the royalty and upper classes (Diller 1988). Diller notes that much of this diglossia was characterized by vocabulary of Indic borrowings, although some syntactic patterns found in proper speech and formal written prose also appeared (Diller 1988: 304). With the impact of Western languages and the emphasis upon standardized grammars and languages in the nineteenth century, this diglossia became more and more solidified. A proliferation of
Chamberlain J R (ed.) (1991). The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy: Collected Papers. Bangkok: The Siam Society. Cooke J R (1968). Pronominal Reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Diller A V N (1988). Thai syntax and ‘National Grammar.’ Language Sciences 10(2), 273–312. Gedney W J (1989). Selected Papers on Comparative Tai Studies. Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, 29. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan. Hudak T J (1987). Thai. In Comrie B (ed.) The World’s Major Languages. London: Croom Helm. Noss R B (1964). Thai Reference Grammar. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute.
Tibetan P Denwood, University of London, London, UK
Geography, Affiliation, and History
ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tibetan is spoken in the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China, and in adjoining high-altitude parts of Bhutan, India (Ladakh in Kashmir and parts of Himachal Pradesh), Pakistan (Baltistan), Nepal (Mugu, Dolpo, Mustang, Solu Khumbu), Burma, and the Chinese provinces of Yunnan, Sichuan, Gansu, and Qinghai. Estimates of the number of speakers range from about three to seven million.
Tibetan comprises a multiplicity of regional spoken dialects, and a standardized written language (Classical Tibetan) which is the vehicle of a major civilization whose main religion is Buddhism. There are also several modern regional written languages.
Tibetan 1061
It is also used as a religious language by Mongols in the Republic of Mongolia, Inner Mongolia (China), and Russia (Buriats and Kalmucks), and by members of some ethnic groups in Nepal, including Newars and Tamangs, and other parts of the Himalayas. It is usually reckoned to be a member of the Tibeto-Burman language group, which, with the Karen and Chinese groups, forms the Sino-Tibetan family, though some scholars have cast doubt on this affiliation, citing parallels with Indo-European. The Tibetans emerge into history in the 7th century AD. It is from that time also that their alphabetic writing system, based on a model of Indian origin, is alleged to date. The earliest datable example of the language is probably an inscription on a stone pillar in Lhasa dating from about 760 AD. Although originally often used for administrative purposes, since the 10th century Classical Tibetan has been closely associated with Buddhism, having been used to translate a vast range of literature, mostly from Sanskrit. There is also an indigenous literature, which was also almost entirely religious until the mid-20th century. Since that time the nonreligious genres of journalism and other ‘nonfiction’ have also flourished, and since the late 20th century also novels, short stories and poetry. The spoken dialects have usually remained unwritten. Poorly recorded from premodern times, they have often developed separately from the written language and from one another. To ease the consequent difficulties of communication, several of the spoken dialects have come to be used as lingua francas: Lhasa Tibetan over the Tibetan Autonomous Region and among the exile community; Dzongkha in Bhutan, Leh Ladakhi in Ladakh and Amdo Khake (Amdo) in Qinghai and Kansu. While parallel modern regional written languages have also been developed (see below), the gap between spoken and written forms of the language remains wide.
Grammar Words
A Tibetan word (phonologically defined) comprises a noun, verb, or adjective constituent, with or without one or more particles. A noun constituent may be polysyllabic, while verb and adjective constituents are all monosyllabic. Many verbs have variant forms (‘stems’ or ‘roots’) corresponding to tense/aspect differences. Other parts of speech are invariable, apart from sandhi variation with suffixed or prefixed particles. Particles express noun case categories and adjectival degree, mark the ends of subordinate clauses, and establish verb tense/mood/aspect categories. Most particles are suffixed, though a few
negative, dubitative, or interrogative ones are prefixed. There are also many phrasal nouns, verbs, and adjectives comprising two or more words. Particles are subdivided into noun, verb, and adjective, according to which type of word they occur in. A few particles can stand as separate words. Noun Phrases
The order of elements in the noun phrase is: (1) head (noun), (2) epithet (adjective), (3) deictic (noun), (4) numerator (particle), (5) case marker (genitive, subject-marking, instrumental, dative-locative, ablative, comparative or adverbial particle). Verb Phrases
In Classical Tibetan, a verb paradigm may have from one to four stems, and sometimes alternative forms for the same stem, e.g., the verb seize (shown here in transliterated Tibetan spelling): present ‘dzin./zin.
past bzung./zung.
future gzung.
imperative zungs.
A few verbs have suppletive paradigms with stems drawn from etymologically different verbs. Modern spoken dialects show a reduction in the number and variety of verb stems; for example in the Lhasa dialect, for most speakers no verb has a separate future stem and many verbs have been reduced to a single stem: the equivalent of either the present or past of the classical language. More than compensating for this reduction has been a great increase in the use of verb particles and auxiliaries to express a complex mix of person, tense, aspect, mood, and evidential and judgmental modality systems. In many dialects there is also an unusual system of what may be termed ‘viewpoint’ – self-centered vs. other-centered – in which there is concord between the verb phrase and the speaker, who may or may not correspond to one of the arguments of the clause. Verbs may be divided into two types: verbs of being (also used as auxiliaries) and lexical verbs. Verbs of being participate obligatorily in the grammatical systems of viewpoint and evidential modality. Lexical verbs are of two types, which determine their participation in the systems mentioned: ‘intentional,’ where the action is under voluntary control, and ‘unintentional.’ The majority pattern of the lexical verb phrase is: (1) lexical verb stem, (2) linking particle, (3) polar particle, (4) auxiliary, (5) modal particle. Past, present and future tenses are established by a combination of verb stem and auxiliary. Similar means are used to distinguish perfect, progressive,
1062 Tibetan
and prospective aspect, of which there are several subtypes in each case. Clauses
Tibetan clauses are of SOV (subject-object-verb) type, with OSV order also possible. As well as the clausefinal verb phrase, the clause may contain a subject, an object, and one or more adjuncts, all noun phrases. Subject and object phrases are regularly omitted without being represented by pronouns if they are not ‘new.’ The main clause is the last in the sentence. Nonfinal (subordinate) clauses are usually marked by special particles. Past-tense and often present-tense clauses are syntactically ergative, the subject of a transitive clause being marked with a particle identical in written form to the ‘instrumental’ noun particle.
Phonology Modern central, southern, and eastern dialects have well-developed lexical tone, which has been analyzed in various ways, the simplest being as a two-tone system. In the Lhasa dialect the word is the domain of tone, which is manifested mainly as the pitch (high or low) of its first (or only) syllable. These tonal dialects mostly have few word-initial consonants, with few or no consonant clusters at word-initial position. Plosive and affricate initials always maintain a clear differentiation between an aspirated and an unaspirated series, while voicing has tended to disappear from these series as well as from fricative initials. The dialect of Dingri in southern Tibet has 27 word-initial consonants, all of them simple. In the western dialects of Balti (spoken in northern Pakistan) and Ladakhi, as well as in some northeastern dialects of Gansu and Qinghai, tone is usually less well developed or absent, with a richer variety of word-initial consonant clusters. The northeastern Amdo Khake (Amdo) dialect has 36 simple wordinitial consonants and 78 cluster initials. The writing system, whose spellings are full of consonant clusters, would suggest that the dialect it was based on, perhaps a central dialect of the 7th century, may have been pronounced somewhat like these so-called ‘archaic’ dialects. However, none of the present dialects approaches the complexity of the spelling system in this respect. The tonal dialects of central and southern Tibet generally also have a system of vowel harmony. In the Lhasa dialect its domain is a pair of adjacent syllables within a word. Many noun, verb, adjective, and particle constituents vary between an open and a
close alternant. Most of the nonparticle constituents in question are spelt with one of the vowels o, e, or a: they will be pronounced with a closer vowel alternant when next to a syllable spelt with i, u, or the combination ab. There is little or no evidence of vowel harmony in the script, suggesting that its development, like that of tone, may have accompanied the progressive loss of consonant distinctions. Whereas the ‘archaic’ or ‘cluster’ dialects may typically have nine vowels, corresponding to the five of the script, the ‘modern’ or ‘noncluster’ harmonic dialects may have about 25 (in both cases, analyzed nonphonemically).
Honorifics The written language and most of the dialects have a well-developed honorific system, in which lexical choice of verb is determined by the social status of the person acting as its grammatical subject. There is also a ‘respectful’ system, in which there is concord between choice of verb and direct or indirect object, and the two systems may be combined. Nouns, adjectives, and verb particles are also affected.
Sample Sentence (Lhasa dialect: transliterated spelling in italics with phonetic rendering below: tones unmarked) ‘‘a.las. alE:. EXCLAMATION
rang.gis. raNgi you-ERG SUBJ-MAKING PART
zer.yag.la. sejala say-NOMINALIZING PART-DATIVE-LOCATIVE PART cha. bzhag.na/ lha.sa’i. tCa Caane, lEsE: belief place-if Lhasa-of gnam. gzhi.ni. dgun.ka. gyNge nVmCInI climate-TOPIC-MARKING PART winter dro.po. dang. dbyar.ka. trOpo ta˜ jaage summer warm-ADJ PART and gsil.po. yod.pa.’dra/ siibu jø:bedra. cool-ADJ PART is-seem
‘Well! To believe what you say, the climate of Lhasa seems to be warm in winter and cool in summer!’
Recent History Developments since World War II have led to the political fragmentation of the Tibetan-speaking
Tigrinya 1063
world and the increasing influence of other languages, particularly Chinese (Mandarin Chinese), English, Urdu, Hindi, and Nepali. However, the same period has also seen the development of Modern Literary Tibetan (in Tibet and among refugees), Written Dzongkha (in Bhutan), and Written Ladakhi (in Kashmir) as written languages, based respectively on Lhasa Tibetan, spoken Dzongkha, and spoken Ladakhi, but influenced by Classical Tibetan. Some other dialects, including Amdo Khake (Amdo), Kham, and Sikkimese have also had written equivalents devised for them. The late 20th century has also witnessed a Tibetan diaspora, which has led to vastly increased interest in the language and culture, centered on a
numerically small but culturally active exile community in India and Nepal. Since the late 20th century, there has also been a marked revival of Tibetan in the Republic of Mongolia. Despite the problems experienced by its speakers, Tibetan remains a living, vigorous, and developing language.
Bibliography Denwood P (1999). Tibetan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goldstein M C (1973). Modern Literary Tibetan. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Tigrinya D Appleyard, University of London, London, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tigrinya (self-name ti$gri$MMa or ti$graj), which is spoken in Eritrea and Ethiopia, is the second largest member of the Ethiopian branch of the Semitic family of languages, constituting together with Tigre and the extinct Ge‘ez (or Classical Ethiopic) the northern subdivision. Estimates of the number of speakers in both countries vary from 4 to 5 million. Tigrinya is one of the two working languages of Eritrea, where it is the first language of about 50% of the population, and a major national language of Ethiopia. Tigrinya is written in a slightly expanded version of the Ethiopic syllabary, and as a written language has a history only from the latter half of the 19th century, due in great part both to the prestige of Ge‘ez as the written language of Christian Ethiopia in the past, as well as to the dominance of its sister language, Amharic, as the language of the Ethiopian court. Modern Tigrinya shows a considerable degree of dialect variation in the handful of preliminary studies that have been done. The standardization of written Tigrinya took its impetus from the full independence of Eritrea in 1993 and the adoption of Tigrinya as the principal language of the state.
Phonology Tigrinya has 32 consonant and 7 vowel phonemes. Distinctive are the glottalized consonants and the labialized velars. The velars /k/, /kw/, /k’/ and /k’w/ have fricative allophones in postvocalic position
including across close juncture between word boundaries: k!f!t! ‘he opened’ but ji$x!ffi$t ‘he opens’, k’orbot ‘leather’ but $i ta x’orbot ‘the leather’. As the script has special symbols for these allophones, they will be indicated in the data here. Consonant length is phonemic, except for the glottals and pharyngeals which do not have lengthened counterparts. (See Table 1 for the consonant chart.) Ethiopianist convention occasionally employs different symbols from the IPA ones used here; thus, sˇ ¼ S, zˇ ¼ Z, cˇ ¼ tS, q ¼ k’, t. ¼ t’, ¼ tS’, ¼ dZ, s. ¼ s’, p. ¼ p’, n˜ ¼ M, y ¼ j, k ¼ x, qˇ ¼ x’, h. ¼ h, ‘ ¼ ¿, ’ ¼ , ¯ phonemes of Tigrinya are are a¨ ¼ !, e ¼ $i . The vowel /i/, /i$/, /u/, /e/, /o/, /!/, and /a/, of which the central vowels /!/, /i$/, and /a/ are of particularly frequent occurrence. The mid-central vowel /!/ has a markedly more open allophone in word final position: n!g!r! ¼ [n!g!rE >] ‘he spoke’, and indeed following a glottal or pharyngeal consonant this is written in the script with the same vowel sign as /e/.
Morphology Tigrinya, like other Ethiopian Semitic languages, has a complex inflectional morphology, particularly in the verbal system, employing not only prefixes and suffixes but also internal modification of the typical Semitic consonantal root-and-pattern type. Internal modification is also employed in forming many noun plurals from the singular, sometimes in combination with the addition of an affix, in ‘broken plural’ patterns so typical of other Semitic languages such as Arabic: w!rhi ‘month’, awari$h ‘months’, k!nf!r ‘lip’, k!nafi$r ‘lips’. Other noun plurals are formed
1064 Tigrinya Table 1 The consonant phonemes of Tigrinya Bilabial
Alveolar/dental
Palatal
Velar
bp
dt
dZ tS
gk
p’
t’
tS’ s’
k’ [x’] gw kw k’w
Fricative Nasal Lateral
f m
zs n l r
Approximant
w
Plosive/affricate Glottalized Plosive/affricate/fricative Labialized
by suffixes alone: s!b ‘man’, s!bat ‘men’, gwasa ‘shepherd’, gwasot ‘shepherds’. Plural formations are determined lexically and cannot be predicted from the shape of the singular form. In addition to number, nouns also have the category of gender, with two terms linked with male and female in animate nouns, while inanimates generally fluctuate in gender. Gender is mostly observable only in agreement. Definiteness is also indicated in the noun phrase by means of an article, in origin a remote demonstrative: $i tom kahnat ‘the priests’, $i ta wa¿ro ‘the lioness’, $i tu s’i$bbux’ w!ddi ‘the good boy’. Case relations are expressed by prepositions. Particularly interesting is the use of ni$ -(n!- þ DEF) as optional marker of a definite direct object, the same clitic also having the function of indicating an indirect object: n!-tu
si$rnaj ji$-xi$rki$ri$ -o OBJ-DEF wheat 3(PL)-grind.IMPERF.PL-it ‘they grind the wheat’ i$tu
k’!SSi priest
n!-ta to-DEF
s!b!jti woman
ji$-ng!r DEF 3MASC.SINGtell.JUSSIVE ‘let the priest tell [it] to the woman’
Verbs inflect for voice or valency, tense-moodaspect (TMA), and person. In addition to the basestem shapes, which are essentially three in number, there are three prefixed stem derivatives for each of these: t!-, which essentially has the function of marking passive-reflexive, a- which generally has the function of marking causative-transitive, and a complex formative comprising a-combined with lengthening of the first radical consonant or -t-(i.e., formative at-) before a glottal or pharyngeal. The meanings of derived stems are in addition often lexically defined. There are also specific TMA stem patterns associated with each of these derivational elements: n!g!r! ‘he spoke’, t!-n!gr! ‘it was spoken’, b!x!j! ‘he wept’, a-bk!j! ‘he made someone weep’, las’!j! ‘he shaved himself’, a-las’!j! ‘he made someone
[xw][x’w] ZS J
[x]
Pharyngeal
Glottal
¿ -h
h
j
shave himself’, f!nn!w! ‘he sent away’, af-fan!w! ‘he accompanied someone on his way’, etc. There are four fundamental TMA forms, conventionally referred to as the Perfect, the Imperfect, the Jussive-Imperative, and the Gerundive. The latter is sometimes also described as a Converb. These are marked both by different stem shapes and by different person markers, with the Imperfect and the Jussive having the same set of person markers (the Imperative marks only gender-number). The tense system is considerably augmented beyond these basic forms by means of auxiliaries and periphrastic constructions. ab asm!ra t!-w!l!d-ku PASS-bear.PERF-1SING.PERF in Asmara ‘I was born in Asmara’ maj -a-fi$lli$h water 1SING.IMPERF-CAUS-boil.IMPERF ‘I boil the water’ n!-tu OBJ-DEF
g!nz!b money
ki$-[i$]-hi$b-!kka
FUT-[1SING.IMPF]-
i$j-j!
COP-1SING
give.IMPERF-you ‘I will give you the money’ ti$-hi$z-o allo-xa 2MS.IMPERF-catch. be.PRES-2SING.MASC[PERF] IMPERF-him ‘you catch him (now)’ ab-zu in-this
¿abij big
g!za house
ji$-x’i$mm!t’ 3MASC.SING. IMPERF-live.
n!b!r-! be.PAST-3MS. PERF
IMPERF
‘he was living in this big house’ s’i$bah tomorrow
t!m!lis-! return.GER-
i$-x!wwi$n 1SING.IMPERF-be.IMPERF
1SING.GER
‘I may come back tomorrow’
The gerundive is used both as a subordinate verb, marking an anterior event in a sequence, and as a main verb form, expressing the result of an action:
Tiwi 1065 mi$s m!n m!s’i -ka with who come.GER-2MASC.SING.GER ‘with whom have you come?’ nab-tu g!za t!m!lis-a into-DEF house return.GER-3FEM.SING.GER t!x’!mmit’-a i$ngera sit.GER-3FEM.SING.GER bread hab-!tt-o give.PERF-3FEM.SING.PERF-him ‘she returned to the house, sat down, and gave him some bread’
Syntax Word order in Tigrinya is generally subject-objectverb (SOV), with subordinate clauses preceding the main clause. Noun phrases are also generally head final with modifiers, including relative clauses, preceding the noun. i$tu anb!sa zi$-x’!t!l-! DEF
lion
REL-kill.PERF-
s!b bi$-h ak’k’i man in-truth
3MASC.SING.PERF
zi$-Ø-f!rri$h REL-[3MASC.SING.IMPERF]-fear.IMPERF aj-kon-!-n NEG-be.PERF-3MASC.SING.PERF-NEG ‘the man who has killed a lion indeed has nothing to fear’
Bibliography Kane T L (2000). Tigrinya-English dictionary. Springfield: Dunwoody Press. Kiros F W (1985). The perception and production of Tigrinya stops. Uppsala: Uppsala University Department of Linguistics. Kogan L E (1997). ‘Tigrinya.’ In Hetzron R (ed.) The Semitic languages. London & New York: Routledge. 424–445. Leslau W (1941). Documents tigrigna (e´thiopien septentrional): Grammaire et textes. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. Tesfaye T Y (2002). A modern grammar of Tigrinya. Rome: Tipografia U. Detti. Voigt R (1987). Das tigrinische Verbalsystem. Berlin: Reimer Verlag. Ullendorff E (1985). A Tigrinya (T gr nˇnˇa) chrestomathy. (A¨thiopistische Forschungen 19). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Tiwi J R Lee, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Darwin, NT, Australia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Tiwi is an Australian Aboriginal language spoken by the Tiwi people, who number about 2000 and live on Bathurst Island and Melville Island (north of Darwin). Over the decades, since the first extensive contact with Europeans early in the 20th century, the Tiwi culture has undergone considerable change; the Tiwi people have changed from a seminomadic, hunter and gatherer way of life to a more settled lifestyle, and now mainly live in four townships on both islands. The Tiwi people are caught between two cultures, traditional and modern; they desire the benefits of European culture but also want to retain their own identity through some of their traditional ways. Although Tiwi people still do some hunting and gathering and maintain some of their traditional ceremonial life, they are now dependent on a money economy and are mostly Roman Catholic in religion. This change is also reflected in what has happened and is still happening in the language.
The language change is so extensive that young people (even people in their forties) no longer speak or even understand much of the traditional language. Not only does the language of the young people contain a number of English words, but the actual structure of the language has changed. These changes are due to a combination of factors over a period of decades. One of the most significant factors was the setting up of a school for both boys and girls in 1914, with English as the language of instruction and literacy. In addition to this, between 1921 and 1973, most girls were brought up from about the age of six in a dormitory, which effectively cut them off from extensive contact with their families and from hearing the Tiwi language spoken in a regular family context. The verbal repertoire of the Tiwi people can be characterized by at least five codes: Traditional Tiwi, Modern Tiwi (a modified form of Traditional Tiwi), New Tiwi (an anglicized Tiwi), Tiwi–English, and Standard Australian English. These codes, though having characteristics that distinguish them from each other, are not discrete, but rather merge into one another along a spectrum. Each code has within it characteristic styles. For instance, within New Tiwi, there is a difference between the more formal style,
1066 Tiwi
used in storytelling on tape and in elicited speech, and the less formal style, used in spontaneous speech. Also, the New Tiwi used by children is different from that used by adults. The Tiwi code used by a person is largely dependent on the age of the speaker, but not exclusively so. Though most young people do not command much Traditional Tiwi (with their understanding being greater than their production), older people do appear to command New Tiwi to some extent and usually use it in speaking with younger people. In addition to the diversity of codes, the situation is made more complex by switching between codes, including English.
Traditional Tiwi In Traditional Tiwi (TT), there are four vowels: a, i, o, u. The consonants are given Table 1, in which the symbols used are the orthographic ones developed when Tiwi became a written language 30 years ago. The prenasalized and labialized stops are interpreted as single consonants on the basis that there are no unambiguous double consonants in Tiwi. The Tiwi syllable pattern is consonant-vowel (CV) or V with no closed syllables. Tiwi nouns are divided into two classes, masculine and feminine. For humans (and some animals), the distinction is on the basis of natural sex. For nonhumans, the distinction is made on other criteria, normally semantic grounds. Plurality is marked only on human nouns, and the distinction between masculine (MASC) and feminine (FEM) is lost in plural (PL) nouns. Adjectives agree with the nouns that they qualify in gender and plurality (when applicable), as shown in the following examples: (1) arikula-ni big-MASC ‘big men’ arikula-nga big-FEM ‘big women’
tini man tinga woman
arikula-pi big-PL ‘big people’
tiwi people
Traditional Tiwi is a polysynthetic language, with the inflected verb having an extremely complex structure. It is one of the prefixing languages of northwestern Australia but it has not been found to be directly related to any of them. The verb is able to take a number of affixes (mainly prefixes), indicating subject person, direct or indirect object person, tense, aspect, mood, time of day, and distance in time or space, for example. The nucleus of the verb contains a verb root but may also contain one or more incorporated forms that add some other nominal, stative, or verbal meaning (abbreviations: CONT, continuous; INCL, inclusive; SUBJUNC, subjunctive; EMPH, emphatic; CON, connective; CAUS, causative): (2) Pi-rri-mini-wujingi-pirni. they-PAST-me-CONT-hit ‘They were hitting me.’ (3) Yinkiti nga-ma-wun-ta-y-akirayi. food we(INCL)-SUBJUNC-them-EMPH-CON-give ‘We should give them food.’ (4) Nganti-ri-ma-rri-pi-y-ajirringi-kitikim-ani warta. we.PAST.FEM-CON-with-CON-bush long.thing-CON-crocodile-drag-PAST.HABIT ‘We used to drag the crocodile to the bush with the spear still in her.’ (5) Taringini yi-mini-maji-wutu-wirri. snake he.PAST-me-on-horse-bite. ‘A snake bit me while I was on a horse.’
In Traditional Tiwi, there is also a verb phrase, consisting of a free-form verb, which carries the basic meaning, and an auxiliary verb, which can carry the same inflections as an independent verb. The class of free-form verbs occurring in this type of construction is small and, even in TT, may be expanded by the use of English loan verbs.
Table 1 Traditional Tiwi consonants Feature
Stops Prenasalized stops Nasals Labialized stops Labialized nasals Laterals Rhotics Semivowels a
Apical
Laminal
Peripheral
Alveolar
Postalveolar
Dental/Palatal
Dorsal
Labial
t nt n
rt rnt rn
j nj ny
k nk ng kw ngw
p mp m pw mw
l rr
rl r y
ga
w
The symbol ‘g’ represents a velar fricative, which seems to behave like a semivowel.
Tiwi 1067 (6) Papi awungarra pi-ri-maji-wutuwu-mi. arrive here they.PAST-CON-on-horse-do ‘They arrived here on horses.’ (7) mwarliki nga-ma-wun-ta-m-amigi bathe we(INCL)-SUBJUNC-them-EMPH-do-CAUS ‘we should cause them to bathe’
(12) NT: Jirra tra kirrim ji-mi she try get she.PAST-do ‘She tried to get some water.’
New Tiwi The speech of young people incorporates a number of changes to the traditional language, including phonological changes and changes in vocabulary, in noun classification, and in syntax, such as word order. However, the greatest change is in the verbs. New Tiwi (NT) is no longer a polysynthetic language but has become more isolating. Most of the verbal inflection has been lost, with simple verb forms mostly replacing the complex inflected verbs. The NT verb form is based on the TT verb phrase. However, the small class of free-form verbs has been expanded by a greater use of loan verbs from English and, in a few cases, by the use of the singular imperative as a free-form verb. The auxiliary verb may or may not be used, depending on the formality of the occasion. When it is used, there are very few inflections retained, usually only those prefixes marking subject and tense, though even these are often changed in form. The following three examples are comparisons of New Tiwi and Traditional Tiwi: (8a) NT: Wokapat yi-mi. walk he.PAST-do ‘He walked.’
nginja. you.SING
(9b) TT: Ngi-rri-min-j-akurluwunyi I-PAST-you(SING)-CON-see ‘I saw you.’
warra. water
Since the verbs in NT no longer have the inflections of TT, there is a greater use of nouns and pronouns, to indicate the participants, and dependence on time words or the context, to indicate the tense. In NT, there is also considerable use of other English loanwords. In the speech of young people, particularly children, these may include words such as pijipiji for ‘fish,’ for which there is a traditional Tiwi equivalent. In general, NT can be said to be an ‘amalgam’ of Tiwi and English – in other words, a ‘mixed code,’ like a pidgin (or creole) Tiwi. This type of amalgam distinguishes ‘mixing’ from ‘switching’ between codes, though it is often hard to tell where mixing ends and switching begins. The following example from a 4-year-old boy shows the mixing in his Tiwi and the switching between his New Tiwi and his Tiwi–English (TE) in the same utterance: (13) Ya kilim ja. [NT] I kill you, mate. (TE) I hit you (SING) I hit you mate ‘I’ll hit you, mate.’
Modern Tiwi
(8b) TT: Yi-p-angurlimayi. he.PAST-CON-walk ‘He walked.’ (9a) NT: Lukim ngi-ri-mi see I-CON-do ‘I saw you.’
(11a) NT: Yoyi a-wuji-ki-mi. dance he-CONT-CON-do ‘He is dancing.’ (11b) TT: Yoyi a-wuji-ngi-mi. dance he.NONPAST-CONT-CON-do ‘He is dancing.’
(nginja). (you.SING)
(10a) NT: Tamu ji-mi. sit she.PAST-do ‘She sat.’ (10b) TT: Ji-yi-muwu. she.PAST-CON-sit ‘She sat.’
Note: tamuwu is the singular imperative form in Traditional Tiwi. Young people sometimes use the continuous action prefix wuji-, but other aspects and moods are given by loanwords from English, such as stat ‘start,’ tra ‘try,’ jut or shut ‘should,’ and ken ‘can.’
What is normally thought of as Modern Tiwi (MT) is a style, or a range of styles, between Traditional Tiwi and New Tiwi; in general, ModernTiwi is a modified or simplified style of TT. In Modern Tiwi, people use more verbs with TT verb roots than are used in NT, but the verbs do not have the same richness of inflection as in TT. In general, the only affixes retained in the verb are the subject and tense prefixes and others that are not able to be expressed externally in TT, such as some aspect and mood affixes. Other affixes and incorporated forms are normally omitted, particularly those affixes indicating whether an action was done in the morning or evening and the object prefixes. These are either expressed by free-form words or are understood from the context. (14a) MT: Japinari yi-pirni ngiya. morning he.PAST-hit me ‘He hit me in the morning.’ (14b)
TT: (Japinari) yu-watu-mini-pirni. morning he.PAST-morning-me-hit ‘He hit me in the morning.’
1068 Tocharian
(15a) TT: Ngimpi-ri-majirripi. we(EXCL)NONPAST-CON-lie.down ‘We (but not you) lie down.’ Nga-ri-majirripi. we(INCL)-CON-lie.down ‘We (including you) lie down.’
such as when giving a formal speech in Tiwi. There is some written material in Modern Tiwi, produced by the schools and by the author (Jennifer Lee) and her Summer Institute of Linguistics colleague, Marie Godfrey (New Tiwi is not generally acceptable in written form). New Tiwi is the common code of young people, though with considerable code switching with English in most situations, depending on the speakers and hearers.
(15b) MT: Nga-ri-majirripi. we.NONPAST-CON-lie.down ‘We lie down.’
Bibliography
Another feature of MT is the loss of distinction between first-person plural inclusive and exclusive subjects, as is also the case in NT.
Conclusion The present-day language situation among the Tiwi people is very complex; a broad overview cannot begin to describe the differences that there may be among the four townships on Bathurst and Melville islands. Briefly, there are certain domains wherein a particular code is appropriate and may be used exclusively (or almost exclusively). In other situations, more than one code may be used, depending on the speakers and hearers and the formality of the occasion. Traditional Tiwi is used in the traditional ceremonies and songs, in some liturgy in the church, and in some written material. In situations in which nonTiwi people are involved, such as administrative and work situations, English is mostly used, though the English used by the Tiwis may vary between Standard English and Tiwi–English. English is also used in the homily and in some of the liturgy and songs in church, and in all of the schools, at least in formal education. Modern Tiwi is used in bilingual education in the primary school on Bathurst Island and in some formal situations, when young Tiwi people are involved,
Godfrey M (1979). ‘Notes on paragraph division in Tiwi.’ In Work papers SIL-AAB A–3. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1–22. Godfrey M (1985). ‘Repetition in Tiwi at clause level.’ In Work papers of SIL-AAB A–9. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1–38. Godfrey M P (1997). ‘Logical propositions in modern Tiwi.’ In McLellan M (ed.) Studies in Aboriginal grammars, SIL-AAIB occasional papers, 3. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 25–55. Lee J R (1987). Tiwi today: a study of language change in a contact situation. Pacific linguistics series C no. 96. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University. Lee J R (1988). ‘Tiwi: a language struggling to survive.’ In Ray M J (ed.) Aboriginal language use in the Northern Territory: 5 reports, work papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Australian Aborigines and Islanders Branch B, 13. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 75–96. Lee J R (compiler) (1993). Ngawurranungurumagi nginingawila ngapangiraga. Tiwi–English dictionary. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Australian Aborigines and Islanders Branch/Nguiu, Bathurst Island, NT: Nguiu Nginingawila Literature Production Centre. Osborne C (1974). The Tiwi language. Canberra: AAIS.
Tocharian R Kim, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tocharian (Tokharian) is the conventional name for two related, extinct Indo–European (IE) languages known from documents found in the oases north of the Taklamakan desert in Xinjiang (Chinese Turkestan). The languages are now generally referred to as Tocharian A (TA) and Tocharian B (TB); the alternatives Osttocharisch and Westtocharisch (East
and West Tocharian) are still used by German scholars; ‘Turfanian’ and ‘Kuchean’ are obsolete terms. Tocharian is known from manuscripts discovered by archaeological missions to Xinjiang in the years preceding World War I, in particular those led by Sir Aurel Stein of the United Kingdom, Albert von le Coq of Germany, and Paul Pelliot of France. In addition to a wealth of Middle Iranian documents, the expeditions brought back others in unknown languages, written in the ‘slanting’ Bra¯hmı¯ script of Central Asia. In 1908 the German philologists Emil Sieg and Wilhelm Siegling conclusively identified them
Tocharian 1069
as non-Indo–Iranian IE languages, which they labeled ‘Indo–Scythian’; they also succeeded in distinguishing TA and TB. The manuscripts are dated to approximately the sixth to eighth centuries AD, but further chronological precision is difficult. The TA records were discovered in and around Turfan and Qarasˇahr and are entirely of Buddhist religious content; most are translations or adaptations of Sanskrit originals. TB documents were found across the northern Silk Road from Kucˇa in the west to Turfan in the east; most are Buddhist in content, but a solitary love poem and a large number of monastery records, as well as caravan passes and cave graffiti, indicate that TB was the vernacular of at least part of the population in these areas in the later first millennium. TA is remarkably uniform linguistically, and a number of facts indicate that it was no longer spoken at the time of the surviving manuscripts, but served as a sort of liturgical language among speakers of TB and Old Turkic. The TB documents exhibit considerable variation on all levels. On the basis of certain phonological and morphological features, they have been divided into western, central, and eastern dialects, but as vernacular TB sources (e.g., caravan passes or cave graffiti) mostly show ‘eastern’ characteristics, this division may also reflect chronological and/or sociolinguistic differences. Another source of variation is poetic: many forms in TB verse passages have been adjusted by one syllable to fit the meter; also characteristic is pudn˜a¨kte ‘Buddha’ for prose pan˜a¨kte. The speakers of Tocharian played an important role in the Buddhist civilization of pre-Islamic eastern Central Asia, but their exact identity remains unknown. The name ‘Tocharian’ rests mainly on the form twXry in an Old Uyghur colophon, but both the reading and the identification have been challenged. It seems certain that the speakers of TA and TB were not the ‘Tocharians’ of antiquity (Strabon’s To´waroi; Skt. Tukha¯ra-). Among the figures in the spectacular Buddhist cave paintings of the region are some with red hair and green or blue eyes, and many have speculated that these were the Tocharians; more recently, the discovery of red-haired, ‘Western’-looking mummies in the Taklamakan made headlines in the mid-1990s, but once again we cannot be sure which language they spoke. In any case, the speakers of Tocharian (more precisely, TB; see above) began to shift to Turkic in the later first millennium AD; the language was probably extinct by 1000. Although they differ in numerous respects and certainly were not mutually intelligible, TA and TB were structurally similar, characterized by rightheaded constituent phrases, a system of agglutinating
nominal case suffixes, and the central role of aspect and tense in verbal morphology. The two had doubtless been diverging for several centuries before the time of our documents, so that their latest reconstructible common ancestor, Proto-Tocharian (PT), must be dated to the last centuries BC. The variety of Bra¯hmı¯ script used to write Tocharian lacked symbols for distinctively Tocharian sounds such as labiovelar [kw] and (in TB) the diphthongs [ew], [ow], [aw], [ay], and contained signs (aks. aras) for Sanskrit and Prakrit phonemes absent in the language (e.g., v, h, and the voiced, aspirated, and retroflex obstruents; the latter are used almost exclusively in Indo–Aryan borrowings). The most remarkable innovation of the Tocharian writing system is the creation of a series of Fremdzeichen (‘foreign signs’) to represent sequences of consonant þ the vowel a¨, probably a high central [i$]; these exist for most, but not all consonants, and are used apparently interchangeably with the normal aks. ara plus two subscript dots (hence the transcriptions ta¨, n˜a¨, etc.). A second vowel (usually u) can be combined with a ligature (e.g., kse þ u, transcribed kuse); such ‘subscript’ u’s may denote either a labiovelar or a reduced/syncopated vowel. Recent research has elucidated most of the principal phonological developments from Proto-Indo– European (PIE) to PTand the two Tocharian languages. The PIE series of voiceless, voiced, and voiced aspirate stops have famously merged, except that *t, *dh > PT *t remained distinct from *d > PT *ts. PIE palatals and velars merged in PT, but labiovelars and sequences of palatal/velar þ *w remained distinct. Palatalization before front vowels created new allophones that then became phonemic and gave rise to a number of morphologically conditioned alternations. The vowels underwent many changes, including loss of contrastive length. TB is in general the more phonologically conservative of the two languages, especially the western dialect; in contrast, TA has undergone sweeping changes, principally involving the vowel system. The noun distinguishes two genders, masculine and feminine, plus a class of nouns of ‘alternating’ gender that take masculine agreement in the singular and feminine in the plural. Nouns and adjectives contrast for singular, plural, and dual. Nouns inflect for nine cases in each language, but only the three ‘primary’ cases, nominative, oblique, and genitive, are of PIE date; the remaining ‘secondary’ case suffixes are agglutinative, added to the oblique of singular and plural alike, and attached only to the last element of a noun phrase (e.g., TA kuklas yukas on˙ka¨lma¯s-yo ‘with chariots, horses, and elephants’). Although their functions mostly coincide, few of the suffixes are
1070 Tocharian
clearly cognate: cf. comitative TB -mpa, TA -as´s´a¨l, ¨ .s. Most nonfeminine nouns ablative TB -mem . , TA -a have identical forms for nom. and obl. singular, derived from the PIE accusative, but masculine nouns denoting rational beings have secondarily created a distinct oblique in TB -m . , TA -(a)m . . The numerals are of clear IE provenance: TB wi, TA m. wu, f. we ‘2,’ TB m. trey trai, f. tarya, TA m. tre, f. tri ‘3,’ TB m. s´twer, f. s´twa¯ra, TA s´twar ‘4,’ TB pis´, TA pa¨n˜ ‘5,’ TB .skas, TA .sa¨k ‘6,’ TB .sukt, TA .spa¨t ‘7,’ TB okt, TA oka¨t ‘8,’ TB, TA n˜u ‘9,’ TB s´ak, TA s´a¨k ‘10,’ TB ika¨m . , TA wiki ‘20.’ The prehistory of the personal and demonstrative pronouns contains a number of unsolved problems; noteworthy is the existence of separate masculine and feminine forms for ‘I’ in TA, m. na¨.s, f. n˜uk (vs. TB m./f. n˜a¨s´, n˜is´). The verb exhibits numerous idiosyncratic developments alongside a wealth of interesting and archaic features and has played an increasingly prominent role in the ongoing debate over the reconstruction of the PIE verbal system. The inherited voice distinction of active and mediopassive is robustly preserved. An interesting, if often overemphasized, feature is the widespread suffixation of PT *-ske¨- *-s. s. e- (> TB /-ske-/ /-s. s. e-/ /-s-/; TA -sa- -s. -) to derive transitives to intransitive roots and causatives to many, but not all, transitive roots. Both languages have the same morphological categories of present and imperfect (¼ nonpast and past of the imperfective stem), subjunctive/future and optative (¼ nonpast and past of the perfective stem), imperative, and preterite; nonfinite forms include the infinitive, gerundives I and II (denoting respectively obligation and possibility), a verbal noun or ‘abstract,’ almost always built to gerundive II; and a present and preterite participle. Most inflectional categories and patterns of verbal stem derivation are of PIE date, including reflexes of nasal and stative presents and root and (pre-)sigmatic aorists. Approximately a dozen verbs are suppletive, second only to Old Irish among IE languages. Among numerous unsolved problems are the remarkable paucity of simple thematic presents, and the origin of the Tocharian subjunctive and its relation to the classical PIE subjunctive and perfect. Nominal compounds are fairly common, as are complex derivatives like TB raddhi-lak-a¨-s. (s. -a¨ly)-n˜e.s.se ‘of causing to see wonders.’ As the Tocharian languages are left-branching, the verb is usually clause-final in prose documents but may be raised for various pragmatic effects; verse texts not surprisingly offer much variation. Early on, many Indo–Europeanists were struck by the apparent connections between Tocharian and the western IE languages, particularly Celtic and
Germanic. Today, however, the emerging consensus holds that Tocharian is not closely related to any other branch of IE but, rather, was the second after Anatolian to diverge from the ancestral speech community. Little is known of the earliest contacts between Tocharian and other languages. Several strata of Iranian loanwords may be distinguished: the oldest appear to date from the Old Iranian period, followed by a small set whose preforms strongly resemble Ossetic; most recent are loans from neighboring Eastern Middle Iranian languages, particularly Khotanese. A few old Indo–Aryan borrowings go back to the pre-PT period – note TB (prose) pan˜a¨kte, TA pta¯n˜ka¨t ‘Buddha’ and TA pn˜i ‘pun. ya’, reflecting the change of *u > PT *e – but the huge number of loanwords from Sanskrit and Prakrit entered the language comparatively recently; some have been (partly) assimilated to Tocharian phonology, but many retain their original orthography and may have belonged only to high religious registers. Certain old loanwords in Chinese appear to come from Tocharian, for example, MidChin. *mjit (or sim.) ‘honey’ PT *myete (cf. TB mit). In light of the Tocharians’ ultimate linguistic shift to Turkic, it is interesting to note that a few important Turkic words may be of Tocharian origin: cf. TB okso ‘ox’, kaum . (kom) ‘day, sun’ ! Proto-Turkic *o¨ku¨z, *ku¨n.
Bibliography Adams D Q (1988). Tocharian historical phonology and morphology. American Oriental Series, vol. 71. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Adams D Q (1999). A dictionary of Tocharian B. Leiden Studies in Indo-European 10. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hackstein O (1995). Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Pra¨sensstammbildungen des Tocharischen. Historische Sprachforschung, Erga¨nzungsheft 38. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Hilmarsson J (1996). Materials for a Tocharian historical and etymological dictionary. Tocharian and IndoEuropean Studies Supplementary Series, vol. 5. Reykjavı´k: Ma´lvı´sindastofnun Ha´sko´la I´slands. Ji X, Winter W & Pinault G J (1998). Fragments of the Tocharian A Maitreyasamiti-Na¯.taka of the Xinjiang Museum, China. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 113. Berlin: York: de Gruyter. Krause W (1952). Westtocharische Grammatik. Band I: Das Verbum. Heidelberg: Winter. Krause W & Thomas W (1960). Tocharisches Elementarbuch. Band I: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Lane G S (1963). ‘On the interrelationship of the Tocharian dialects.’ In Birnbaum H & Puhvel J (eds.) Ancient IndoEuropean Dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press. 213–233. Pinault G-J (1987). ‘Epigraphie koutche´enne. I. Laissezpasser de caravanes. II. Graffites et inscriptions.’ In
Toda 1071 Huashan C, Maillard M, Gaulier S & Pinault G (eds.) Mission Paul Pelliot. Documents conserve´s au Muse´e Guimet et a` la Bibliothe`que Nationale. Documents arche´ologiques VIII: Sites divers de la re´gion de Koutcha. Paris: Colle`ge de France, Instituts d’Asie, Centre de Recherche sur l’Asie Centrale et la Haute Asie. 59–196. Pinault G-J (1989). ‘Introduction au tokharien.’ LALIES 7, 3–224. Ringe D A Jr (1990). ‘Evidence for the position of Tocharian in the Indo-European family?’ Die Sprache 34, 59–123. Ringe D A (1996). On the chronology of sound changes in Tocharian. Vol. I: From Proto-Indo-European to ProtoTocharian. American Oriental Series, vol. 80. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Sieg E & Siegling W (1908). ‘Tocharisch, die Sprache der Indoskythen. Vorla¨ufige Bermerkungen u¨ber eine bisher unbekannte indogermanische Literatursprache.’ Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Jahresgang 1908, 915–934. Sieg E & Siegling W (eds.) (1949–53). Tocharische Sprachreste: Sprache B. Heft 1: Die Uda¯na¯lan˙ka¯ra-Fragmente.
¨ bersetzung und Glossar (1949). Heft 2: FragText, U mente Nr. 71–633. Auch dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Werner Thomas (1953). Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Sieg E, Siegling W & Schulze W (1931). Tocharische Grammatik. Im Auftrage der Preußischen Akademie. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Thomas W (1964). Tocharisches Elementarbuch. Band II: Texte und Glossar. Heidelberg: Winter. von Gabain A & Winter N (1958). Tu¨rkische Turfantexte IX. Ein Hymnus an den Vater Mani auf ‘Tocharisch’ ¨ bersetzung. Abhandlungen der B mit alttu¨rkischer U Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse fu¨r Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, Jahrgang 1956, Nr. 2. Berlin: Akademie. van Windekens A J (1976–82). Le tokharien confronte´ avec les autres langues indo-europe´ennes. Volume I: Le phone´tique et le vocabulaire (1976). Volume II, Tome I: La morphologie nominale (1979). Volume II, Tome 2: La morphologie verbale (1982). Louvain: Centre International de Dialectologie Ge´ne´rale.
Toda P Bhaskararao, Tokyo University of Foreign Languages, Tokyo, Japan ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Toda is the name of an ethnic group that resides on the Nilagiri mountains (¼ Nilgiris) in South India (with its major town of Udagamandalam ¼ Ooty ¼ Ootacamund located at 11.24 N and 76.44 E). The lofty Nilagiri mountains (with peaks rising above 2400 m) are the home of five culturally interrelated ethnic communities – Toda, Kota, Kurumba, Irula, and Badaga – all speaking different Dravidian languages. The Todas recognize the mutual relationship and the historical interdependency among these five communities. Though they are known as Todas to outsiders, they call themselves o;Ł (meaning ‘Toda person’), and their language, o;Ł-po;sˇ (po;sˇ ‘language’). The Toda language contains different words for each of the five Nilagiri communities. They are o;Ł (Toda ¼ to¯d. a), kwı¨;f (Ko¯t. a), kurb (Kurumba), erl (Irul.a), and ma;f (Bad. aga). Though the Toda language does not have a word or a phrase to denote all these five communities together as one group, it has the word, po¨;r. , which means ‘a nonwhite low lander (who does not belong to any of the five Nilagiri communities.)’ This term demarcates all the five communities together as a group from the rest of the people of India. A white person (who is expected not to be an Indian) is called ars.
Toda language is endangered, with just around 900 speakers, most of whom are bilingual in their mother tongue and in Tamil language, the most dominant language in the area. There is twofold division among the Todas, conventionally called ‘moieties’ in anthropology. The moieties are to;r¯ yasˆ and to¨wfiŁy. Except for a few words and phrases, no significant dialectal differences are found between these two moieties.
Phonology Among the languages of India, Toda possesses a unique and complex inventory of phonemes. It is the sound system of this language that makes it sound ‘very foreign’ to many non-Todas, making them to imagine wildly that it is because the Todas were originally some exotic people such as Greeks, Persians, and so forth their language contains so many ‘foreign’ sounds. All of these ‘exotic’ sounds are derivable historically from a proto-stage through an intricate set of rules. In addition to the typical five vowels (and their long counterparts) available in most of the Dravidian languages, the Toda vowel inventory contains front rounded vowels, /u¨, o¨/, and a back unrounded vowel, /ı¨ /. In addition, each of the eight vowel positions has a short and long counterpart. This results in a total of 16 contrasting vowel phonemes viz., i, i;, e, e;, u¨, u¨;, o¨, o¨;, ı¨, ı¨;, u, u;, o, o;, a, a;. The inventory of consonants presents the most complex system known for any Indian language, and some of the
1072 Toda
consonantal contrasts found in this language are not encountered in any other language in the world. There are four voiceless sibilants contrasting at dental, alveolar, palatal, and retroflex places: /s, sˆ, sˇ, s. /. There are three nonsibilant fricatives: /f, y, x/. By some morphophonemic changes, the voiced counterparts of these fricatives also attain contrastive status. Voiceless and voiced plosives contrast at seven places of articulation. They are labial (p, b), dental (t, d), denti-alveolar (c, Z), alveolar (t, d), palato-alveolar (cˇ, j), retroflex (t. , d. ), and velar (k, g). There are three nasals: /m, n, n. /. This is the only known language that has a set of three contrastive trills and four contrastive laterals. The trills are dental /r/, alveolar /r/, and ¯ /l/, retroflex /r. /, and the laterals are voiceless alveolar voiced alveolar /l/, voiceless retroflex /Ł/ and voiced retroflex /l. / (Tables 1 and 2). Sentences
Toda is an SOV language with syntax very similar to that of other Dravidian languages. The so-called ‘extra-subject predication’ (Emeneau, 1984: 51) is peculiar to this language; for example, o; n kı¨fy ko¨t. -s-pini INOM earNOM got.destroyed-PAST.SUFFIX-1ST ‘My ears were ruined’
In a parallel sentence in other Dravidian languages, a dative-subject and the verb in concord with the object are expected. The reportative/quotative sentences are also different in this language. The subject of the embedded sentence is marked for accusative case; for example,
Table 1 Vowels
High Mid Low
FR
i i; e e;
u¨ u¨; o¨ o¨;
CR
Pronouns and Nouns First- and second-person pronouns are differentiated for number and inclusiveness (inclusion or exclusion of the addressee). There is no differentiation on the basis of sex among the pronouns. The pronouns are: first person singular: o;n, exclusive plural em, inclusive plural, om; secondperson singular ni;, plural nı¨m; third person ay (and its plural ay-a;m containing the plural suffix -a;m). Nouns are either simple or derived. Simple nouns are mono-morphemic, and derived nouns contain a suffix; for example, kurb ‘Kurumba community,’ kurbcˇ ‘a Kurumba female.’ Nouns are inflected for plurality and case by means of suffixes. -a;m is the most common plural suffix (ı¨r ‘buffalo,’ ı¨r-a;m ‘buffalos’). Some of the case suffixes are accusative -n, dative -k-g, locative -sˆ, ablative -sˆn, instrumental -ı¨t. , causal -ı¨d, sociative -wı¨.r. Some of the postpositions are pok ‘at the time of,’ tasˆ ‘above.’ Some case forms are also formed by adding post-positions. Numerals and Modifiers
PERSON.SINGULAR
FU
en-n ‘‘pod-cˇi’’ı¨d, ka;k o¨sˇtsˇi/uncsi I-ACC ‘‘will.come.3p’’ QUOT, crow said.3PERSON/ thought.3PERSON ‘The crow said/thought that I would come’
CU
BU
ı¨ ;
ı¨
BR
u u; o o;
a a;
Formation of numerals follows the general Dravidian pattern. Numerals 1000, 100, and 1–10 are monomorphemic. They are wı¨d ‘1,’ e;d. ‘2,’ mu;d ‘3,’ no; ng ‘4,’ u¨Z ‘5,’ o;r ‘6,’ o¨w ‘7,’ o¨t. ‘8,’ wı¨nboy ‘9,’ pot ‘10,’ no;r ‘100,’ and so;fer ‘1000’. The formula for forming decades is 2, 3, and so on, followed by 10 (e.g., mu-poy [3–10] ‘30’). The formula for series between decades (e.g., 31–39) is the numeral for decade followed by 1–9 (e.g., mu-poy-e;d. [3-10-2] ‘thirty-two’). Ordinals are derived from the above cardinals by the addition of the suffix -o;y (e.g., e;d. -o¨ y ‘second’). As in the case of several other Dravidian languages, it is difficult to demarcate adjectives from nouns. A few descriptive adjectives are kı¨r/kin ‘small,’ per ‘big,’ pocˇ ‘green.’ Similarly, adverbs as a class consists of a very few members. Most of the forms that
Table 2 Consonants
Stops Nasals Fricatives Trills Approximants Laterals
Labial
Dental
Denti-Alveolar
Alveolar
Palato-Alveolar
Retroflex
Velar
p b m f (v)
t
d
c
Z
t
c˘
j
t.
k g
y (") r
s
(z)
sˆ
sˇ
(zˇ)
s.
d n (zˆ) r
d. n. (z. ) r.
y l
l
x (!) w
Ł
l.
Toda 1073
function as adverbs are inflected nouns or forms derived from verbs. A few clear cases of adverbs are maxar ‘earliest,’ pı¨n ‘later, afterwards.’ Oblique Forms
Some nouns, numerals, and so on are converted into oblique forms when some case suffixes are added to them. The most common oblique suffix is -t; for example, me;n. ‘tree’: me;n-t-k ‘to the tree’ [-k is the dative suffix]; e;d. ‘two’: nı¨m e;Ł-k ‘to you both.’ Verbs
The structure of Toda verb is quite complex compared to the rest of Dravidian languages. A verb is either simple (containing only a verbal root) or derived (rootþderivative suffix). The most common derivate suffix is a transitive/causative suffix (e.g., nı¨l- ‘to stand,’ nı¨l-c- ‘make to stand’). In a majority of cases, the transitive/causative suffix fuses with the ending of the root, as in o;r- ‘to become dry,’ o;t- ‘to dry something.’ Mediative forms can be derived from a simple or derived base by addition of the suffix -etety-. The mediative form denotes a type of indirect or noncontactual causation; for example, miy-mis- ‘to graze (intr),’ mi;c- mi;cˇ- ‘to graze (tr)’ occurring in: ı¨r-a;-n a tı¨t. -a˙r mi;c ‘(Go and) graze (tr.) the buffalos over that hill!’; mors-fy ¨ır-k wı¨.l.ly mad kwı¨.rt miy-e;t ‘Give some good medicine to the buffalos with foot-and-mouth disease and make them graze!’ Almost all of the Toda verbal bases have two morphophonemic alternants, conventionally called Stem 1 (S1) and Stem 2 (S2). S2 enters into a majority of inflections. Historically it corresponds to the past-tense stem in some of the South Dravidian languages (such as Tamil). S1 is the etymologically underlying form, and the corresponding S2 is derivable by a set of rules from it. For instance, ‘to stand’ -S1: nı¨l-> S2: nı¨d-. In addition, there is a third variety of stem called the ‘Desiderative’ stem that is peculiar to Toda among the Dravidian languages. The desiderative stem takes some inflectional suffixes. A verb base alone functions as the singular imperative form; for example, part ‘You(sg.) pray!.’ All other full verbal forms contain a verb base followed by an optional inflection layer for tense/mode. A further optional inflectional layer of Pronominal suffixes (PN) that reflects the pronominal class of the subject terminates the verb. The third-person PN suffix is selected if the subject is any noun (singular or plural) or if it is a third-person pronoun (singular or plural). When the subject is a personal pronoun, the corresponding PN suffix is chosen. The PN layer is very complex in Toda compared with other Dravidian languages. It contains several sets of PN suffixes
that are added to different inflections. In the case of some inflections such as Non-Past, just the verb base followed by the appropriate PN suffix without an intervening tense suffix functions as the full verb. Another complexity of the PN suffix layer is the occurrence of two morphophonemic alternants of the same suffix across two sets that are conventionally called Paradigm I and Paradigm II. Paradigm I occurs before a terminating declarative suffix -i, and Paradigm II elsewhere. Examples of a few tenses/modes are listed here (the verb base tı¨n- tı¨d- ‘to eat’ is followed by one or more of the following suffixes: T ¼ tense/mode suffix, Pn ¼ Person suffix, D ¼ declarative suffix: Past: tı¨ds-s-i [T-Pn-D] ‘He/she/it/they ate’; Non-past: tı¨d-cˇ-i [Pn-D] ‘He/she/it/they will eat’; Negative: tı¨n-ı¨n-i [Pn-D] ‘I did/do/will not eat’; Voluntative: tı¨n-g-y [T-Pn] ‘You(sg) may eat’; Tenseless: tı¨d-en [T-Pn] ‘I eat’; Plural Imperative: tı¨n-sˆ [Pn] ‘You (pl.) eat!’; Conditional : tı¨d-u-fir. [Pn-M] ‘If he/she/it eats’; Contemporaneity : tı¨d-u-k [Pn-M] ‘while we (incl) were eating’; tı¨d-pok [T-Pn] ‘when (somebody) ate’; Purposive: tid-pı¨k [T-P] ‘for the sake of eating.’ A number of verb bases also function as auxiliary verbs (Ax) in producing various modal forms. Some examples are: kuty-ı¨s-s-pini [kuty-‘to embroider’-AxT-Pn] ‘I knew how to embroider’; pod-kı¨ sˇ-ı¨yi [pod‘to come’-Ax-Pn] ‘He could not come’; noby-pı¨t. -spini [noby-‘to believe’-Ax-T-Pn] ‘I believed (him) wrongly,’ tı¨d-ku;r. y-s-py [tı¨d-‘to eat’-Ax-T-Pn] ‘You(sg) have completed eating’; a;fot. -kwı¨d. -ı¨.ti [a;fot. -‘to talk’Ax -Pn] ‘Don’t talk to yourself,’ kı¨s-s-pod-s-si [kı¨s-‘to do’ -Ax-T-Pn] ‘He went on doing,’ ko¨t. -s-pi;-cˇ-cˇi [ko¨t. ‘to be spoiled’ -T-Ax-Pn] ‘It will get spoiled.’ A set of suffixes derives verbal forms that are used as modifiers; for example, tı¨d-fy o;Ł ‘man who ate’; tı¨d-y o;Ł ‘man who ate (more definite)’; tı¨d-t o;Ł ‘man who eats’; tı¨d-p o;Ł ‘man who can eat’; tı¨n-o;fy o;Ł ‘man did/does not eat.’ The suffix -t also derives a verbal noun as in: no¨w kı¨s-t ‘making a song’ [kı¨y- kı¨s- ‘to make, do’]. Vocabulary
Before the Todas came into contact with words from the languages from the plains such as Tamil, Hindi, and English, their borrowed vocabulary must have consisted of a few words from the language of their neighbors such as Badagas. In contemporary Toda language, there are a few words from Badaga (and some Indo-Aryan words borrowed through Badaga), Tamil, Hindi, and English. Because of the elaborate ritual structure, Toda language has developed an intricate system of naming of persons, water buffalos, and places. Like other languages, it has
1074 Tohono O’odham
some culture-specific vocabulary—for instance, because of the importance of the water buffalo in the spiritual as well as mundane planes of their lives, we find words with very specific meanings such as: malf‘buffalo gives a side glance before attacking.’ The traditional songs (some of them are presently in their twilight stage) contain special words as well as wordformation processes. The most important component of a Toda song is a paired unit called kon. (called song-units by earlier authors). An example of a kon. is: pot. y-tery-pon. m # twı¨;-tery-ı¨r [box-having.openedmoney # buffalo.pen-having.opened-buffalos] (just open the box and give money or open the buffalo-pen and give buffalos to anybody who asks>) ‘to behave very generously.’
Bibliography Emeneau M B (1958). ‘Oral poets of South India – the Todas.’ In Hymes D (ed.) Language in culture and society. New York: Harper and Row. 330–341. Emeneau M B (1965). ‘Toda dream songs.’ Journal of American Oriental Society 85, 39–44.
Emeneau M B (1965). ‘Toda verbal art and Sanskritization.’ Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 14, 273–279. Emeneau M B (1966). ‘Style and meaning in an oral literature.’ Language 42, 323–345. Emeneau M B (1971). Toda songs. London: Oxford University Press. Emeneau M B (1974). Ritual structure and language structure of the Todas. Philadelphia: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Series – 64:6. Emeneau M B (1979). ‘Linguistic archaisms in Toda songs.’ South Asian Language Analysis (SALA) 1, 41–45. Emeneau M B (1984). Toda grammar and texts. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Nara T & Bhaskararao P (2001). Toda vocabulary: a preliminary list. Osaka: ELPR Publications Series A3–002. Nara T & Bhaskararao P (2002). Toda texts. Osaka: ELPR Publications Series A3-005. Nara T & Bhaskararao P (2003). Songs of the Toda. Osaka: ELPR Publications Series A3-001. Shalev M, Ladefoged P & Bhaskararao P (1994). ‘Phonetics of Toda.’ PILC Journal of Dravidic Studies 4, 19–56. Spajicˇ S, Ladefoged P & Bhaskararao P (1996). ‘The trills of Toda.’ Journal of the International Phonetic Association 26, 1–21.
Tohono O’odham M Miyashita, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tohono O’odham ‘Desert People,’ formerly known as Papago, belongs to the Tepiman (or Pimic) branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family, and is closely related to the Akimel O’odham (or Pima ‘River People’). O’odham is spoken in Sonora, Mexico and Southwestern Arizona (Tohono O’odham, San Xavier, Ak Chin, Gila River, and Salt River). The estimated number of speakers is between 14 000 and 15 000 (Zepeda p.c. in Mithun, 1999). In the early 1900s, Juan Dolores, a native O’odham speaker, documented the language with linguist J. Alden Mason (Mathiot, 1991). Dolores published collections of O’odham verbs (Dolores, 1913), noun stems (Dolores, 1923), and nicknames (Dolores, 1936). Mason and Dolores compiled their work into an O’odham grammar. Ken Hale (1959) wrote his dissertation, ‘A Papago Grammar,’ based on fieldwork with O’odham speakers, and Dean Saxton (1963) published an article on the O’odham phonemic system. Madeline Mathiot (1973) compiled an extensive dictionary with the grammatical usage. Saxton et al. (1983) published an English-O’odham/Pima and
Pima/O’odham-English dictionary. Zepeda (1984), a native speaker, wrote a pedagogical grammar of Tohono O’odham. Some books portray O’odham songs (Bahr et al., 1997; Underhill, 1993). A number of recent articles in O’odham discuss the language from theoretical points of view (Hale, 1983; Hill and Zepeda, 1992; Fitzgerald, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002; Miyashita, 2002; Truckenbrodt, 1999). Many loanwords are from Spanish, and some are from other indigenous languages (Miller, 1990; Hill, 1998). Five major dialects are recognized: Totoguan˜, Kolo´:di, Gigimai, Hu´:hu’ula, Ko:adk, and Huhuwos (S’o´obemakame) (Saxton, 1963; Saxton et al., 1983). There are generational and gender variations. Sentential conjunction such as kun˜ ‘. . . , and I . . .’ and kup ‘. . . , and you . . .’ may be shortened to n and p (Zepeda, 1983). The former is more formal than the latter. Women use inhalation, or pulmonic ingressive airstream, in discourse for intimate interactional purposes (Hill and Zepeda, 1999). The Alvarez-Hale writing system (Alvarez and Hale, 1970) is the official orthography of the Tohono O’odham Nation (Zepeda, 1983). Dictionaries by Mathiot (1973) and Saxton et al. (1983) use their own systems and are different from the Alvarez-Hale system (Zepeda, 1983; Miyashita and Moll, 1999).
Tohono O’odham 1075
Zepeda (1983) describes that O’odham exhibits 19 consonants: b, c (¼ t ), d, d. (¼ ), g, h, j (¼ d ), k, l (¼ ), m, n, n˜, n, p, s, .s (¼ ), t, w, y (¼ j), and asymmetric five vowels i, e (¼ i), u, o, a. Although minimal pairs are rarely found, long and short vowels are phonemic (Hale, 1959). For example, hik ‘navel’ vs. hi:k ‘cut,’ ta:tk ‘feel’ vs. tatk ‘the root of a plant.’ There are extra-short (or aspirated, voiceless) vowels marked with a breve [ı˘] in the orthography. An additional example, toki ‘cotton’ vs. go:k ‘footprint.’ Allophonic variations appear in native words. Phonemes t d n d. , and .s appear as c j n˜ l, and s before /i/. The stress falls on an initial syllable, e.g., mu´sigo ‘musician.’ Prefixes do not bear a stress, e.g., ha-wa´pkon ‘them-wash.’ Secondary stress appears in polymorphemic words (Fitzgerald, 1997). Some loanwords are noninitially stressed, e.g., palo´:ma ‘dove < Spanish paloma.’ Nouns and verbs undergo partial reduplication for plural and/or distributive indications, e.g., gogs ! gogogs ‘dog(s).’ him ‘walking sing.’ ! hihim ‘walking pl.’, etc. Some words do not reduplicate, e.g., cicwi ‘playing.’ (Zepeda, 1984; Hill and Zepeda, 1998). Truncation forms a perfective verb by dropping the last consonant of an imperfective verb, e.g., o’ohan ‘writing’ ! o’oha ‘wrote.’ This does not apply to a vowel-final word, e.g., cicwi ‘playing’ ! cicwi ‘played,’ si’i ‘sucking’ ! si: ‘sucked.’ Person/number of possessives is indicated by a prefix, except for third person singular, which is a suffix (Zepeda, 1984). Possessed nouns are classified into alienable and inalienable categories. Alienable nouns are analyzed as either they having been previously unowned or as being related to sequential human ownership (Bahr, 1986). As shown in (1) and (2), an alienable noun must have the suffix -ga, and an inalienable does not.
(3) Wakial ’o ceposid g haiwan. (SVO) cowboy. AUX. branding DET cow. sing 3.sing sing ‘The cowboy is/was branding the cow.’ (4)
Ceposid ’o g wakial g haiwan. (VSO) branding AUX. DET cowboy. DET cow. 3.sing sing sing ‘The cowboy is/was branding the cow.’
AUX indicates the subject’s person and number, and a verb prefix indicates that of the object. However, as shown in sentences (3) and (4), any third person singular argument has no overt indication regarding the grammatical relation. Although there is no overt case marking, O’odham may be an ergative language because a reduplicated intransitive verb agrees with the plural subject, while a reduplicated transitive verb agrees with the plural object in a sentence (Zepeda, 1983; Miyashita, 2002). Verbal aspects are distinguished between completed and continued actions (Dolores, 1913; Zepeda, 1983). Tense is divided into future and nonfuture. Imperfective present and past are not grammatically distinguished. Future is marked by a particle o with perfective AUX. Future imperfective sentences are formed with the perfective AUX, the imperfective verb, and usually the suffix -d/-ad on the verb. O’odham kin terms show the equilateral system (Saxton et al., 1983). Siblings and cousins are the same, .se:pij. Parents’ siblings have eight distinct terms depending on the gender, age, and lineage. Grandparents have four distinct terms. Great-grandparents have one term, wi:kol. Great-great-grandparents have the same term as siblings, .se:pij. The term for ‘child’ is distinct depending on the gender of the parent rather than of the child.
Bibliography (1) n˜-je’e 1.sing.POSS-mother ‘my mother’ (2) gogs-ga-j dog-alienable-3.sing.POSS ‘his or her dog’
O’odham is a nonconfigurational language. All six orders (SOV, SVO, OSV, OVS, VSO, and VOS) are possible for a transitive sentence without meaning alteration (Zepeda, 1984; Miyashita et al., 2003). Pragmatic status may correlate the word order (Payne, 1987). Any nonpronominal noun must follow a particle called a g-determiner, except when it is sentence-initial. A sentence must have an auxiliary (AUX), which must be in the second position of the sentence as only one restriction regarding the configuration (Zepeda, 1984).
Alvarez A & Hale K (1970). ‘Toward a manual of Papago grammar: some phonological terms.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 36(2), 83–97. Bahr D M (1986). ‘Pima-Papago-ga, ‘‘Alienability.’’’ International Journal of American Linguistics 52(2), 161–171. Bahr D M, Paul L & Joseph V (1997). Ants and orioles: showing the art of Pima poetry. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Dolores J (1913). ‘Papago Verb Stems.’ American Archaeology and Ethnology 10, 241–263. Dolores J (1923). ‘Papago Noun Stems.’ American Archaeology and Ethnology 20, 19–31. Dolores J (1936). ‘Papago Nicknames.’ In Mason J A (ed.) Essays in anthropology in honor of Alfred Kroeber. Berkeley: University of California Press. 45–47. Hale K (1959). ‘A Papago grammar.’ Ph.D diss., Indiana University.
1076 Tok Pisin Hale K (1983). ‘Papago (k)c.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 49(3), 299–327. Hill J (1998). [Journal issue dated 1993, submitted 1997] ‘Spanish in the indigenous languages of Mesoamerica and the southwest: beyond stage theory to the dynamics of incorporation and resistance.’ Southwest Journal of Linguistics 12(1–2), 87–108. Hill J & Zepeda O (1992). ‘Derived Words in Tohono O’odham.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 58, 355–404. Hill J & Zepeda O (1998). ‘Tohono O’odham (Papago) Plurals.’ Anthropological Linguistics 40(1), 1–42. Hill J & Zepeda O (1999). ‘Language, gender and biology: pulmonic ingressive airstream in women’s speech in Tohono O’odham.’ Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18, 15–40. Fitzgerald C M (1997). ‘O’odham Rhythm.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona. Fitzgerald C M (1998). ‘The meter of Tohono O’odham songs.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 64, 1–36. Fitzgerald C M (2000). ‘Vowel Hiatus and faithfulness in Tohono O’odham reduplication.’ Linguistic Inquiry 31, 713–722. Fitzgerald C M (2002). ‘Tohono O’odham stress in a single ranking.’ Phonology 19, 253–271. Mathiot M (1973). A dictionary of Papago Usage (vols 1 & 2). Indiana: Indiana University Publications. Mathiot M (1991). ‘The reminiscence of Huan Dolores, an Early O’odham linguist.’ Anthropological Linguistics 33, 233–315. Miller W (1990). ‘Early Spanish and Aztec loan words in the indigenous languages of Northwest Mexico.’ In Cuao´n
B G & Levy P (eds.) Homenaje a Jorge A Sua´rez: Lingu¨ıˆstica Indoalericana e Hispanica. Mexico, D. F: El Colegio de Me´xico. 351–366. Mithun M (1999). The Languages of North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miyashita M (2002). ‘Tohono O’odham Syllable Weight: Descriptive, Theoretical and Applied Aspects.’ Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Arizona. Miyashita M & Moll L (1999). ‘Enhancing Language Material Availability Through Computer Technology.’ In Reyhner J, Cantoni G & St. Clair R N (eds.) Revitalizing Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University. 113–116. Miyashita M, Demers R & Ortiz D (2003). ‘Grammatical Relations in Tohono O’odham: An Instrumental Perspective.’ In Karimi S (ed.) Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell. 44–66. Payne D L (1987). ‘Information Structuring in Papago Narrative Discourse.’ Language 63, 783–804. Saxton D (1963). ‘Papago Phonemes.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 29, 29–35. Saxton D, Saxton L & Enos S (1983). Dictionary: Papago/ Pima-English, English-Papago/Pima. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Truckenbrodt H (1999). ‘On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases.’ Linguistic Inquiry 30, 219–256. Underhill R M (1993). Singing for power. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Zepeda, Ofelia (1983). A Papago grammar. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Zepeda, Ofelia (1984). ‘Topics in Papago morphology.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona.
Tok Pisin S Romaine, Oxford University, Oxford, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tok Pisin (from English talk pidgin) is an Englishlexicon pidgin spoken by approximately threequarters of Papua Guinea’s approximately 5 million inhabitants. It is not only the lingua franca of the entire country, with its 800 some indigenous languages, but it is also the language spoken by the most people in the South Pacific today. It is closely related to and mutually intelligible with Pijin in the Solomon Islands and Bislama in Vanuatu. All three varieties of Melanesian Pidgin owe their origins to the Queensland sugarcane plantations to which as many as 100 000 workers from these three countries were recruited during the 19th century. Men with mutually unintelligible village languages found themselves living and working together, as well as needing to
communicate with their English-speaking plantation managers. A form of pidgin English served this purpose. When the labor trade ended in 1905, most of the workers went back to their countries of origin, taking with them knowledge of this Queensland Plantation Pidgin. In these highly multilingual countries, pidgin served the useful internal function of communicating across ethnolinguistic boundaries. Social conditions were thus conducive not just for the retention and spread of the pidgin but also for its stabilization and subsequent creolization. Today, Tok Pisin is used across Papua New Guinea’s social spectrum, known by villagers and government ministers alike. It is the most frequently used language in the House of Assembly, the country’s main legislative body, and the constitution recognizes Tok Pisin as one of the national languages of Papua New Guinea. Tok Pisin has become the main language of the migrant proletarian and the first language of the
Tok Pisin 1077
younger generation of town-born children, where it has creolized (i.e., become a creole). Tok Pisin is also one of the few pidgin and creole languages to have undergone considerable standardization because missionaries realized its potential early on as a valuable lingua franca for proselytizing among a linguistically diverse population and began using it for teaching. Most printed material is still religious; the Bible has been translated into Tok Pisin. However, the language is used to some extent in radio and television broadcasting, especially in interviews and news reports. The weekly Tok Pisin newspaper, Wantok, has a readership of over 30 000. Until recently, English was the only official language of education in Papua New Guinea despite the fact that few children enter school knowing it. However, education reforms have allowed communities to choose the language to be used in the first 3 years of elementary education, and many have chosen Tok Pisin. The lexicon of Tok Pisin is mainly English (79%); Tolai (Kuanua), an indigenous language, has contributed 11%, other indigenous languages 6%, German 3%, and Malay 1%; there is also a handful of words from other European languages such as Portuguese/Spanish (e.g., save from Portuguese/ Spanish sabir/saber ‘to know/knowledge’). English borrowings provide the most important source of new vocabulary. Even frequently used words such as kiau ‘egg’ from Tolai are increasingly being replaced by or used alongside the English egg. Likewise, some of the German vocabulary in the language (e.g., beten ‘pray’), dating from the period of German colonial rule (1884–1914) of part of the country, is giving way to English. The phonology of individual speakers of Tok Pisin varies from a core system that is shared by all speakers of the language and is similar to that of the indigenous substrate languages to a highly anglicized phonology that makes the most of English consonant and vowel distinctions. Tok Pisin has little morphology, although it has acquired some derivational and inflectional morphology in the course of its expansion. The suffix-pela is used to form the plural of the first- and second-person pronouns (e.g., yu-pela ‘you plural’); it also marks a subset of monosyllabic attributive adjectives, demonstratives, and cardinal numerals (e.g., dis-pela tu-pela pis ‘these two fish(es)’). Transitive verbs are marked with the suffix-im. em i lus-im dis-pela 3.SING PRED leave-TRANS this-DEM ‘he/she/it left this place/village’
ples place/village
(Here, PRED stands for predicate marker.) Some grammatical distinctions reflect the influence of the substrate indigenous languages; in the personal pronoun
system, different pronouns are used for inclusive (i.e., speaker þ hearer) and exclusive (i.e., speaker þ other(s), not including hearer). Compare yumi ‘we (inclusive)’ with mipela ‘we (exclusive).’ Full lexemes are often used to express grammatical categories such as case, number, gender, tense, mood, and aspect, which in other languages are expressed by inflectional morphology; these distinctions are, however, not always obligatory. This is especially true for tense, mood, and aspect. The normal way of indicating past time is through use of the unmarked verb form, but bin (from English been) may be used. ol i bin adopt-im PRED PAST adopt-TRANS 3.PL ‘they adopted a/the little girl’
liklik little
meri girl
Sometimes bin is used in conjunction with pinis (from English finish) to mark completed actions in the past as a kind of perfective marker. tim bilong Mormads i bin win-im pinis team of Mormads PRED PAST win-TRANS PERF ‘the Mormads team has won (the grand netball final)’
The meanings of immediate and remote future, prediction, intention, and irrealis may be expressed by clause-initial or preverbal bai, which has almost entirely replaced the earlier form baimbai (from English by and by). Pronominal subjects tend to take clause-initial bai, and noun phrases tend to take preverbal bai. Preverbal position is fast becoming the preferred order, although there are regional and stylistic differences. mi bai 1.SING FUT ‘I will go’
go go
Tok Pisin has SVO word order; there is no copula and negation is preverbal (mi no save ‘I don’t know’). There is no inversion for questions. yu-pela gat brus a? have tobacco Q 2-PL ‘do you (plural) have tobacco?’
Bibliography Mu¨hlha¨usler P, Dutton T E & Romaine S (eds.) (2003). Varieties of English around the world: Tok Pisin texts: from the beginning to the present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Romaine S (1992). Language, education and development: rural and urban Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wurm S A & Mu¨hlha¨usler P (eds.) (1985). Pacific linguistics C-70: Handbook of Tok Pisin. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.
1078 Torricelli Languages
Torricelli Languages M Donohue, National University of Singapore, Singapore ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The approximately 50 languages of the Torricelli are spoken in north Papua New Guinea. The family extends from the eastern Bewani mountains in Sandaun Province; through the Torricelli ranges to Maprik, where Ndu speaking villages reach through to the north coast; and continuing east of Wewak in Sepik Province in the Marienberg ranges and ground south of the Murik lakes, with a final outpost at Bogia in Madang province. The languages are remarkable for non-Austronesian languages in New Guinea for having a basic SVO word order, whereas the norm is SOV. They have been grouped into seven subgroups, whose internal constituency appears to be valid, although the seven-way division still awaits proof. The membership of the family as a whole appears to be accurate. There are typically no phonetically unusual segments in Torricelli languages, and, although stress is frequently contrastive, reports of tonal differences are rare. The languages near Nuku share with the adjacent Ndu languages the presence of creaky or glottalized vowels, ranging from just one (/a/) to contrasts present on the whole vowel inventory. The vowel inventories tend to be large, with seven or eight vowels being not uncommon in the western languages (a typical inventory is /i e e a O o u u/) and five or six vowels being more common in the east. The loss of velar segments in some western languages has led to the unusual case of languages without velar contrasts at all. Voicing contrasts are usually associated with prenasalization. There is significant diversity within the family, and the Torricelli languages are also significantly different from most other languages of New Guinea. Although they all show SVO order, typically with prefixal agreement for the subject and suffixal agreement for the object and lacking case marking on (core) nominals – all features that are unusual in New Guinea – other details of their morphological and syntactic structure show considerable diversity. In the eastern languages, such as Monumbo and Arapesh (Bukiyip, also known as Muhiang), multiple class systems with extensive concord are found, whereas in the west only remnant traces of noun classification can be found in the synchronically irregular plural endings of One and Olo. For example, in Bukiyip ‘stone’ is utom (SING) utabal (PL), showing the -m and -bal suffixes typical of class 5 nouns (compare this with a class 2 noun, such as ‘village’ wa-be´l SING, wa-lu´b PL). Adjectives show
similar suffixes, agreeing in class and number with their noun, and verbs have cognate prefixes: yopi-mi uto-m m-a-pwe agnu´ ‘(the) good stone is there’ yopi-bili wa-be´l bl-a-pwe agnu´ ‘(the) good village is there’
In the western Torricelli language One, ‘stone’ is toma (SING) tomu (PL), showing an -a versus -u pattern, just as in ‘flower’ sula (SING), sulu (PL), indicating that, although it is a minority pattern, the alternations in ‘stone’ are regular. The word for ‘village’ wapli can be singular or plural, with the common -li plural suffix, but wap is only singular (this form is commonly found in compounds, such as wap oi ‘village grounds, area’). Concord on other words is not as strong, however: upo toma w-ae nu ‘the good stone is there’
This sentence shows no agreement on upo ‘good,’ and only the general second/third-person singular w- on the verb ‘sit, be at.’ The same forms as are found in: upo wapli w-ae nu ‘the good village is there’
A few adjectives do show alternations: plola toma w-ae nu ‘the short stone is there’ plolu tomu n-ai n-e nu ‘the short stones are there’
with variation for number (the verb ‘sit’ has irregular singular and plural forms). Different noun classes, however, do not show different agreement patterns. Using the same inflecting adjective, plola, with a different noun shows the same inflectional pattern: plola wap w-ae nu ‘the short village is there’ plolu wapli n-ai n-e nu ‘the short villages are there’
There are also no differences in verbal morphology. Another striking aspect of the NP in One involves the lack of a fixed word order: Gen N as well as N Gen, Dem N as well as N Dem, and Adj N as well as N Adj are found, with only relative clauses being restricted to postnominal position. Like most languages of New Guinea, there is no evidence of a voice system operating in any of the Torricelli languages, but applicatives are almost universal in the Torricelli languages, being found in at least fossilized form even on the more isolating
Torricelli Languages 1079
members of the family. In some languages the applicative and the verb ‘give’ show close similarities (One: -ne APPL and an(e) ‘give’), whereas in other languages the two morphemes bear no obvious resemblance to each other (Olo: -f(i) APPL, wa ‘give’; Arapesh -‘ma APPL, se’ ‘give’). There does not seem to be a single historical source for the various applicatives attested in different branches of the family. An applicative is often required lexically by low-transitive verbs. One has y-upa-ne ‘follow,’ with a lexicalized applicative, for instance. Serial verbs are a regular feature of Torricelli languages, although clause chaining is not. One, the westernmost Torricelli language has an unusual syntactic parameter setting whereby word order within the NP is free but the position of NPs and PPs within the clause is rigidly fixed, implying that there is configurationality at the clause level but not at the phrase level. Over the years, there have been various suggestions concerning the history of the Torricelli languages. Authors have suggested a relationship with the Asli languages of Malaysia and with the East Bird’s Head languages of western New Guinea. None of these claims has yet stood up to any serious investigation. The SVO order of the Torricelli languages, unusual in New Guinea, has been attributed to Austronesian contact (as has also been proposed for the similarly SVO languages of the Bird’s Head), but it could just as easily be innate. The Torricelli languages are, indeed, not highlands languages, and there is no reason to suppose that SVO is not the original Torricelli order.
Bibliography Conrad R J (1978a). ‘Some Muhiang grammatical notes.’ In Workpapers in Papua New Guinea languages 25: Miscellaneous papers on Dobu and Arapesh. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: SIL. 89–130. Conrad R J (1978b). ‘A survey of the Arapesh language family of Papua New Guinea.’ In Workpapers in Papua New Guinea languages 25: Miscellaneous papers on Dobu and Arapesh. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: SIL. 57–77. Conrad R & Wogiga K (1991). An outline of Bukiyip grammar. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. Crowther M (2001). All the One language(s): linguistic and ethnographic definitions of language. Ph.D. diss., University of Sydney. Donohue M (2000). ‘One phrase structure.’ In Allan K & Henderson J (eds.) Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. University of Melbourne. Available at: http://www.arts.monash.edu.au.
Foley W A (1986). The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fortune R F (1942/1977). Publications of the American Ethnological Society 19: Arapesh. New York: AMS. Gerstner A (1963). Micro-Bibliotheca Anthropos 37: Grammatik der Alu¨bansprache. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Anthropos Institute. Klaffl J & Vormann F (1905). ‘Die Sprachen des Berlinhafen-Bezirks in Deutsch-Neuguinea.’ Mitteilungen des Seminars fu¨r Orientalische Sprachen 8, 1–138. Laycock D C (1975). ‘The Torricelli phylum.’ In Wurm S A (ed.) New Guinea area languages and language study 1: Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. 767–780. Manning M & Saggers N (1977). ‘A tentative phonemic analysis of Ningil.’ Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 19, 49–71. Martens M & Tuominen S (1977). ‘A tentative phonemic statement in Yil in West Sepik Province.’ Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 19, 29–48. McGregor D E & McGregor A R F (1982). Olo language materials. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. Sanders A G & Sanders J (1980a). ‘Dialect survey of the Kamasau language.’ In Boxwell M, Goddard J, Ross M, Sanders A G, Sanders J & Davies J (eds.) Papers in New Guinea Linguistics, vol. 20. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. 137–190. Sanders A G & Sanders J (1980b). ‘Phonology of the Kamasau language.’ In Boxwell M, Goddard J, Ross M, Sanders A G, Sanders J & Davies J (eds.) Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 20. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. 111–136. Schmidt W & Vormann F (1900). ‘Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Valman-Sprache.’ Zeitschrift fu¨r Ethnologie 32, 87–104. Scorza D (1974). ‘Sentence structure of the Au language.’ Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 1, 165–246. Scorza D (1985). ‘A sketch of Au morphology and syntax.’ In Papers in New Guinea Linguistics, vol. 22. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. 215–273. Schmidt W & Spo¨lgen N (1901). ‘Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Valman-Sprache.’ Wiener Zeitschrift fu¨r die Kunde des Morgenlandes 15, 335–366. Staley W E (1994). ‘Theoretical implications of Olo verb reduplication.’ Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 25, 185–190. Staley W E (1996a). ‘The multiple processes of Olo verb reduplication.’ Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 27(2), 147–174. Staley W E (1996b). Serial clauses in Olo. Paper presented at the 1996 meeting of the Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea. Vorman F & Scharfenberger W (1914). Anthropos linguistische bibliothek: internationale sammlung linguistischer monographien: Die Monumbo-Sprache: Grammatik und Wo¨rterverzeichnis. Vienna: Mechitharistenbuchdruckerei.
1080 Totonacan Languages
Totonacan Languages C J MacKay and F R Trechsel, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Totonacan languages are spoken in central Mexico in a region that includes parts of three states: southern Hidalgo, northern Puebla, and northwestern Veracruz (see Figures 1 and 2). Although proposals have sometimes been made to relate the Totonacan languages to Mayan, Mixe-Zoquean, and other languages in Mesoamerica (McQuown, 1942), these relationships have never been demonstrated. Today, the Totonacan language family is generally regarded as an ‘isolate’ in the classification of Mesoamerican languages (Sua´rez, 1983; Campbell, 1997). It is thought that speakers of these languages settled near the Gulf Coast around 800 A.D. Their original homeland is unknown; however, based on ethnohistorical sources and loanwords found in other Mesoamerican languages, it has been proposed that Totonacs may have founded Teotihuacan and moved to their current location following its collapse (Justeson et al., 1985).
Totonacan Language Family The Totonacan language family is made up of two branches: Totonac, consisting of four languages, with
Figure 1 Mexico (adapted from a map drawn by Ashley Withers).
roughly 220 736 speakers, and Tepehua, consisting of three languages, with approximately 8252 speakers (INEGI–XII Censo General, 2000). Although the Totonac and Tepehua languages are mutually unintelligible today, they share a great deal of vocabulary and exhibit many structural similarities. These similarities indicate that the languages developed, historically, from a common ancestor, Proto-Totonacan. Figure 3 provides a simplified representation of the relationships of the various languages. As linguistic investigation proceeds, further groupings and subgroupings within the family will undoubtedly emerge. As illustrated in Figure 3, the Totonac branch consists of four languages, referred to here as Misantla, Papantla, Sierra, and Northern: Misantla Totonac, the southernmost variety, is spoken between the cities of Xalapa and Misantla in Veracruz. Towns where speakers may still be found include Yecuatla (192 speakers), San Marcos Atexquilapan (13), Landero y Coss (61), Chiconquiaco (56), and Jilotepec (11) (INEGI–XII Censo General, 2000). Misantla Totonac is moribund, with few native speakers remaining, all over the age of 45. The largest concentration of speakers is found in Yecuatla, but their number is dwindling rapidly. According to the Mexican Census, 486 individuals spoke Totonac in Yecuatla in 1980; in 2000, only
Totonacan Languages 1081
Figure 2 Totonacan language area (adapted from a map drawn by Ashley Withers).
Figure 3 Totonacan language family.
192 speakers remained (INEGI–Censo General, 1980, 2000). Data on Misantla Totonac come from Yecuatla and San Marcos Atexquilapan (MacKay, 1994, 1999; MacKay and Trechsel, 2003, in press). Papantla Totonac is spoken by roughly 36 000 individuals in and around the city of Papantla, Veracruz. Children are still learning Papantla Totonac, but the language is being used less frequently within the communities. Data on Papantla Totonac come from El Escolı´n (Aschmann, 1973), Cerro del Carbo´n (Levy, 1987, 1990), and El Tajı´n (Garcı´a Ramos, 2000). Sierra Totonac is spoken by more than 100 000 people in the Sierra Norte de Puebla and nearby towns in Veracruz. The exact limits of Sierra Totonac and Northern Totonac are still being determined. Children continue to learn Sierra Totonac as their native language, and it is the main language used in many communities. Data on Sierra Totonac come
from Zapotitla´n de Me´ndez, Puebla (Aschmann and Wonderly, 1952; Aschmann, 1962), and Coatepec, Puebla (McQuown, 1990). Northern Totonac is spoken by roughly 10 000 people in the region surrounding Xicotepec de Jua´rez, Puebla. It is unclear how many children are learning Northern Totonac; most speakers appear to be middle aged or older. Data on Northern Totonac come from Apapantilla, Puebla (Reid et al., 1968; Reid and Bishop, 1974; Reid, 1991) and Patla and Chicontla, Puebla (Beck, 2004). Beck refers to the variety of Northern Totonac spoken in the latter two communities as Upper Necaxa Totonac. The Tepehua branch of Totonacan consists of three languages, identified here as Tlachichilco, Pisaflores, and Huehuetla. Tlachichilco Tepehua is spoken in Tlachichilco, Veracruz, and in the surrounding communities of Chintipa´n, Tierra Colorada, and Tecomajapa.
1082 Totonacan Languages
According to the 2000 census, there are approximately 2463 speakers in these communities, many of whom are middle aged or older (Watters, 1988: 5). James K. Watters is the only linguist to have conducted research on Tlachichilco Tepehua. His publications include discussions of morphosyntax (1988), phonology (1987), verbal semantics (1996), and second-person laryngealization (1994). Although there is as yet no published lexicon or descriptive grammar of Tlachichilco Tepehua, it is the best documented of all the Tepehua languages. Pisaflores Tepehua is spoken by roughly 2786 individuals in and around Pisaflores, Veracruz. Tepehua is the main language of this community and children are still learning it as their native language. Carolyn J. MacKay and Frank R. Trechsel have been conducting linguistic research in Pisaflores since 1997 and are working on a description of Pisaflores Tepehua. Huehuetla Tepehua is spoken in and around the towns of Huehuetla, Hidalgo, and Mecapalapa, Puebla. There are approximately 1649 speakers of Huehuetla Tepehua, all of whom are at least middle aged. Publications on the language include a short sketch of sentence structure, a description of Tepehua numerals, and a preliminary description of verb inflection (Herzog, 1974). The Liga Bı´blica Mundial del Hogar published the New Testament in Huehuetla Tepehua in 1976.
Totonacan Phonology Totonacan languages exhibit three vowels, /a/, /i/, /u/, and a length distinction, contrasting short and long vowels. Some languages, like Northern Totonac, have also developed phonemic /e/ and /o/ (Beck, 2004). Plain and laryngealized variants of both short and
Figure 4 Totonacan consonants.
long vowels exist in all Totonacan languages. Whether this distinction is contrastive or predictable has not yet been determined for all varieties. However, all Totonacan languages employ laryngealization to mark second-person subjects. (1) Misantla Totonac (MacKay, 1999: 156, 157) ‘you know X’ [w S kats ] D tsii/ /wi S ka [ ˜t kaDtsı´i] ‘s/he knows X’ /ut kaDtsii/ ‘we cut X’ [kin Dn k aya´a] /kinan kaaD-yaa-wa/ [wi SıD´n k DaDy atat] ‘y’all cut X’ D /wi˜Sin kaaD-yaa-tat/ DD ˜
Figure 4 presents the consonants that are found in almost all Totonacan languages. In most Totonacan languages, glottal stop is contrastive only in wordfinal position. However, in Upper Necaxa Totonac, Pisaflores Tepehua, and Huehuetla Tepehua, / / has replaced /q/ and therefore occurs in other positions as well. Consonant alternations to mark degrees of size, force, and intensity have been described in Totonacan. This sound symbolism typically involves the sets of sounds s=S=l, k=q, and ts=tS with l, q, and tS being the most intense (Bishop, 1984; Levy, 1987; MacKay, 1999; Beck, 2004). (2) Misantla Totonac (MacKay, 1999: 114) [tsuts ] /tsu˜tsu˜/ ‘s/he smokes’ [tSu˜˜ tS ] /tSu˜tSu˜/ ‘s/he sucks’ (3) Papantla Totonac (Levy, 1987: 115) suku˜ ‘small hole’ luku˜ ‘medium-sized hole’ luqu˜ ‘large hole’
Totonacan Languages 1083
Totonacan Morphology Totonacan languages exploit a very complex and productive morphology, characterized by a large number of affixes, both prefixes and suffixes, that do most of the work of the grammar. Verbs and nominals are the major word classes. Nominals
In some languages (e.g., Misantla Totonac and Sierra Totonac), adjectives and nouns do not differ in their inflectional morphology. In others, however (e.g., Papantla Totonac and Upper Necaxa Totonac), nouns and adjectives are distinct. Nominal inflectional morphology is relatively simple. Nominals are optionally marked for plurality, and in possessive constructions are also marked for person (and sometimes number) of possessors. (4) Misantla Totonac (MacKay, 1999: 349) [kı´JtSı´k] 1POSS-house /kin-tSik/ [kı´JtSik n] 1POSS-house-PL /kin-tSik-VVn/ [kı´JtSik n] 1POSS-house-POSS.PL /kin-tSik-kan/ 1POSS-house-PL-POSS.PL [kı´JtSik NkD n] /kin-tSik-VVn-kan/ D
‘my house’ ‘my houses’ ‘our house’
may be inherently stative, intransitive, transitive, and, in some languages, ditransitive. In all languages, the verbal inflectional system distinguishes two aspectual categories (perfective and imperfective); two tense categories (past and nonpast); and two mood categories (realis and irrealis). In many, but not all, Totonacan languages, the inflectional system also marks categories of future tense and/or perfect aspect. The exact distribution of these latter categories in the family has yet to be determined. In addition, in all Totonacan languages, verbal inflectional affixes mark categories of person and number of both subjects and objects. For the most part, inflectional affixes are transparent in the sense that they can be easily isolated and their semantic contribution is clear. In transitive sentences involving two nonthird-person arguments, however, certain contrasts are neutralized. In all languages except Sierra Totonac, combinations of a second-person subject and a first-person object, where either or both are plural, are expressed by means of reciprocal verbs with first person inclusive plural subjects. Sentences like the following, from Pisaflores Tepehua, are systematically ambiguous:
‘our houses’
Numerals
The Totonacan numerical system, like many others in Mesoamerica, is vigesimal. In many of the Totonacan languages, the numerical system is being replaced by the Spanish one. (5) Misantla Totonac (MacKay, 1999: 393, 394) [puSu´mpuSu´mpuSu´n] ‘sixty (20 þ 20 þ 20)’ /puSum-puSum-puSum/ [tutu´n puSu´n] ‘sixty (3 20)’ /tutun puSum/ Body Part Prefixes
Body Part Prefixes occur on both nominal and verb stems, but are most productive on verbs. They usually denote either the body part affected by the action of the verb or a spatial relationship (‘in front of,’ ‘behind,’ ‘beside,’ ‘above,’ etc.). (6) Misantla Totonac (MacKay, 1999: 230) [mı´ntaqaqan ut] D Dqa-nu ˜ u-Vt/ /min-ta-qa D D ˜˜ 2POSS-INCHOATIVE-ear rel.-inside-NOM ‘your earring’
(7) Pisaflores Tepehua (MacKay and Trechsel, 2003: 295) [kila´ala´ tsina´aw] /kin-laa-la˜ tsin-yaa-wi/ ˜ 1OBJ ¼ RECIP-see.X-IMPERF-1 SUBJ.PL ‘You (sg.) see us,’ ‘You (pl.) see me,’ ‘You (pl.) see us’
A similar ambiguity emerges in sentences in which a first person subject acts on a second person object and, again, one or both are plural. In the Tepehua languages, these combinations are expressed by means of reciprocal verbs with first person exclusive plural subjects. The example in (8) is four-ways ambiguous: (8) Pisaflores Tepehua (MacKay and Trechsel, 2003: 297) [ kla´ala´ tsı˜na´aw] /ik-laa-la tsin-yaa-wi/ ˜ 1SUBJ-RECIP-see.X-IMPERF-1SUBJ.PL ‘I see you (pl.),’ ‘We see you (sg.),’ ‘We see you (pl.),’ ‘We (excl.) see each other’
In contrast, the Totonac languages, with the exception of Sierra Totonac, use reciprocal verbs in 2SUBJ > 1OBJ contexts, but not in 1SUBJ > 2OBJ contexts. Nevertheless, all Totonac languages employ a single verb form to express combinations of first person subject and second person object where one or both are plural. Ambiguities of the sort illustrated in (7) and (8) are pervasive throughout the family.
Verbal Inflection
Verbal Derivation
Totonacan verbal morphology is characterized by a layering of derivational and inflectional affixes. Verbs
Totonacan languages exhibit a rich inventory of derivational affixes that affect the valence of both
1084 Totonacan Languages
transitive and instransitive verbs. The most productive are a causative affix, /maa-/ ‘CAUS,’ and several applicative affixes that license arguments interpreted as beneficiary, recipient/goal, instrumental, comitative, and others. In many languages, applicative affixes are the only means available for expressing arguments with these semantic roles. (9) Misantla Totonac (MacKay, 1999: 274) [ klı´ilaqEna´an D n-yaa-na D qa /ik-lii-la D D 1SUBJ-INST-see X-IMPERF-2OBJ kı´lı´ila´qtSaqa´ata´ayat] kin-lii-laq ¼ tSaqaa-taaya-Vt/ 1POSS-INST-eye rel.-upright-NOM ‘I see you with my glasses’
On transitive verbs, causative and applicative affixes yield ditransitive verbs with two nonoblique objects. There is variation within the family concerning the treatment of these objects. At one extreme are languages like Misantla Totonac in which either or both of the objects may control overt object agreement. Sentences like (10) are systematically ambiguous in this language: (10) Misantla Totonac (MacKay, 1999: 190) [ kla´amaka Sk /ik-laa-maka-i Ski-wa ˜ ˜ 1SUBJ-3OBJ.PL-hand rel.-give X to Y-1SUBJ.PL hOA nlı´bru] hun-libru/ DET-book ‘we handed them the book,’ ‘we handed him/ her the books’
At the other extreme are languages like Papantla Totonac (Levy, 2000) in which only one of the two objects may control agreement. (11) Papantla Totonac (Levy, 2000: 5) ka:-ma:xi’:-lh lakcumaja´n kin-qa’wasa OBJ.PL-give-PFV girls 1POSS-son ‘I gave my son to the girls’ / *‘I gave the girls to my son’
Between these extremes are several intermediate types in which possibilities of double object marking are constrained by person and number features of the objects.
Totonacan Syntax Word order in Totonacan languages is extremely flexible and almost any order is acceptable. In unmarked cases, word order is verb initial, and frequently VSO. Subjects may precede the verb for pragmatic effects associated with focus or topicalization.
Coordination and subordination are not explicitly marked and verbs in both clauses exhibit finite verbal morphology. (12) Misantla Totonac (MacKay and Trechsel, in press) [lakaa knı´spa´a hOA n tS Sku´ /lakaa ik-nispaa hun tSi Sku ˜ NEG 1SUBJ-know.X DET man hOA n tiyu´ut l atat] DD hun tiyuut laa-min(ta n)-ti/ D DET who COM-come-2PERF ‘I don’t know the man you came with.’
Bibliography Aschmann H P (1962). Vocabulario totonaco de la Sierra. Serie de Vocabularios Indı´genas ‘Mariano Silva y Aceves’. Nu´m. 7. Me´xico, DF: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Aschmann H P (1973). Diccionario totonaco de Papantla. Serie de Vocabularios y Diccionarios Indı´genas ‘Mariano Silva y Aceves’. Nu´m. 16. Me´xico, DF: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Aschmann H P & Wonderly W (1952). ‘Affixes and implicit categories in Totonac verb inflection.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 18, 130–135. Beck D (2001). ‘Person-hierarchies and the origin of asymmetries in Totonac verbal paradigms.’ Linguistica Atlantica 23, 1–33. Beck D (2004). Upper Necaxa Totonac. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Bishop R G (1984). ‘Consonant play in lexical sets in Northern Totonac.’ S. I. L.-Mexico Workpapers 5, 24–31. Campbell L (1997). American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garcı´a Ramos C (2000). Vocabulario bilingu¨e TotonacoCastellano. Jalapa: Ediciones Cultura de Veracruz. Herzog D L (1974). ‘Person, number, and tense in the Tepehua verb.’ S. I. L.-Mexico Workpapers 1, 45–52. Instituto Nacional de Estadı´stica, Geografı´a e Informacio´n – INEGI (1980). X Censo General de Poblacio´n y Vivienda, 1980. Me´xico, DF: Secretarı´a de Progmacio´n y Presupuesto. Instituto Nacional de Estadı´stica, Geografı´a e Informacio´n – INEGI (2000). XII Censo General de Poblacio´n y Vivienda, 2000. Me´xico, DF: Secretarı´a de Programacio´n y Presupuesto. Justeson J S, Norman W, Campbell L & Kaufman T (1985). The foreign impact on lowland Mayan languages and script (Publication No. 53). New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University. Levy P (1987). Fonologı´a del totonaco de Papantla, Coleccio´n Lingu¨ı´stica Indı´gena No. 3. Instituto de Investigaciones Filolo´gicas Veracruz. Me´xico, DF: Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico. Levy P (1990). Totonaco de Papantla, Veracruz. Archivo de lenguas indı´genas de Me´xico. Me´xico, DF: El Colegio de Me´xico.
Trans New Guinea Languages 1085 Levy P (2000). ‘El aplicativo dativo/benefactivo en totonaco de Papantla.’ Memorias del VI encuentro de lingu¨ı´stica en el noroeste. Sonora: UNISON. Liga Bı´blica Mundial del Hogar (1976). El Nuevo Testamento en el idioma tepehua de Huehuetla Hidalgo. Me´xico, DF: Sociedades Bı´blicas Unidas. MacKay C J (1991). A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Ph.D. diss., The University of Texas, Austin. MacKay C J (1994). ‘A sketch of Misantla Totonac phonology.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 60, 369–419. MacKay C J (1999). A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. MacKay C J & Trechsel F R (2003). ‘Reciprocal /laa-/ in Totonacan’ International Journal of American Linguistics 63, 275–306. MacKay, C J & Trechsel, F R (in press). Totonaco de Misantla, Veracruz. Archivo de Lenguas Indı´genas de Me´xico. Me´xico, DF: El Colegio de Me´xico. McQuown N A (1942). ‘Una posible sı´ntesis lingu¨ı´stica Macro-Mayence.’ In Mayas y Olmecas. Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologı´a. McQuown N A (1990). Grama´tica de la lengua totonaca. Coleccio´n Lingu¨ı´stica Indı´gena No. 4. Instituto de Investigaciones Filolo´gicas. Me´xico, DF: Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico. Reid A (1991). Grama´tica totonaca de Xicotepec de Jua´rez, Puebla. Serie de Grama´ticas de Lenguas Indı´genas de Me´xico. Nu´m. 8. Me´xico, DF: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano.
Reid A & Bishop R G (1974). Diccionario totonaco de Xicotepec de Jua´rez, Puebla: Totonaco-Castellano and Castellano-Totonaco. Serie de Vocabularios y Diccionarios Indı´genas ‘Mariano Silva y Aceves’. Nu´m. 17. Me´xico, DF: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Reid A, Bishop R G, Button E M & Longacre R E (1968). Totonac: from clause to discourse. S. I. L. Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 17. Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. Sua´rez J A (1983). The Mesoamerican Indian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watters J K (1987). ‘Underspecification, multiple tiers, and Tepehua phonology.’ In Bosch A, Need B & Schiller E (eds.) Parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 389–402. Watters J K (1988). Topics in Tepehua grammar. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley. Watters J K (1994). ‘Forma y funcio´n de la morfologı´a de segunda persona en tepehua.’ In MacKay C J & Va´zquez V (eds.) Investigaciones lingu¨ı´sticas en Mesoame´rica. Me´xico, DF: Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico. 211–226. Watters J K (1996). ‘Frames and the semantics of applicatives in Tepehua.’ In Casad E H (ed.) Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: the expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trans New Guinea Languages A Pawley, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Trans New Guinea Family Comprising upward of 400 languages, Trans New Guinea (TNG) is the third largest family in the world in number of languages, behind Austronesian and Niger-Congo and ahead of Indo-European. TNG is the predominant family on the large island of New Guinea, a region of spectacular linguistic diversity that contains some 18 families that are not demonstrably related (see Papuan Languages and Austronesian Languages). TNG languages are spoken continuously along the 2000-km mountain chain that runs along the center of New Guinea as far west as the Bird’s Head, and they also are used in several parts of the lowlands. At least a dozen TNG languages are also present on Timor, Alor, and Pantar Islands in East Nusantara.
About 3 million people speak TNG languages. Yet, most of the languages have fewer than 5000 speakers. Their small size reflects the difficult terrain of New Guinea in combination with extreme political fragmentation; peoples were traditionally subsistence farmers or foragers, and until colonial times political groups seldom exceeded a few hundred people. The largest TNG language communities are Enga (about 200 000) and Medlpa (Melpa; 150 000) in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, and Western Dani (150 000) and Lower Grand Valley Dani (130 000) in the highlands of West Papua (Irian Jaya). Until the late 19th century, the TNG languages of New Guinea were completely unknown to linguists, and most remained unrecorded until after World War II. Since then, linguists from various parts of the world have done descriptive and comparative work on TNG languages. Although most are still only documented (at best) by grammatical sketches and word lists, there are quite detailed published grammatical descriptions of perhaps 50 to 70 TNG languages. Reasonably
1086 Trans New Guinea Languages
good dictionaries exist for about 20 TNG languages. Excellent introductory overviews are given in Foley (1986, 2000). The atlas of Wurm and Hattori (1981– 83) contains detailed maps, and Carrington’s work (1996) is a near-exhaustive bibliography. Languages for which there are good grammars include Korafe of the Binandere group (Farr, 1999), Grand Valley Dani (Bromley, 1981), Hua (a dialect of Yagaria) of the Gorokan group (Haiman, 1980), and Eipo (Eipomek) of the Mek group (Heeschen, 1998).
History of the Trans New Guinea Hypothesis The hypothesis that there is a large TNG family was proposed about 1970 by linguists at the Australian National University, mainly on the basis of typological resemblances and a handful of widespread putative cognates (McElhanon and Voorhoeve, 1970: Wurm, 1975). However, critics argued that the hypothesis was based on unreliable methods and that the evidence was unconvincing. Percentages of resemblant basic vocabulary forms shared by languages belonging to distant branches of TNG are very low, in the range of 3–7%, and in a region where there has been extensive lexical diffusion for millennia, this level of agreement could be due to borrowing and chance. Recently, linguists have applied more classical comparative methods and have found evidence that strongly supports a modified version of the TNG hypothesis (Pawley, 1995: Ross, 1995; Pawley, 1998, 2001, in press; Ross, in press). The main grounds for considering TNG to be a language family are (1) systematic form-meaning correspondences in the independent personal pronouns, permitting reconstruction of virtually a complete paradigm (Table 1); (2) some 200 putative cognate sets (nearly from ‘basic vocabulary’) being represented in two or more major subgroups (Table 2); (3) a body of regular sound correspondences for a small sample of languages belonging to eight different subgroups, which has allowed a good part of the Proto TNG sound system to be reconstructed (Table 3); and (4) resemblances in certain other grammatical paradigms, chiefly the form of verbal suffixes marking
Table 1 Proto TNG free pronouns
sing. pl. (i-agrade) (u-grade) pl.
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
na ni nu nja
Nga Ngi, ki
[y]a, ua i
person-number of subject. In addition, the distribution of certain striking structural features, such as switch-reference morphology on verbs, has been shown to correlate rather closely with the distribution of TNG languages. TNG seems to have had a simple syllable structure, with syllables of the shape (C)V and (word-finally) CVC.
Subgroups of Trans New Guinea More than 30 subgroups are recognized that have not been assigned to any larger grouping within Trans New Guinea. Much of the evidence for these groups is based on innovations in the personal pronouns (Ross, in press). The following is a selection of the more important subgroups. Madang (Madang-Adelbert Range) is by far the largest well-defined subgroup of TNG, with about 100 members (see Madang Languages). It occupies the central two-thirds of Madang Province from the coast to the Bismark and Schrader Ranges. HuonFinisterre contains about 70 languages spoken on the Huon Peninsula and in the Finisterre and Saruwagi Ranges in Morobe and Madang Provinces.
Table 2 Some cognate sets of the Trans New Guinea family
Proto TNG Asmat (Irian Jaya) Kiwai (SW coast, PNG) Kewa (W. Highlands, PNG) Kuman (C. Highlands, PNG) Kube (Morobe, PNG) Katiati (Madang Province, PNG) Aomie (Central Province, PNG)
‘breast’
‘eat’
‘louse’
‘name’
*amu
*nana-
*niman
*imbi yipi
amo
nimo na-
aemu namu ama
ibi numan
ne-
ame
imiN n˜ima
nimbi
ume
ihe
Table 3 Proto TNG segmental phonemes (Minimal set)
Consonants oral obstruents prenasalized obstruents nasals lateral glide Vowels high mid low
Bilabial
Apical
p mb m
ts nd n l
w front i e
Palatal
Velar
nj
k Ng N
y central
a
back u o
Trans New Guinea Languages 1087
Chimbu-Wahgi (Chimbu) is centered east and south of Mt. Hagen, in the Wahgi, Nebilyer, and Kaugel Valleys and extends north of the Sepik-Wahgi Divide into the Jimi Valley. It contains perhaps 12 languages, although the situation is complicated by extensive dialect chaining. The best-known members are probably Kuman (Chimbu), Middle Wahgi, Sinasina, and Medlpa (Melpa). Engan is a well-defined group consisting of several languages spoken over a wide area to the west of Mt. Hagen. There is a northern subgroup that includes Enga, Ipili, Iniai (Bisorio), and Lembena and a southern subgroup that includes Sau (Samberigi), Huli, Mendi (Angal), and Kewa. The Kainantu and Goroka groups occupy contiguous parts of Eastern Highlands Province. Each consists of a half a dozen or so languages, some with diverse dialects. Together they probably form a single higher-order larger subgroup, Kainantu-Goroka. The Angan group of about 12 languages occupies considerable areas of Morobe and Guilf Provinces and extends into the Eastern Highlands province. Southeast New Guinea contains the Dagan, Mailuan, Yareba, Manubaran, Kwalean, and Koiari groups, which all replace Proto TNG *ngi ‘2 PL’ by *ya, as well as the Binandere and Goilalan groups. The Ok group comprises about about 10 languages spoken in the central ranges around the West PapuaPapua New Guinea border, including the Star Mountains, and the Thurnwald and Victor Emmanual Ranges. The Awyu-Dumut and Asmat-Kamoro groups occupy the lowlands to the southwest of this area, in West Papua. The Dani languages spoken in and around the Baliem Valley and the Wissel Lakes languages seem to belong together in a Western New Guinea group. The West Bomberai and Timor-Alor-Pantar groups share two probable innovations in pronouns, which suggests that together they may form a West Trans New Guinea group (Figure 1).
Where and When was Proto TNG Spoken? The largest concentration of established high-order subgroups of TNG lies in the central highlands of Papua New Guinea between the Strickland River and Eastern Highlands. It is safe to say that this was a very early area of TNG expansion and that initial dispersal was mainly along the central cordillera. If we take conventional estimates for the breakup of Indo-European (at least 6000 years ago) and Austronesian (about 5000 years ago) as yardsticks, a date of between 8000 and 12 000 years ago for the breakup of TNG is reasonable, given that lexicostatistical diversity within TNG is far greater than in either Indo-European or Austronesian. It is noteworthy that dates of about 10 000 years ago have been established
for early agriculture, probably based on taro and bananas, in the Upper Wahgi Valley (Denham et al., 2003). It may have been their use of agriculture that enabled speakers of TNG languages to establish permanent settlements along the central highlands of New Guinea as the climate warmed after the last Ice Age.
Structural Characteristics of TNG Languages Phonology
Many TNG languages have sound systems similar to that posited for Proto TNG, with syllables of the shape (C)V and (word-finally) CVC, five vowels, and series of nasals, oral, and pre-nasalized (or voiceless and voiced) obstruents with contrasts at bilabial, apical, and velar (and sometimes palatal) positions. A number of languages in the central highlands have a contrast between dental, alveo-palatal, and velar laterals, or between resonant and fricative palatals. [t] and [r] are often allophones of the same phoneme. Many TNG languages have word tone or pitch accent (Donohue, 1997). Grammar and Semantics
The preferred order of constituents in verbal clauses is SOV, but OVS often occurs as a marked structure. Adpositions follow the verb, whereas determiners and possessors follow the noun. Case marking is generally absent or little developed. Most languages organize pronominal affixes to show a nominative-accusative (or dative) contrast. No language is known to have a full ergative-absolutive alignment for verb pronominals. Generally, a verb root cannot be used as a noun without derivational morphology or vice versa. In some languages verb roots are a small closed class, with between 50 and 150 members. The densest concentration of such languages seems to be in the Chimbu-Wahgi and Kalam-Kobon subgroups. Common nouns are an open class with many subclasses. Minor classes include adjectives, adverbs, and (see below) verbal adjuncts. TNG languages typically have fairly simple systems of independent pronouns, in some cases distinguishing three persons but with no number contrasts. More complex pronoun systems are constructed by adding number markers for dual and plural. However, there is often a discrepancy between the kinds of distinctions made in independent pronouns and in verbal affixes. For example, Kuman of the Chimbu-Wahgi family has only four independent pronouns – first person singular, first person plural, second person,
1088 Trans New Guinea Languages
Figure 1 Location of the main subgroups of the Trans New Guinea family.
Trans New Guinea Languages 1089
and third person – but in verbal morphology Kuman makes nine contrasts for the subject: three persons each with singular, dual, and plural. Morphology is chiefly suffixal. In most languages, nouns carry little morphology. Kinship terms and sometimes part terms often require affixed possessive pronouns. A few languages mark gender contrasts. A good many TNG languages use existential verbs, such as ‘stand’, ‘sit’, ‘lie’ and sometimes, other verbs like ‘hang’, ‘carry’ and ‘come’, as quasi-classifiers of nouns (Lang, 1975), with nouns selecting a verb according to their shape, posture, size, and composition. However, the choice of verb has some flexibility relative to the situation of the referent. Nouns are usually not inflected for number. Certain generic categories are typically expressed by N þ N (and occasionally N þ N þ N) compounds denoting the most salient members of a class (e.g., often ‘people’ is ‘woman-man’, ‘children’ is ‘girl-boy’, and ‘ancestors’ is ‘grandmother-grandfather’. Most TNG languages distinguish two types of inflected verb, often called ‘final’ and ‘medial.’ Final verbs head the final clause in a sentence and carry suffixes marking absolute tense-aspect-mood and person-number of subject. Medial verbs head nonfinal coordinate-dependent clauses and carry suffixes marking (1) whether the event denoted by the medial verb occurs prior to or simultaneous with that of the final verb and (2) ‘switch reference’ (i.e., whether that verb has the same subject or topic as the next clause; Roberts (1997) surveys the several kinds of switchreference systems.) In many languages, transitive verbs also carry a pronominal prefix or proclitic marking object agreement. Some languages have causative and applicative affixes that add arguments to the verb. Several Highlands subgroups carry evidential suffixes, indicating whether the clause denotes an event witnessed by the speaker or based on hearsay. In constructions denoting uncontrolled bodily and mental processes (e.g., sweating, sneezing, bleeding, feeling sick), the experiencer is often marked by an object/dative pronoun and is the direct object. A noun denoting the bodily condition is, arguably, the subject or else there is no referential subject. There are usually clauses with nominal predicates denoting class membership and identifying relationships. All TNG languages make extensive use of at least one of two types of complex (multi-headed) predicates to augment their stock of verbs. First, in verbal adjunct constructions, an inflected verb, usually carrying a rather general meaning, such as ‘make’, ‘hit’ or ‘go’, occurs in partnership with a noninflecting base (the verbal adjunct), which carries a more specific meaning. Verbal adjuncts partner just a small set of verbs. For example, Kalam has a single verb of
sound making and speaking, ag-, but has some 30 verbal adjuncts that denote particular kinds of sounds and occur only with ag-. Second, in serial verb constructions, two or more bare verb roots occur in sequence to express a tightly integrated sequence of subevents; for example, Kalam: d ap (get come) ‘bring’, d am (get go) ‘take’, am d ap (go get come) ‘fetch’, d nn (touch perceive) ‘feel’, n˜b nn (eat perceive) ‘taste’. Many languages have a looser type of serial verb construction – narrative serialization – which allows a streamlined, formulaic representation of episodes in which the same actor performs a familiar sequence of actions; for example, Kalam: am alnaw-kab tk d ap ad n˜b- (go pandanus-nut gather get come cook eat) ‘gather and eat pandanus nuts’. Generally, little use is made of conjunctions to show sequential, conditional, and causal relations. Speakers commonly use long chains of clauses headed by medial verbs to report a sequence of past events that make up a single complex episode. In narratives, paragraphlike boundaries are frequently marked by head-tail linkage, in which the last clause of the previous sentence is repeated, to begin a new sentence.
Bibliography Baak C, Bakker M & van der Meij D (eds.) (1995). Tales from a concave world. Liber Amoricum Bert Voorhoeve. Leiden: Leiden University. Bromley M (1981). A grammar of Lower Grand Valley Dani. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Carrington L (1996). A linguistic bibliography of New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Denham T P, Haberle S G, Lentfer C et al. (2003). ‘Origins of agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea.’ Science 201, 189–193. Donohue M (1997). ‘Tone systems in New Guinea.’ Linguistic Typology 1, 347–386. Foley W (1986). The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge University Press. Foley W (2000). ‘The languages of New Guinea.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 29, 357–404. Farr C (1999). The interface between syntax and discourse in Korafe: a Papuan language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Haiman J (1980). Hua: a Papuan language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Heeschen V (1998). An ethnographic grammar of the Eipo language spoken in the central mountains of Irian Jaya (West New Guinea), Indonesia. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Lang A (1975). The semantics of classificatory verbs in Enga (and other Papua New Guinea languages): a semantic study. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. McElhanon K & Voorhoeve C L (1970). The Trans-New Guinea phylum: explorations in deep-level genetic relationships. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
1090 Tsotsi Taal Pawley A (1995). ‘C. L. Voorheove and the Trans New Guinea hypothesis.’ In Baak et al. (eds.). 83–123. Pawley A (1998). ‘The Trans New Guinea phylum hypothesis: a reassessment.’ In Jelle Miedema J, Ode C, Rien A & Dam C (eds.) Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi. 655–689. Pawley A (2001). ‘The Proto Trans New Guinea obstruents: arguments from top-down reconstruction.’ In Pawley A, Ross M & Tryon D (eds.) The boy from Bundaberg: studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 261–300. Pawley A (in press). ‘The chequered career of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis. Recent research and its implications.’ In Pawley et al. (eds.). (in press). Pawley A, Attenborough R, Hide R & Golson J (eds.) (in press). Papuan pasts: studies in the cultural, linguistic and biological history of the Papuan-speaking peoples. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Roberts J (1987). Amele. London: Croom Helm. Roberts J (1997). ‘Switch reference in Papua New Guinea: a preliminary survey.’ In Pawley A (ed.) Papers in Papuan linguistics No. 3. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 101–241. Ross M (1995). ‘The great Papuan pronoun hunt: recalibrating our sights.’ In Baak et al. (eds.). 139–168. Ross M (in press). ‘Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages.’ In Pawley et al. (eds.). (in press). Wurm S A (ed.) (1975). New Guinea area languages. 1: Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wurm S A & Hattori S (1981–83). Language atlas of the Pacific area (2 vols). Canberra: Australian Academy for the Humanities in collaboration with the Japanese Academy.
Tsotsi Taal B B Mfenyana, Kagiso, South Africa ß 1994 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Boy Faraday, Bitch Never Die, Bra Slim, Ous Kuki (or Sta Kuja), Bro’ Don, Oom Sirra, Bra Terror, Zorro – these names are all part of Tsotsi culture and language, popularly known as Isi-Tsotsi (thugspeak). Like British, American, and other types of slang, black South African taal/lingo has a checkered, colorful history stretching back to 1930 and beyond. Other names used for this street variety are Mensetaal (‘the language of the people’), Flytaal, Iscamtho or Isijita (lit. the language of the jits or jitas: young townees; Mfenyana 1977). This witty, controversial, and evanescent argot, whose words are adopted and discarded almost at will, sprouted in the dusty streets of Sophiatown, Alexandra, and Soweto (all urban townships or slums located around Jozi/Johannesburg), and quickly spread to Langa (Cape Town), New Brighton (Port Elizabeth), Duncan Village (East London, SA), Marabastad and Mamelodi (Pretoria), Umlazi (Durban), etc. Over time, and because each province or area is dominated by one or another African language (Sotho, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaans, or Tsonga), stylistic, tonal, and vocabulary differences began to emerge among the many types of Tsotsi Taal. Predictably enough, the South African public is not yet agreed on who or what exactly ‘a tsotsi’ is:
M. J. H. Mfusi asserts that ‘. . .tsotsis were part of the ethnically mixed society of the locations, and among themselves spoke the Afrikaans dialect (flytaal or mensetaal)’ (1992: 46). Their lifestyle revolved, as it still does today, around flashy/American clothes, shoes, hats, and motorcars (Glaser: 1992). It must be stressed that, at first, tsotsis did not use much violence to achieve their ends: they relied on their wits, speed, brute strength/size, number of followers, or pure luck. As conditions in the locations and villages worsened (1940–60), tsotsis turned increasingly to rape, armed robbery, and even murder to maintain themselves and their women (called noasias or ootsotsikazi: Town Xhosa). The tsotsi label broadened to include all urban criminals (confidence tricksters and even scholars, known after 1976 as ‘comrade-tsotsis’ or com-tsotsi’s; Mfusi 1992: 46). Thus, by 1990 the label tsotsi could justifiably be applied to any wayward, unreliable, or ‘clever’ person, young or old. The key issue then becomes identification of Tsotsi Taal speakers. Ordinary people, active and ‘retired’ crooks, journalists (like the late Casey ‘Kid’ Motsisi, Can Temba, and currently Bra El Makhaya of the Sowetan newspaper), and Bra Obed Musi (City Press); musicians like Ray ‘Zwakala Nganeno’ (Come nearer) Phiri and Brenda ‘Weekend Special’ Fassie; poets of the calibre of Bro’ Don ‘Zirga Special’ Mattera and Sipho Sepamla. All these people have one thing in common: they are regular and enthusiastic, creative, and unapologetic users of some form of Tsotsi Taal.
Tucanoan Languages 1091
Consider a few, brief examples: a. Greetings: hella, heit, heita, heitadaa (i.e., ‘hello there’; Afrikaans daar ¼ ‘there’), and most recently Hola-hola. b. Parting shots: skhuvet under die corset, sweet, sharp, grand, and mojo/moja. c. Nicknames and ways of expressing respect: Ta Ben (from Afr Boeta Ben), ’Sta May (‘Sister May’), Ma-Ben-za, etc. d. Expletives (cannot be excluded: this is the language of the ‘swearing class’!): donder ¼ lit. ‘thunder,’ means ‘beat up’ (thus Town Xhosa ukudonora, ‘to assault’); foetsek! ¼ ‘go away’ (thus Town Xhosa uku-futsheka); fokof ¼ ‘get out of here,’ ‘go away,’ etc. In brief, the lexicon of Tsotsi/flaaitaal covers a whole range of activities and phenomena: food, drinks, women, police, whites, jail, cigarettes, drugs, love, stealing, and dying. The importance of this argot lies in its potential as a racial, socioeconomic, age, and gender leveller: because it brings black and white, rich and poor,
educated and unlettered, young and old, male and female together in a way no foreign language ever could. With proper recognition, care, documentation, and development, Tsotsi Taal could become South Africa’s national language. Laat ek nou die mova’s skep, bricates. Ons sight mekaar burro ’Sta Pallie se cook-dla, late bells. Heitada, holahola, is dolly my ma se kind! (Let me now take my leave, brothers. We’ll meet each other at Sister Palesa’s shebeen/tavern, after hours. OK, goodbye, all’s well my mother’s child!).
Bibliography Glaser C (1992). The mark of Zorro: Sexuality and gender relations in the Tsotsi sub-culture on the Witwatersrand. Journal of African Studies 51, 1. Mfenyana B B (1977). Isi Khumsha nesi Tsotsi: The sociolinguistics of school and town sintu. (Master’s dissertation, Boston University). Mfusi M J H (1992). Soweto Zulu slang: A sociolinguistic study of an urban vernacular. English Usage in Southern Africa 23.
Tucanoan Languages J Barnes, SIL International, Bogota, Colombia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Overview Classification
The Tucanoan languages of Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil fall into two major groupings: Western Tucanoan (WT) and Eastern Tucanoan (ET). In the Eastern area, there are two languages that are very different from the other languages: Cubeo (Cub.) and Retuara˜/Tanimuca (Tanimuca-Retuara˜; Ret.). Waltz and Wheeler (1972: 128–129), recognizing this difference, chose to put Cub. in a category by itself, calling it ‘Middle Tucanoan.’ (In other publications, the term ‘Central Tucanoan’ is used, but is obviously not intended as a geographic term as Cub. is on the northern edge of the other ET languages.) Waltz and Wheeler, in their Proto-Tucanoan studies, referring to the differences between Cub. and the other ET languages, said, ‘‘The data indicates a possible break between Cub. and Western Tucanoan some time later than that between the Eastern Tucanoan groups and Western Tucanoan.’’ (1972: 128). Ret., which is spoken south of the main ET area, was not included in
the study by Waltz and Wheeler. Strom commented (1992: 1) that there appears to have been considerable influence from the Yucuna language on Ret. Ramirez (1997: 17) classified Ret. as ET, but puts it in a subcategory of its own. Malone (1986: Sect. 9.1) said: ‘‘Cubeo and Retuara˜ group closest to each other, which is shown by innovations for the protoconsonants *b (in the environment __V1CV2, where C is bilabial [bil]), *s, *w, *y. Cub. tends to have more innovations in common with WT languages (*b/ __V1CþbilV2, *d/__i, __Vs, *y/__Vd), but also has some in common with ET languages (*d, *w); Ret. tends to have more innovations in common with ET languages (*d, *w), but also has some in common with WT languages (*b/__V1CþbilV2, *d/__Vs). I consider these two languages to be Middle Tucanoan.’’ In Table 1, linguistically similar languages are grouped together, based on their development from Proto-Tucanoan (Malone, 1986: Sect. 9.1 & 9.2, and I have added Pisamira [Pis.] to her data). Barasano (Barasana) and Taiwano are listed as one (Bar.), as the only major difference between the two is in pitchstress (Jones and Jones, 1991: 2). Retuara˜ and Tanimuca are listed as one, (Ret.), as they differ mainly in a few lexical items (Strom, 1992: 1). Population
1092 Tucanoan Languages Table 1 The Tucanoan language family and population figures
Interrelationship
Languages and groupings
The ET people mainly define themselves by their language, which is the language of their father. Thus, a Tuyuca (Tuy.) woman, for example, might marry a Siriano (Sir.) man. Each would continue to speak his or her own language. The children learn their mother’s language first, and later on switch to speak their father’s language. The men in a Sir. village might marry women from different language groups, with the result that the children in the village grow up hearing from two to six languages. For a succinct analysis of the relationships between the different ET groups, see Aikhenvald (2002: 17–28). The Western and Middle Tucanoan groups are permitted, within specific kinship guidelines, to marry those who speak their own language. The Eastern and Middle Tucanoan language groups all share basically the same culture and belief systems, which differ in significant ways from the Western groups.
Population figure
EASTERN TUCANOAN Group #1 Wanano 1560 Piratapuyo 1070 Tucano 5000 Pisamira 46 Tuyuca 815 Yurutı´ 850 Waimaja˜/Bara´ 700 Carapana 650 Tatuyo 350 EASTERN TUCANOAN Group #2 Siriano 310 Desano 1760 Macuna 550 Barasano/Taiwano 350 MIDDLE TUCANOAN Cubeo 6150 Retuara˜/Tanimuca 300 WESTERN TUCANOAN Koreguaje 2000 Secoya 435 Siona 300 Orejo´n 300
Abbreviations
Wan. Pir. Tuc. Pis. Tuy. Yur. Wai./Bar. Car. Tat. Sir. Des. Mac. Bas. Cub. Ret. Kor. Sec. Sio. Ore.
figures for Pis. are taken from Gonza´lez (2000: 374), for Wanano (Guanano; Wan.) are from Stenzel (2004: 23), and for Yurutı´ (Yuruti; Yur.) are from Kinch (personal communication). The rest of the population figures are taken from the Ethnologue. The last three in the list of ET languages in Group #1 (from Table 1), demonstrate a borrowing from Arawakan languages in the inclusion of a ubiquitous prefix ka-, which does not occur in the other Tucanoan languages. See Metzger (1998). Many other well-established borrowings are apparent in the languages, especially from Geral (Nhengatu) and Portuguese. More recent borrowings from Spanish and/or Portuguese, are freely incorporated into the languages and suffixed with the appropriate Tucanoan suffixes. Location
The Tucanoan languages are spoken in the border regions of Colombia with Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador. The ET languages and Cub. are spoken in the state of Vaupe´s in Colombia and the state of Amazonas of Brazil. Ret. is spoken in the state of Amazonas in Colombia. See Figure 1. The WT languages are spoken to the west and southwest of the ET languages. Koreguaje (Kor.) is found in the states of Caqueta´ and Putumayo in Colombia, Secoya (Sec.) near the Putumayo River in Ecuador and Peru, Siona (Sio.) on both sides of the Putumayo River in Colombia and Ecuador, and Orejo´n (Ore.) south of the Putumayo River in Peru. See Figure 2.
Language Features
Some of the more interesting features of the Tucanoan languages are the small number of consonants, nasalization and nasal spreading, the system of numerical classifiers, and the use of evidential suffixes on the verb. These, as well as other features, will be discussed below.
Phonological Characterestics Vowels
The Tucanoan languages, with the exception of Ret., have the vowel inventory as seen in Table 2. Ret. has a five vowel system, lacking the /i$/ of the other Tucanoan languages. In all of the Tucanoan languages there are oral vowels in oral syllables and nasal vowels in nasal syllables. The following examples illustrate the six vowel contrasts: Tuy. (my field data): (1) /ba0 a/ ‘disposable basket’ /be0 e/ ‘to split’ /bi0 i/ ‘to be similar’ /bo0 o/ ‘to desire’ /bu0 u/ ‘tucunare´ fish’ /bi$0 i$/ ‘pirana’
The following examples illustrate the oral–nasal contrasts: Bas. (Jones and Jones, 1991: 9; personal communication): (2) a/a˜ e/e˜
wa/wa˜ eho/e˜ho˜
‘to go’/‘to illuminate’ ‘type of jungle nut’/‘cold (illness)’
Tucanoan Languages 1093
Figure 1 Eastern and Middle Tucanoan languages with approximate locations.
i/ı˜
i/ı˜
‘that (in sight)’/3SING.MASC (PRONOUN)
o/o˜ u/u˜ $i /
oha/o˜ha˜ udi/u˜dı˜ i$hi$/ h
‘to enter woods’/‘to untie’ ‘to inhale’/‘be similar to’ ‘hereditary chief of a sib’/‘to burn (fire)’
The vowel /i$/ is a high central unrounded vowel, which is realized phonetically as a back unrounded
vowel in certain environments in Carapana (Car.) and Tatuyo (Tat.) (Go´mez-Imbert, 2000: 326 and Barnes field data). Vowel Sequences Sequences of two contiguous vowels within a morpheme reveal interesting patterns of symmetry. See the description of Sir. (Nagler and Brandrup 1979: 120–122), and also of Pis. (Gonza´lez
1094 Tucanoan Languages
Figure 2 Western Tucanoan languages with approximate locations.
Table 2 Vowel inventory
Table 3 Consonant inventory
Type
Front
Central
Back
High Low
i e
i a
u o
2000: 380–381), in which she explained that /i/ and /i$/ may precede low vowels in the sequences iV and $i V; /u/ may precede the three vowels farthest from itself; /e/ and /o/ may precede other low vowels; and /a/ may precede all three high vowels.
Voiceless stops Voiced stops Voiced flap Voiceless sibilant Voiceless semivowels Voiced semivowels
Bilabial
Alveolar
p b
t d r s
Palatal
Velar
Glottal
k g
h w
j
Consonants
The inventory of consonants in the majority of the Tucanoan languages, charted according to their phonemic characteristics, is shown in Table 3. For a functional analysis of the consonants in four of the ET languages, see Go´mez-Imbert (2000: 327–328). In the ET and Middle Tucanoan languages, the voiced consonants and /h/ have nasal variants in nasal morphemes. All 12 of the consonants in Table 3 are found in Desano (Des.) and Pir. The following languages have
all but / /: Car., Pis., Sir., Tuy., and Yur. The voiceless affricate /tS/ is used in Pis. rather than the voiceless sibilant /s/. Waimaja˜/Bara´ (Waimaha; Wai.) and Tat. lack both / / and /s/. Bas. and Macuna (Mac.) lack / / and /p/. Cub. lacks / / as well as /g/, and has the voiceless affricate /tS/ rather than /s/. Ret. lacks /j/ and /g/, but has the palatal stop /dj/. The speakers of languages that lack /p/ or /s/ employ those consonants both in loanwords and when speaking other Tucanoan languages.
Tucanoan Languages 1095
Two Western Tucanoan languages, Kor. and Sio., have 24 and 18 consonants respectively. Kor. has no voiced stops, but rather has bilabial and alveolar nasals at those points of articulation, and has /J/ rather than /j/. It includes /w/ in addition to /w/, three voiceless aspirated stops,˚ two voiceless nasals, the voiced affricate /dZ/, and six labialized consonants. Of the typical 12 Tucanoan phonemes, Sio. lacks /r/, but includes a ‘soft’ voiceless fricative written as /z/, plus the two nasals /m, n/, the voiceless affricate /tS/, and three labialized consonants /kw, gw, hw/. Sec., as with Sio., lacks /r/, but has the same ‘soft’ voiceless fricative written as /z/, plus /kw/ rather than /g/, and /m/ rather than /b/, totaling 12. Ore. lacks /w/ and /r/ ([r] is an allophone of /d/), and includes the voiceless affricate /tS/. (Adequate information on Ore. is lacking.) Two ET languages, Tucano (Tuc) and Wan., have 15 and 16 consonants respectively. Wan., in addition to the typical 12 Tucanoan phonemes, includes the voiceless affricate /tS/ and three voiceless aspirated stops. For a description of the development of these additional consonants in present-day Wan. from Proto-Tucanoan, see Waltz 2002. In 1967, West and Welch analyzed Tuc. as having the 12 consonants in Table 3. In 2000, having observed a definite change in pronunciation from, and language attitude toward, what was /CV1hV1/ to /ChV1/ (where C is a voiceless stop), they included voiceless aspirated stops in their analysis, bringing the total of Tuc. consonants to 15. Welch and West (personal communication) analyze the phonetic realization [ChV] as /ChV/, for example: /-kho/ ‘large, FEM,’ whereas Ramirez recognized only /CV1hV1/: /-koho/ ‘large’ (1997: 216). Ramirez also analyzed /r/ as an allophone of /d/, which results in his defining a total of 11 consonant phonemes for Tuc. (1997: 25). It is to be noted that West and Welch have studied Tuc. in Colombia, and Ramirez in Brazil. The distance between the two locations of study is so great, and contact between the two groups is so rare, that it is not surprising that there are some differences. Syllable Patterns
The Middle and ET languages have one basic syllable pattern: (C)V. In Des., Piratapuyo (Pir.), Tuc., and Ret. there is an additional syllable pattern, one in which the syllable is closed with a glottal stop: (C)V . In all of the languages, (C)VV has been analyzed as two syllables: (C)V.V, except that Ramirez analyzed (C)VV as a bimoraic syllable (1997: 53–56). The WT languages have monosyllabic two-vowel clusters, and a syllable can be closed with a glottal stop in Kor., Sec., and Sio.
There is evidence in Pir., Tuc., and Tuy. that an unstressed vowel between consonants /s/ and /t/ is dropping out, creating the consonant cluster /st/. Pir. (Klumpp and Klumpp, 1973: 116; Waltz, personal communication): (3) /bia´situ/
[bia´stu]
‘pot for hot pepper’
Tuc. (Welch and West, personal communication): (4) /ba a-si$te´/
[ba aste´]
‘eat and scatter (food)’
Tuy. (my field data): (5) /"paasi$ti/
[pa´asti]
‘to be tired/bored’
Suprasegmentals
The suprasegmentals in the Tucanoan languages are nasalization and tone or stress that is accompanied by high pitch. Nasalization and Nasal Assimilation In all of the ET languages, nasalization is a feature of the morpheme. Root morphemes are either oral or nasal. Suffixes are either specified as oral or nasal, or they are unspecified for nasalization. Those that are unspecified are oral following an oral morpheme, and nasal following a nasal morpheme. In all of the Tucanoan languages, nasal spreading is progressive, spreading from left to right. In the following example from Des., /-re/ ‘specifier’ is unspecified for nasalization: Des. (Miller, 1999: 14): (6) /igo-re/ /ba˜rı˜-re/
[igo&e] [ma˜&ı˜&e˜]
‘to her’ ‘to us’
In the Middle Tucanoan language Cub., as in the ET languages, nasalization is a feature of the morpheme, but the nasal spreading rule is different. In Cub., nasality spreads through any suffix that begins with /b, d, j/. In Ret., nasal spreading is blocked by obstruents, and present analysis has indicated that it occurs within the metrical foot (Strom, personal communication). In the WT languages, nasalization is a feature of the syllable and spreads through all suffixes that begin with /w, j, h, /. In addition, nasalization spreads through /dZ/ in Kor. and through /hw/ in Sio. (Information is lacking on Ore.) Regressive nasal spreading, where it occurs, is very limited. In the WT languages, it spreads from a morpheme consisting of a single nasal vowel to the preceding suffix. In the ET languages, regressive nasal spreading takes place in Des. (Miller, 1999: 14–15), Sir. (Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 399), and Bas. (Jones and Jones, 1991: 15–16), affecting a limited set of specific, single-syllable suffixes. The regressive
1096 Tucanoan Languages
spreading never goes beyond one syllable. In the Middle Tucanoan language Ret., regressive nasal spreading affects only the first-person singular morpheme, which is prefixed to the verb root (Strom, 1992: 20). To illustrate regressive nasal spreading, note what happens to the suffix /-bi/ ‘negative’ in the following examples: Des. (Miller, 1999: 14): (7) we˜he˜-bı˜-ra˜ kill-NEG-PL.ANIM ‘the ones who don’t kill’ (8) we˜he˜-bi-gi$ kill-NEG-sing.MASC ‘the one who doesn’t kill’
Accent and Tone Of the 19 Tucanoan languages, 11 have tonal systems with high and low tone contrasting in identical or analogous environments. In Car., Tat., Mac., and Wai. (though perhaps not in Bar.), all four combinations of high and low on two syllable roots occur. In Des., Tuy., and Yur., there is one accented syllable per phonological word, and it is associated with high pitch. Sec. and Sio. have a pattern of accent on alternate suffixes. Ret. has a system of multiple stress with rules that require epenthesized suffixes and stress shifts (Strom, 1992: 13–19). Accent is a property of the morpheme in the following ET languages: . . . . . . .
Bas. (Go´mez-Imbert and Kenstowicz, 2000: 421) Des. (Miller, 1999: 15) Ret. (Strom, personal communication) Sir. (Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 398) Tuc. (Ramirez, 1997: 68) Tuy. (Barnes, 1996: 31) Yur. (Kinch, personal communication)
The literature indicates that accent is probably a property of the morpheme also in: . Cub. (Morse and Maxwell, 1999: 11–12) . Mac. (Go´mez-Imbert, 2000: 331) . Pis. (Gonza´lez, 2000: 382).
Grammatical Characteristics Sentence
The sentence in Tucanoan languages obligatorily demands a verb. Sentence fragments are used, but they occur, for example, as abbreviated answers to questions, responses using question words, etc. Word Order In the majority of the Tucanoan languages, the usual word order in declarative clauses is
(S)(O)V, with variations according to discourse constraints. In Car., the preferred word order is (O)(S)V. Bas. exhibits the basic order OVS. Cub. also has (O)VS, but SV(O) occurs as frequently. Kor. is the only language that has a preferred word order in which the verb is initial: V(S)(O), although other word orders also occur. The pattern OV occurs in all the Tucanoan languages, and the languages exhibit other typical features of OV languages. Case Markers Nouns in the role of grammatical subject are unmarked, and there are rules for when the complements are marked. In Ret., both an animate subject and an animate object may have the same marker /-re -te/. Where there could be confusion, it is avoided by word order: The subject precedes the object. Ret. (Strom, 1992: 114): (9) ernesto-te alvaro-te Ernest-HUM Alvaro-HUM ‘Ernest helped Alvaro’
hedjobaa-rape help-PAST
Although the Tucanoan languages are almost exclusively suffixing languages, Car. and Tat. allow the complement, if it is a pronoun, to be prefixed to the verb, and Ret. has a neuter complement pronoun that only occurs as a prefix. In the rest of the Tucanoan languages, if the complement-pronoun needs to be expressed, it occurs in a separate word along with the complement/specificity suffix (REC ¼ recent past; EV ¼ evidential; NON3 ¼ nonthird person – evidentiality and nonthird person are concepts discussed later in this article). Car. (Go´mez-Imbert, 2000: 332): (10) ki$-ı˜ja˜´-a`-bo˜ 3sing.MASC-see-REC-EV:PAST.VISUAL.3sing.FEM ‘she saw him’
Sir. ("Brandrup, personal communication): (11) sı´˜-bı˜ give-EV:PAST.VISUAL.3sing.MASC ‘he gave (it) (to me)’ (12) igo´-re were´-bi$ 3sing.FEM-SPEC tell-EV:PAST.VISUAL.NON3 ‘I told (that) to her’
The specificity suffix, which marks significant participants and props in the discourse, does not always occur with nonpronominal direct objects. Noun incorporation is evident where the object precedes the verb root and is phonologically part of the verb word. Des. (Miller, 1999: 109): (13) diu-pi egg-place.on.ground ‘lay an egg’
Tucanoan Languages 1097
Other nounverb combinations function as noun incorporation. Alternatively the noun may function as an independent complement (BEN ¼ benefactive). Tat. (Go´mez-Imbert, 2000: 334): (14) ji$-pa´tu-ke˜do˜´o˜/ke˜do˜´o˜-ja pa´tu-re boha-ja 1sing-coca-prepare- /prepare-IMP coca-SPEC BEN-IMP ‘prepare coca for me’ /‘prepare the coca’
When it is clear from the context that the noun is the complement, it is not marked as such, as in the case of ‘pigs’ in the following example (ANIM ¼ animate, a concept discussed in this article). Tuy. (Barnes, unpublished text #157): (15) ape-‘bi$reko ‘tuaku˜bu˜-adacu, other.day arrive.near.goal-FUT.1,2PL pig-PL je"se-a ja"a-adara hı˜"ı˜-ra eat-AFFIRM.1,2PL say-PL.ANIM ‘the next day we will arrive near (the town) in order to eat pigs’
With few exceptions, indirect objects, experiencers, and benefactors are always marked with the complement/specificity marker (SEP ¼ separation, i.e., uncertain; D ¼ dimension). Mac. (Smothermon and Smothermon, 1995: 72): (16) pauru-re Pablo-SPEC j-a
ı˜o-gi$ show-sing.MASC ji$ AUXILIARY.VERB-PRES 1sing ‘I am showing (it) to Pablo’
Sio. (Wheeler, 2000: 187): (17) ji$" i$ d "ho˜-de go˜" a˜ ha "si-gi$-ja˜ 1sing wife-SPEC bones hurt-certainty-SEP ‘my wife’s bones hurt’ (lit. ‘bones hurt my wife’)
Des. (Miller, 1999: 144): (18) ji$-re su ri 1sing-SPEC clothes a˜su˜-basa-ra-je˜ sa˜ja˜-bi$ buy-BEN-NOM-CLASS: put.on-EV:PAST.VISUAL.NON3 2D.flexible ‘I put on the dress (cloth) that was bought for me’
A separate set of suffixes identify location, time, instrument, and accompaniment (ACC). Pis. (Gonza´lez, 2000: 387): (19) wetSe-pi$ field-LOCATIVE ‘in the field’ (20) ja˜bı˜-pi$ night-LOCATIVE ‘at night’
(21) wa˜bo˜-be˜da˜ hand-INSTR ‘by hand’ (22) k -bai-be˜da˜ 3sing.MASC-younger.brother-ACCOM ‘with his younger brother’ Nouns
Nouns in Tucanoan languages may be divided into two basic categories: animate and inanimate. These two categories take different plural suffixes. Within the animate category, human and nonhuman categories also take different plurals. Most ET nonhuman animate nouns are inherently singular and take a plural suffix. Nouns that refer to animals, insects, or fish that generally are found in groups are inherently plural and take a singularizing suffix. Sir. (Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 408): (23) dia´ river ‘river’
dia´-rı´ river-PL.INAN ‘rivers’
Sir. (Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 405): (24) ba˜hı˜´-g child-sing.MASC ‘boy’ (25) pa˜bu´˜ armadillo ‘armadillo’ (26) buru´a´ termites ‘termites’
ba˜hı˜´-ra˜ child-PL.ANIM ‘children’
pa˜bu´˜ -a´˜ armadillo-PL.ANIM ‘armadillos’ buru´a´-b termites-SINGULARIZER ‘a termite’
WT animate nouns have three categories: general, singular (with a singular suffix that is either masculine or feminine) and plural (with a plural suffix). Sio. (Wheeler, 2000: 185): (27) "zı˜ ‘child’
"zı˜gi$ ‘boy’
"zı˜go ‘girl’
"zı˜kwa ‘children’
Classifiers The Tucanoan languages all have a small set of animate classifiers and, in most of the languages, a larger set of inanimate classifiers. Animate classifiers, which also function as animate nominalizers, include masculine singular, feminine singular, and plural. Most of the languages have past, present, and future forms for the animate nominalizers as is shown in Table 4 for Sir. Sir. (Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 408): (28) buue´-gi$ study-sing.MASC ‘he who studies’
1098 Tucanoan Languages Table 4 Animate classifiers in Siriano (Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 408) Tense
Singular, Masculine
Singular, Feminine
Plural
Present Past Future
-gi -dii-gi -bu-gi
-go -dee-go -bu-go
-ra˜ -de˜e˜-ra˜ -bu˜-ra˜
(29) buue´-dii-gi$ study-PERFECTIVE-sing.MASC ‘he who studied’ (30) buue´-bu-gi$ study-POTENTIAL-sing.MASC ‘he who will study’
Typically each ET language has over 100 inanimate classifiers, plus many nouns that may also function as classifiers. Ramirez (1997: 109) says that Tuc. has only six classifier suffixes, which he calls ‘‘shape suffixes’’ (plus some 400 ‘dependent nouns’). The ‘shape suffixes’ that both West and Welch (2000: 428 and personal communication) and Ramirez have identified are a small set of classifiers that do not require a nominalizer between the verb root and the ‘shape suffix,’ as do the many Tuc. suffixes that correspond to classifiers found in other ET languages. Inanimate classifiers in Tucanoan languages typically are suffixes that categorize the object(s) referred to in terms of some salient characteristic, such as shape or arrangement. For a complete description of Tuy. classifiers see Barnes (1990). Tucanoan classifiers have been variously described as noun classifiers or numeral classifiers. In the ET languages, they are suffixed to numerals, demonstratives, quantifiers, genitives, nouns, and to either nominalized verbs and/or descriptive adjectives, or, in the case of the WT languages, directly to these roots as nominalizers. Des. (Miller, 1999: 37, 5, 45, 125, 38, 40): (31) juhu-koaru one-CLASS:gourd ‘one gourd’
(36) o a-ri-boga sweep-NOM-CLASS:bundle ‘broom’
When classifiers are suffixed to nouns, they are in a relationship of General-specific, as in the following examples, where /de˜ı˜´/ is the ‘miritı´’ palm. Cub. (Ferguson et al., 2000: 361): (37) de˜´ı˜-j de˜´ı˜-ri$ de˜ı˜´-ku˜ de˜ı˜´-jabe de˜´ı˜-joka
‘palm tree’ ‘palm fruit’ ‘cluster of palm fruit’ ‘seed of the palm fruit’ ‘palm leaf’
The WT languages have from 17 (Sec.) to 30 (Kor.) classifiers. These classifiers are suffixed to nouns, as in the Cub. examples above, and to verbs and adjectives as nominalizers. They are sometimes found suffixed to numerals and demonstrative adjectives. The more than 29 Ret. classifiers are suffixed to nouns, numerals, nominalized verbs and descriptive adjectives, and optionally to demonstrative adjectives. Noun Modifiers Noun modifiers in Tucanoan languages may be divided into two major groups: limiting adjectives and nominalized adjectival verbs. Limiting adjectives, which are numerals, genitives, demonstratives (anaphoric or exophoric), and quantifiers, are either separate words or roots that require suffixes. Mac. (Smothermon and Smothermon, 1995: 39–40): (38) hi$a-hibi$ two-CLASS:basket ‘two baskets’ ı˜ (39) h gi$ hammock 3sing.MASC ‘his hammock’
Yur. (Kinch and Kinch, 2000: 477): (40) ai-wi that(EXOPHORIC)-CLASS:building ‘that house’
(32) iri-ru this-CLASS:oblong ‘this airplane’
Des. (Miller, 1999: 45):
(33) baha-bı˜hı˜-ri a.lot-CLASS:thin.plane-PL.INAN ‘many knives’
(41) baha-be˜-ra˜ a.lot-NEG-PL.ANIM ‘a few (people)’
(34) b -ja-ru 2sing-GEN-CLASS:oblong ‘your boat’ (35) juki$-kawe tree-CLASS:bent ‘crooked tree’
ja-gi$
GEN-CLASS:hammock
Nominalized adjectival verbs take the place of descriptive adjectives in the traditional sense of the term. Stative verbs, such as ‘to be red’ and ‘to be big,’ do not always take the full range of verb suffixes, and yet they are used as verbs, as can be seen in the following example.
Tucanoan Languages 1099
Tuy. (Barnes, unpublished text #82): (42) ‘jaa dia"poa baji"ro very 1GEN face jı˜"ı˜-a be.black-EV:PRES.VISUAL.NON3 ‘my face is really dark (from the sun)’
Nominalized adjectival verbs may serve as full constituents of the sentence, i.e., the noun that is being modified will not appear in the sentence if the referent is already clear. When the referent is an animate noun, an animate classifier is suffixed directly to the verb and functions as a nominalizer. In the case of an inanimate referent, some of the languages require that a nominalizer be suffixed to the verb before the classifier. Wan. (Waltz and Waltz, 2000: 460): (43) ja´˜ -ı˜da˜ be.bad-CLASS:PL.ANIM ‘bad people’
Bas. (Jones and Jones, 1991: 63):
person, third-person masculine and third-person feminine. In the plural, there are also four forms: first-person exclusive, first-person inclusive, second person, and third person. Tat. exhibits a typical set as shown in Table 5. Demonstrative Adjectives The Tucanoan languages are split as to whether they make a distinction between singular and plural in the demonstrative adjectives for inanimate referents. Cub., for example, does not make the distinction: /i-/ means both ‘this’ and ‘these’; /a˜dı˜-/ means both ‘that’ and ‘those.’ The anaphoric pronoun /di-/ means both ‘that’ and ‘those’ (Morse and Maxwell, 1999: 96). Pluralization is indicated only on the classifier or noun that follows the demonstrative adjective. Tuy. does make the distinction as shown in Table 6, and thus number is indicated on both the demonstrative adjective and the classifier or noun which follows it. Tuy. (my field data): (46) ati-do"to ‘this-CLASS:large.bundle ‘this large bundle (of firewood, cane, etc.)’
(44) su˜a˜-ri-ha˜ı˜ joa-ri-ha˜ı˜ be.red-NOM-CLASS:2D be.long-NOM-CLASS:2D a˜bo˜-a-ha ji$ want-PRES-NON3 1sing ‘I want a long red piece of cloth’
Cub. has a small class of descriptive adjectives, which function neither as nouns nor as verbs. Among these are: big, small, old, dry, and curly (Morse and Maxwell, 1999: 124). Des., Sir., and Tuc. each list a small number of adjectives, among which are: big and small (Miller, 1999: 51; Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 410; Welch, personal communication). Sec. and Sio. also each have a small class of descriptive adjective roots, including big and small, and derive the rest of their descriptive words from other grammatical forms (Johnson and Levinsohn, 1990: 37–38; Wheeler, 1987: 116–117). In Ret., words that are traditionally thought of as descriptive adjectives function almost exactly like nouns, and thus are listed as nouns (Strom, 1992: 23–26). The rest of the Tucanoan languages derive descriptive words by nominalizing verb roots and/or suffixing gender/number or classifier suffixes. In many, but not all, cases, these function much as do relative clauses in other languages. Cub. (Morse and Maxwell, 1999: 86): (45) xidoxa-RI-xa˜ra˜wi$ be.scary-NOM-CLASS:day ‘a scary day’
Personal Pronouns All of the Tucanoan languages have the same system for personal pronouns. In the singular, there are four forms: first person, second
(47) ate-do"to-ri this.PL-CLASS:large.bundle-PL.INAN ‘these large bundles (of firewood, cane, etc.)’ Verbs
Independent verbs in Tucanoan languages are minimally comprised of a verb root and an evidential
Table 5 Personal pronouns in Tatuyo (Go´mez-Imbert, 2000: 341) Person
Singular
Plural
exclusive 1
ha˜a˜ jii
inclusive 2 masculine
b k
feminine
ko˜´o˜
ba˜dı˜ b ha´˜ a˜ da´˜ a˜
3
Table 6 Demonstrative pronouns in Tuyuca (Barnes and Malone, 2000: 446) Pronoun
Exophoric ‘this’ ‘that’ Anaphoric ‘that’
Singular
Plural/Noncountable
atiii-
ate iye
tii-
tee
1100 Tucanoan Languages
suffix, or an imperative, interrogative, or future suffix. In Tat. and Car., the verb root may be prefixed by a pronoun, and, to a lesser extent, the same is true for Bas. and Wai. Mood is indicated by suffixes that occur between the verb root and the evidential suffix, and may include negative, contraexpectation, desiderative, and irrealis suffixes. Some aspects are also indicated by verb suffixes that occur between the verb root and the evidential suffix, and indicate, for example, the habitual, durative, completive, and iterative aspects. Other aspects are indicated by auxiliary verb phrases. Auxiliary Verbs The most common use of an auxiliary verb is in expressions of the progressive aspect. The main verb is nominalized, and the auxiliary verb is suffixed by dependent or independent verb suffixes, including whatever aspect or mood suffixes may be appropriate to the situation. Tuy. (my field data): (48) "waa-gi$ tii-"bı˜-wi do-CONTRAEXPECTATIONgo-NOM: EV:PAST.VISUAL.sing.MASC sing.MASC ‘He was going, but . . .’
Compound Verb Roots Compounding of verb roots is rare in the WT languages and Cub., but common in Ret. and the ET languages, where up to four verb roots can be combined in one phonological word. See Go´mez-Imbert (1988) for an explanation of three different types of compounding that typically take place. Tat. (Go´mez-Imbert, 1988: 107): (49) ya´˜ a´˜ -ro´ka-ku´˜ bu´˜ -eha´ fall-strike-lie.immobile-arrive ‘to fall, arriving at and striking (the ground), and being immobile’
Evidentiality Evidentiality is an obligatory feature of the independent verb word in the ET languages, as well as in Cub., Sio., and Sec. It is indicated by optional verb suffixes in Ret., and is indicated by means of auxiliary verbs in Kor. Evidential suffixes in the ET languages carry information about present and past tenses, and subject, including person, number, and gender. The function of the evidential suffixes appears to vary somewhat between the languages, indicating one of the following: 1. How the speaker obtained the information: Bar. and Wai. (my field data); Bas., Car., Mac., and Tat.
(Go´mez-Imbert, 2000: 340); Des. (Miller, 1999: 64); Sir. (Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 400); Tuy. (Barnes and Malone, 2000: 441); Yur. (Kinch and Kinch, 2000: 479), 2. The speaker’s degree of knowledge of the situation: Tuc., according to Ramirez (1997: 121), or 3. the point of view of the speaker: Wan. (Waltz and Waltz, 2000: 456); Tuc., according to Welch and West (2000: 424). Evidential suffixes in the Middle Tucanoan language Cub. and in the WT languages Sio. and Sec. convey tense and person information as in the ET languages, but they indicate the degree of certainty about the information rather than how the speaker obtained the information (Ferguson et al., 2000: 363; Wheeler, 2000: 189; Johnson and Levinsohn, 1990: 66–70). There is no information available on Ore. Ret.’s evidential system consists of three optional verb suffixes. The first is /-ko-/, by which the speaker tells something that he knows is a fact because he has heard something take place, although he has not seen it. The second is /-rihi-/, by which the speaker indicates that he is stating an assumption. The third is /-re/, by which the speakers conveys that the information is secondhand (Strom, 1992: 90–91). Kor. employs auxiliary verbs to indicate evidentiality. One indicates secondhand information and the other indicates a supposition on the part of the speaker (Cook and Criswell, 1993: 86–87). Wan. (Waltz and Waltz, 2000: 457) and Des. (Miller, 1999: 67–68) use an auxiliary verb phrase for the ‘apparent’ evidential, which is equivalent in function to the apparent evidential suffix in Tuy. The cognate verb phrase in Tuy. is distinct from the apparent evidential; the auxiliary verb bears the witnessed evidential suffix, and indicates that the speaker visually observed the end result of an action or state. (See Barnes, 1984: 264). Thus, by looking into the empty house he says, ‘They left,’ literally saying, ‘I see that they are ones who have left.’ Tuy. also has a single-syllable evidential suffix that indicates ‘apparent’ actions or states that the speaker deduces from evidence. That single-syllable suffix would be used, for example, when concluding that a piece of fruit was apparently in the state of being ripe, or it would not have fallen off the tree on its own. In the text where the following example occurs, the speaker heard the fruit fall, but never saw it. Tuy. (Barnes, unpublished text #137): (50) yı˜ı˜-"ri-ga dı˜"ı˜-bı˜-a-ju be-CONTRAEXPECTATION-RECripen-NOMCLASS:3D EV:PAST.APPARENT.NON3 ‘apparently the fruit was ripe’
Tucanoan Languages 1101 Table 7 Evidentials in Siriano (Criswell and Brandrup, 2000: 400) Tense
Past
NON3
3sing.MASC 3sing.FEM 3PL Present
NON3
3sing.MASC 3sing.FEM 3PL
Visual
Apparent
Secondhand
Assumed
-bi -bı˜ -bo˜ -ba˜ -a -bı˜ -bo˜ -ba˜
-jo -ju˜bı˜ -ju˜bo˜ -ju˜ba˜ -
-juro -jupi -jupo -ju˜ra˜ -
-kujo -ku˜ju˜bı˜ -ku˜ju˜bo˜ -ku˜ju˜ba˜ -koa -ku˜bı˜ -ku˜bo˜ -ku˜ba˜
Malone has concluded that the apparent evidential in Tuy. developed as the Tuy. speakers moved from expressing speaker distance in time and space to emphasizing how the speaker obtained his information (Malone, 1988: 138). Table 7 illustrates a typical Tucanoan evidential system. As is typical of most of the ET languages, person markers distinguish between third person and nonthird persons. In Table 7, NON3 includes first and second persons singular and plural, plus inanimate. Note that two of the eight paradigms in Table 7 are totally incomplete. The present tense in Sir. only distinguishes between the visual and assumed evidentials. The largest and most complete set of paradigms described in the literature on ET languages is found in Tuy., where 8 of 10 paradigms are complete (Barnes, 1984: 258). One of the incomplete paradigms is missing only the NON3 suffix. The totally empty paradigm is the present secondhand slot where one would not expect a paradigm, since secondhand information is always reported as past. Note the use of present and past in the following examples: Tuy. (my field data): (51) Bar"ia a"ti-jo Maria come-EV:PRES.VISUAL.3sing.FEM ‘Maria is coming’ (reported by a person outside the house who sees Maria coming) (52) a"ti-a-jigo come-REC-EV: PAST.SECONDHAND.3sing.FEM ‘she is coming’ (lit. ‘I was told that she was coming’), (reported by a person inside the house who has not seen Maria, but who heard the other say that she is coming)
Two features of evidentiality that occur in all of the Tucanoan languages are (1) firsthand knowledge of the state or event and (2) secondhand knowledge, indicating that the only information the speaker has
Table 8 Probable and indefinite future suffixes in Yurutı´ (Kinch and Kinch, 2000: 480, and personal communication) Person
Probable future
Indefinite future
1,2 sing.MASC 1,2 sing.FEM 1,2PL 3sing.MASC 3sing.FEM 3PL Inanimate
-giaku -goaku -roaku -giaki -goakugo -rakua -roaku
-giga -goga -raga -giagawi -goagago -ragawa -roagawa -roga
about what he relates is that which came from someone else. All other features such as direct or indirect evidence, and tangible or intangible evidence, or, in the WT languages: degree of certainty, can be subdivisions of point (1). Future The WT languages express the future by means of the potential aspect. The Middle and ET languages express the future in modal terms. For example, Bas. uses one of three moods to indicate the future: avoidance, conjecture, and intention (Jones and Jones, 1991: 88–92). The rest of the Tucanoan languages have from one to three sets of future endings, composed of two to three morphemes each, which together convey probability, supposition, or definite intention. A study of Table 8 reveals how more than one morpheme is typically used in the formation of the future tenses. Yur. (Kinch and Kinch, 2000: 480): (53) be˜"da˜be˜-pi$ "waa-gi$aki tomorrow-LOCATIVE go-FUT.PROBABLE ‘he will go tomorrow’ (54) ati-ja˜"bı˜ka jo"sa-gi$agawi "k thishang.in.hammock- 3sing.MASC afternoon FUT.INDEFINITE ‘probably he will rest in his hammock this afternoon’
1102 Tucanoan Languages
Bibliography Aikhenvald A (2002). Language contact in Amazonia. New York: Oxford University Press. Barnes J (1970–2005). ‘Unpublished texts.’ Barnes J (1984). ‘Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 50(3), 255–271. Barnes J (1990). ‘Classifiers in Tuyuca.’ In Payne D L (ed.) Amazonian linguistics, studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin: University of Texas Press. 273–292. Barnes J (1996). ‘Autosegments with three-way lexical contrasts in Tuyuca.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 62(1), 31–58. Barnes J & Malone T (2000). ‘El tuyuca.’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 437–452. Cook D M & Criswell L L (1993). El idioma koreguaje (Tucano Occidental). Santafe´ de Bogota´: Asociacio´n Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Criswell L & Brandrup B (2000). ‘Un bosquejo fonolo´gico y gramatical del siriano.’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 395–417. Ferguson J, Hollinger C & Criswell L (2000). ‘El cubeo.’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 357–372. Go´mez-Imbert E (1988). ‘Construccio´n verbal en barasana y tatuyo.’ Amerindia 13, 97–108. Go´mez-Imbert E (2000). ‘Introduccio´n al estudio de las lenguas del Piraparana´ (Vaupe´s).’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 321–356. Go´mez-Imbert E & Kenstowicz M (2000). ‘Barasana tone and accent.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 66(4), 419–463. Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S (2000). ‘Bases para el estudio de la lengua pisamira.’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 373–393. Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.) (2000). Lenguas indı´genas de Colombia, una visio´n descriptiva. Santafe´ de Bogota´: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Johnson O E & Levinsohn S H (1990). Grama´tica secoya. Quito: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Jones W & Jones P (1991). Studies in the languages of Colombia 2: Barasano syntax. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Kinch R & Kinch P (2000). ‘El yurutı´.’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 469–487. Klumpp J & Klumpp D (1973). ‘Sistema fonolo´gico del piratapuyo.’ In Sistemas fonolo´gicos de idiomas
colombianos, tomo 2. Colombia: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. 107–120. Malone T (1986). Proto-Tucanoan and Tucanoan genetic relationships. (MS). Malone T (1988). ‘The origin and development of Tuyuca evidentials.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 54(2), 119–140. Metzger R G (1998). ‘The morpheme KA- of Carapana (Tucanoan).’ SIL Electronic Working Papers [on line], April, Available: http://www.sil.org/. Miller M (1999). Studies in the languages of Colombia 6: Desano grammar. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Morse N L & Maxwell M B (1999). Studies in the languages of Colombia 5: Cubeo grammar. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Nagler C & Brandrup B (1979). ‘Fonologı´a del siriano.’ In Sistemas fonolo´gicos de idiomas colombianos 4. Colombia: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. 101–126. Ramirez H (1997). A fala tukano dos ye’pa-masa. Tomo I: Grama´tica. Manaus: CEDEM. Smothermon J R, Smothermon J H & con Frank P S (1995). Bosquejo del macuna. Santafe´ de Bogota´: Asociacio´n Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Stenzel K (2004). A reference grammar of Wanano. Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado. Strom C (1992). Studies in the languages of Colombia 3: Retuara˜ syntax. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington. Waltz N E (2002). ‘Innovations in Wanano (Eastern Tucanoan) when compared to Piratapuyo.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 68(2), 157–215. Waltz C & Waltz N (2000). ‘El wanano.’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 453–467. Waltz N E & Wheeler A (1972). ‘Proto Tucanoan.’ In Matteson E et al. (eds.) Janua Linguarum 127: Comparative studies in Amerindian languages. The Hague: Mouton. 119–149. Welch B & West B (2000). ‘El tucano.’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 419–436. West B & Welch B (1967). ‘Phonemic system of Tucano.’ In Elson B F (ed.) Phonemic systems of Colombian languages. University of Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 11–24. Wheeler A (1987). Ganteya bain, el pueblo siona del rı´o Putumayo, Colombia, tomo 1. Colombia: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Wheeler A (2000). ‘La lengua siona.’ In Gonza´lez de Pe´rez M S & Rodrı´guez de Montes M L (eds.). 181–198.
Tungusic Languages 1103
Tungusic Languages A Vovin, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Location and Composition of the Tungusic Language Family: Sociolinguistic Data Tungusic languages (former name: Manchu–Tungusic) are spoken in a wide territory that includes Central and East Siberia and northeast China (Manchuria). One language, Sibe (Xibe), is located in the Xinjiang province of China. There are 12 modern Tungusic languages (see Table 1). There are also two languages attested diachronically: Jurchen, represented by some inscriptions and dictionaries (12th–15th centuries C.E.), and Manchu, the state language of the Qing empire in China (1644–1911 C.E.) that has an abundant corpus of various written texts (16th to the early 20th century C.E.), most of them translations from Chinese. For all practical purposes, Manchu can be considered an archaic dialect of Jurchen, although the two languages employ different writing systems. Jurchen used a cumbersome indigenous (inspired by Chinese and Khitan writing systems) script that included both semantographic and syllabic signs. Manchu, on the other hand, uses the modified version of the Mongolian alphabet. Classical Manchu is still used in private correspondence by Heilongjiang Manchu, Solon, and Dagur Mongolians. All surviving Tungusic languages are endangered to a greater or lesser extent; some of them are on the brink of extinction. The only languages spoken in China that have a written form are (1) Heilonjiang Manchu, whose speakers use essentially Classical Manchu, and (2) Sibe, whose speakers use a modified
version of Classical Manchu that includes certain Sibe colloquialisms, because Sibe is historically a dialect of Manchu. During the Soviet period, literary forms were created for almost all Tungusic languages spoken in Russia, but most of them turned out to be short-lived. Even those languages that still have literary forms (Ewenki, Ewen, and Nanai) have a rather narrow application.
Internal Classification There have been several conflicting attempts to classify Tungusic languages, but the most convincing is the recent attempt by Stefan Georg (2004), in which he proposed two basic groups: Northern (Ewenki, Ewen, Solon, Neghidal, Udehe, and Oroch) and Southern (Nanai, Ulcha, Uilta, both Classical and Modern Manchu, Sibe, and Jurchen). Within the Northern group, the following three subgroups should be distinguished: Ewen, Ewenki–Solon–Neghidal, and the intermediate subgroup including Udehe and Oroch. The languages of the intermediate subgroup are basically the Northern Tungusic languages that were strongly influenced by the Southern Tungusic languages. The Kili language that was traditionally considered a dialect of Nanai also likely belongs to the Northern group (Doerfer, 1978a). There are two subgroups within the Southern group: the Nani subgroup, including Nanai, Ulcha, and Uilta; and the Manchu subgroup, which included Manchu (both Classical and Modern), Sibe, and Jurchen.
Wider Genetic Affiliation There is a widespread belief that Tungusic languages are distantly related to Mongolic, Turkic,
Table 1 Modern Tungusic languages
Ewenki Ewen Solon Neghidal Kili Udehe Oroch Nanai Ulcha Uilta Heilongjiang Manchu Sibe a
Names appearing in Ethnologue
Frequently used alternative names
Number of native speakersa
Evenki Even Evenki Negidal Kili
Elunchun Lamut Ewenke
11 360 7463 17 000 170 40 526 169 5292 986 89 70 26 760
Kur-Urmi, Hezhen Udige
Oroch Ulcha Manchu Xibe
Goldi Olcha Orok Xibo
Estimates of native speakers based on Soviet census of 1989 and Chinese census of 1990.
1104 Tungusic Languages
Korean, and Japonic languages, forming with them the Altaic family. However, this controversial relationship has never been demonstrated satisfactorily. It is most likely that numerous parallels between the Tungusic and other Altaic languages represent traces of centuries- or even millennia-long contacts.
Morphology
Overall, the Northern Tungusic languages have a richer morphology than the Southern Tungusic languages. Nouns in most Tungusic languages have categories of number, case, and possession, although possession is not present in the Manchu subgroup. The number of cases varies from 6 in Manchu to 13 in Ewen. There is a certain allomorphism in case suffixes, depending on the last consonant of a nominal stem and vowel harmony. Table 4 shows an Ewenki paradigm that includes 11 cases for the words bira ‘river,’ det ‘tundra,’ and oron ‘reindeer.’ Some Tungusic languages differentiate between alienable and inalienable possession (cf. Ewenki diliB head-1PERS.sing.POSS ‘my head’ and dili- i-b head-ALIEN-1PERS.sing.POSS ‘head of an animal that I killed and have in my possession,’ where alienable possession is indicated by the special affix - i-). There is also a distinction between exclusive and inclusive first person plural pronouns (cf. Manchu be ‘we without you’ and muse ‘we including you,’ ‘I and you’). In some languages, adjectives agree with the modified noun in number and case, as for example in Ewenki: eru¯-l-du¯ bira-l-du¯ bad-PL-DAT.LOC riverPL-DAT.LOC ‘in bad rivers’; adjectives stay uninflected in other languages, as in Nanai: da¯i xoton-sal- ia i big city-PL-EL ‘from big cities.’ The verbal morphology is very complex. All languages differentiate between nonfinite and finite verbal forms. Verbs have the following categories: voice, aspect, mood, tense, person, and number. There are six moods, six voices, and ten different aspects in Ewenki. The typical order of affixes in a verbal form is root-VOICE-ASPECT-MOOD-TENSE-PERSON/ NUMBER (e.g., Ewenki ana-wka¯n- e-ceE-n pushCAUS-IMPERF-PAST-3PERS.sing ‘she was making [him] to push’). In most Tungusic languages, there is a special negative verb (e.g., Ewenki baka-ra-n findAOR.PART-3PERS.sing ‘he found,’ e-ceE-n baka-ra NEG.V-PAST-3PERS.sing find-AOR.PART ‘he did not find,’ baka- a a¯-n find-FUT-3PERS.sing ‘he will find,’ e- e eE-n baka-ra NEG.V-FUT-3PERS.sing findAOR.PART ‘he will not find’).
Structure All Tungusic languages are agglutinative (with some elements of fusion) languages with SOV word order, although Ewen in some cases has shifts to SVO order, apparently under a strong Russian influence. Thus, there is only suffixation and no prefixation. Almost all languages have a rich morphology, with a somewhat reduced version of it in the Manchu subgroup. Phonology
Tables 2 and 3 show the vowels and consonants for the Podkamennaia Tunguska subdialect of the Southern Ewenki dialect, which is used as the basis of the modern literary language. Both vocalic and consonantal systems are representative of the whole family, although, of course, certain expansions and/or reductions can be observed in individual languages. Syllabic structure is V, VC, CV, and CVC. Stress is probably dynamic, although further research is necessary. All languages have vowel harmony. All vowels can be either short or long except e (< diphthong *ia), which is always long. Vowel length is phonemic (cf. Ewenki bu- ‘to die,’ bu¯- ‘to give’; tu¯kala ‘name of a plant,’ tukala ‘earth, ground’).
Table 2 Vowels in Tungusic languages Front
High Mid Low
Central
Back
e, @E
u, u¯a o, o¯
i,¯ı e¯
a, a¯
Table 3 Consonants in Tungusic languages
Plosive Nasal Trill Fricative Approximant Lateral approximant
Bilabial
Dental
Palatal
Velar
p
b m
t
c
k
b
s
d n r
J
Glottal
g N h
j l
Tupian Languages 1105 Table 4 Morphology in Tungusic languages
Nominative Accusative Indefinite accusative Dative–locative Allative Illative Prolative Allative–locative Elative Ablative Instrumental
Vowel stem
Plosive stem
Nasal stem
bira bira-ba bira-ja bira-du¯a bira-tki bira-la¯ bira-l¯ı bira-kla bira-duk bira-git bira-t
det det-pe det-je det-tu¯a det-tiki det-[tu]l@E det-[tu]l¯ı det-ikle det-tuk det-kit det-it
oron oron-mo oron-o oron-du¯a oron-tiki oron-dula¯ oron-dul¯ı oron-ikla oron-duk oron-Nit oron-di
Bibliography Alpatov V M, Kormushin I V, Piurbeev G Ts & Romanova O I (eds.) (1997). Iazyki mira: Mongol’skie iazyki, tunguso-man’chzhurskie iazyki, iaponskii iazyk, koreiskii iazyk. Moscow: Indrik. Benzing J (1955). Die Tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichender Grammatik. Mainz: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Chao Ke D O (1997). Man – tonggusi zhe yu: pijiao yanjiu. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe. Doerfer G (1978a). ‘Classification problem of Tungus.’ In Doerfer G & Weiers M (eds.) Tungusica, Band 1: Beitrage zur Nordasiatischen Kulturgeschichte. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1–26. Doerfer G (1978b). ‘Urtungusisch *o¨.’ In Doerfer G & Weiers M (eds.) Tungusica, Band 1: Beitrage zur Nordasiatischen Kulturgeschichte. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 66–116.
Doerfer G (1985). Mongolo–Tungusica (Tungusica, Band 3). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Georg S (2004). ‘Unreclassifying Tungusic.’ In Naeher C (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manchu-Tungus Studies. 2: Trends in Tungusic and Siberian linguistics (Tunguso-Sibirica 9). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 45–57. Ikegami J (1989). ‘Tsunguˆsu shogo.’ Gengogaku daijiten II, 1058–1083. Ikegami J (2001). Tsunguˆsu go kenkyuˆ. Tokyo: Kumifuru shoin. Kazama Sh (2003). Basic vocabulary (A) of Tungusic languages. Osaka: Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim (ELPR). Skorik P I, Avrorin V A, Bertagaev T A, Menovshchikov G A, Sunik O P & Konstantnova O A (eds.) (1968). Iazyki narodov SSSR, 5: Mongol’skie, tunguso-man’chzhurskie i paleoaziatskie iazyki. Leningrad: Nauka. Sunik O P (1962). Glagol v tunguso-man’chzhurskix iazykakh. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Sunik O P (1982). Sushchestvitel’noe v tunguso-man’chzhurskix iazykakh. Leningrad: Nauka. Tsintsius V I (1949). Sravnitel’naia fonetika tungusoman’chzhurskikh iazykov. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz. Tsintsius V I (ed.) (1975–1977). Sravnitel’nyi slovar’ tunguso-man’chzhurskikh iazykov, (vols 1 & 2). Leningrad: Nauka. Tsumagari T (1983). ‘Tsunguˆsu go.’ Gekkan gengo 12(11). Vovin A (1993). ‘Towards a new classification of Tungusic languages.’ Eurasian Yearbook 65, 99–113. Vovin A (ed.) (in press). The Tungusic languages. Routledge Language Family Series. London: Routledge.
Tupian Languages N Gabas Jr, Bele´m, Brazil ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Tupı´ family is one of the largest families of languages of South America. It contains 10 branches, with a variety of languages in each branch. The first comprehensive classification of the Tupian languages was by Rodrigues (1964), and further improvements of his classification were made by Cabral (1996, 1997), Gabas (2000), Rodrigues and Cabral (2002), Rodrigues and Dietrich (1997), and Rodrigues (1966, 1980, 1985a, 1997). It is generally accepted that the point of origin of Tupian groups is the state of Rondoˆnia, in the northwest part of Brazil. Rondoˆnia is still the homeland of five Tupian branches – Arike´m, Monde´, Purubora´, Ramara´ma,
and Tuparı´ – and of a few dialects (Amondawa, Karipuna, and Uru-eu-wau-wau) of the Kawahı´b cluster of the Tupı´-Guaranı´ branch. Nine branches of the Tupı´ family are shown in Table 1, together with the languages that belong to each branch. Classification of the tenth branch of the Tupı´ family, Tupı´-Guaranı´, is shown separately, in Table 2, because of its complexity; the Tupı´-Guaranı´ branch has the largest number of languages of the Tupı´ family (almost 50 languages, arranged in several subgroupings), and several of its members are spoken in countries other than Brazil. In Table 1, languages on the same line separated by a slash correspond to dialects of the same language; languages within parentheses correspond to alternate names for that language. In Table 2, language clusters are indicated by italics. These correspond roughly to dialects of the same language. The population numbers given in both
1106 Tupian Languages Table 1 Classification of nine branches of the Tupi family Branch
Language
Population
Awetı´ Arike´m
Awetı´ Arike´m Karitia´na Juru´na Xipa´ya Mawe´ (or Satere´) Arua´/Cinta-Larga/Gavia˜o/ Zoro´ Monde´ (Salama˜y) Suruı´ Munduruku´ Kurua´ya Purubora´
100 Extinct 170 210 15 (two speakers) 5800 36/640/360/250
Juru´na Mawe´ Monde´
Munduruku´ Purubora´ Ramara´ma Tuparı´
Karo (Arara) Ayuru´ Akuntsu Makura´p Meke´ns (Sakirabiat) Tuparı´
3 (semi-speakers) 580 3000 10 20 (two semispeakers) 170 40 7 130 70 200
tables, except where indicated, correspond to the actual number of speakers of the language. Of the 10 branches of the Tupı´ family, the Tupı´Guaranı´ branch is the one mostly studied. Languages of this branch have a higher degree of lexical and morphological similarities to each other when compared to languages of other branches. Internal classification of the Tupı´ family is currently in the early stages, but what is known about languages outside the Tupı´-Guaranı´ branch allows a few generalizations to be made about Tupian languages as a whole. Larger genetic relations between Proto-Tupı´ and other families of languages, especially Macro-Jeˆ and Karı´b, have been proposed by Greenberg (1987) and Rodrigues (1985b, 1999, 2000) (see Macro-Jeˆ; Cariban Languages).
General Properties of Tupian Languages From the point of view of phonetics and phonology, Tupian languages do not have intricate consonantal and/or vocalic systems. Rodrigues (1999: 112) has reported that consonant systems across the family vary from 10 to 19, and Rodrigues and Dietrich (1997) proposed that Proto-Tupı´ has a six-vowel system. It is common that languages of various branches have a phonological distinction between short and long vowels (cf., Juru´na and Xipa´ya, of the Juru´na branch; Munduruku´, of the Munduruku´ branch; possibly all languages of the Tuparı´ branch; all languages of the Monde´ branch; and Karitia´na, of the Arike´m branch). Furthermore, nearly half of the Tupian branches have languages with either a true
tone system (the Munduruku´ and Monde´ branches and possibly the Tuparı´ and Juru´na branches) or a pitch-accent system (Arike´m and Ramara´ma branches). Stress in Tupian languages is predictable, occurring generally in the last syllable of words. Tupian languages also have a syllable structure that typically does not allow consonant codas word-internally, with the exception of the glottal stop and the glottal fricative. Thus, patterns of consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) and vowel-consonant (VC) occur exclusively word-finally. From the point of view of morphology, Tupian languages are agglutinative and isolating. Only a few linguistic categories are marked by affixes – for instance, pronominal prefixes, two or three valence-changing prefixes (causative, comitative causative, and detransitivizer or passivizer), modal markers (usually indicative and gerund), and diminutive/augmentative markers. Categories such as number, gender, tense, and aspect are syntactically marked by particles. Word classes are well established and easily distinguishable from each other on morphological and/or syntactic/semantic bases. Typical word classes are nouns (including pronouns), verbs (transitive, intransitive and, sometimes, uninflected verbs), postpositions, and particles. Adjectives occur in only a few branches (Arike´m, Ramara´ma, and Monde´). In all other branches, a descriptive verb fulfills the function of ‘attributes’ and ‘properties.’ Core cases, with the possible exception of Tupı´-Guaranian languages, are not morphologically marked. Oblique case marking is conveyed by postpositions, in postpositional phrases. Usually, four or five cases are marked (ablative, allative, dative, instrumental, locative), although languages such as Karo have a larger system; Karo has 12 different postpositions that are used to mark the ablative, abessive, adessive, allative, comitative, dative, dispersive, inessive, instrumental, locative, similative, and circumjective cases. Nouns, with the exception of those for elements of nature, are categorized as either alienable or inalienable. Alienable nouns generally designate manufactured items, kinship terms, animals, and plants, and occur freely in noun phrases. Inalienable nouns include mostly body parts (and, in some languages, kinship terms), and must occur preceded either by a free noun or a personal prefix (or, in some languages, such as Karo, a personal clitic). The occurrence of positional demonstratives, which mark the lying, standing, sitting, and hanging position of the head noun, is common in Tupian languages. Positional demonstratives are found in Meke´ns, Karitia´na, Mawe´, and Munduruku´. There is a remarkable class of words called ‘ideophones’ in many Tupian languages. Although
Tupian Languages 1107 Table 2 Classification of the Tupı´ -Guaranı´ brancha Subgroup
Language and clustersb
Country
Population
I
Ancient Guarani Chiriguano (Ava´) Izocen˜o Guayakı´ Kaiwa´ Mbya´ Nhande´va Paraguayan Guaranı´
Brazil Argentina/Bolivia/Paraguay Bolivia Paraguay Argentina/Brazil/Paraguay Argentina/Brazil Brazil Paraguay and border areas of Argentina and Brazil Brazil Bolivia Bolivia Bolivia Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil
Extinct 15 000/35 000/2000 15 000 850 500/9000/10 000 1000/2000 4900 4 000 000
Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil
50 12–15 9 260 100 800 130 270
French Guiana Brazil/French Guiana Brazil
200 500/650 140
Brazil Brazil Brazil
350 2 500
II
III
IV
V
VI
Xeta´ Guarayu Siriono´ Jora´ Lingua Geral Paulista Nheengatu Tupı´ Tupinamba´ Ava´ (Canoeiro) Asurinı´ of Tocantins Guajaja´ra Parakana˜ Suruı´ of Tocantins Tapirape´ Tembe´ Turiwa´ra Anambe´ of Cairarı´ Arawete´ Ararandewa´ra-Amanaje´ Asurinı´ of Xingu´ Apiaka´ Kawahı´ b cluster Amondawa Karipuna Juma Tenharim Uru-eu-wau-wau
VII VIII
Kayabı´ Parintintin Kamayura´ North of the Amazon Emerillon Wayampı´ (Oyampı´) Zo’e´
3 5000 650 5–10 Extinct 3000 Extinct Extinct 100 200 10 000 350 150 200–350 100–200 Extinct 20 80 200 (extinct) 65 70 ?
South of the Amazon Guaja´ Aureˆ and Aura´ Urubu´-Kaapor a
Data from Rodrigues and Cabral (2002). Names in italics indicate language clusters.
b
their properties are not yet totally understood and/or described, roughly, ideophones have similarities to intransitive verbs, but their phonological, morphological, syntactic, and discourse behaviors are rather different. Ideophones are found in Karo (Ramara´ma), Karitia´na (Arike´m), Munduruku´ (Munduruku´), Xipa´ya (Juru´na), and Kamayura´ (Tupı´-Guaranı´). Languages of the Awetı´, Mawe´, Monde´, and Tuparı´
branches do not have ideophones, but rather have a class of uninflected verbs. Syntactic characteristics of Tupian languages include a basic subject-object-verb (SOV) order of clause constituents, with fronting of S or O being used as a syntactic device for emphasis or contrast. The occurrence of clause-chaining constructions, whereby a clause is structured of one main verb in
1108 Tupian Languages
the finite form plus one or more chained verbs in nonfinite or unmarked form, is common and is sometimes erroneously interpreted as serial verb constructions (Jensen, 1990). Typically, coreferential intransitive subjects receive special markings in chained clauses (although this does not characterize a switchreference system), and transitive subjects are absent (zero-anaphora). Evidentiality is also a widespread phenomenon in all branches of the Tupı´ family. Unfortunately, this is not yet fully understood and described, with the exception of Karo (Gabas, 1999) and Kamayura´ (Seki, 2000). In Karo, the 11 evidentials are grouped in two categories. One grouping refers to the attitude of the speaker toward the proposition conveyed, and the other refers to the source of information. For Kamayura´, Seki (2000: 104) has described the existence of ‘interjective particles’ that are used to report to the attitude of the speaker toward the information conveyed. Although Seki does not explicitly analyze these particles as being evidentials, they can easily be interpreted as such. Tupian languages also have systems of noun classification. In two branches, Munduruku´ and Karo, a robust classifier system occurs. In Munduruku´, approximately 50 classifiers occur associated with the preceding noun according to their shape. Classifiers in Munduruku´ also occur in concordance with other elements in the noun phrase. In Karo, a set of 11 classifiers occurs, relating to the shape (7), arrangement (2), and gender (1) of the preceding noun (the meaning of the 11th classifier remains unknown). Classifiers in Karo also occur, obligatorily, after an adjective, in concordance. Although languages of other branches do not have classifier systems per se, cognates of classifiers in Karo and Munduruku´ occur lexicalized in many words throughout the family, usually the classifier for round objects, a ; the classifier for concave/convex objects, ka or kap; and the classifier for flat objects, pe . This suggests that a system of noun classification already existed in the protolanguage, Proto-Tupı´.
Bibliography Cabral A S A C (1996). ‘Algumas evideˆncias lingu¨ı´sticas de parentesco gene´tico do Jo’e´ com as lı´nguas Tupı´Guaranı´.’ Moara 4, 47–76. Dooley R A (ed.) (1984). Estudos sobre lı´nguas Tupı´ do Brasil. Se´rie lingu¨ı´stica, 11. Brası´lia: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Drude S (2002). ‘Fala masculina e feminina em Awetı´.’ In Rodrigues A D & Cabral A S A C (eds.) Lı´nguas indı´genas Brasileiras: fonologia, grama´tica e histo´ria (atas do i encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre lı´nguas Indı´genas da ANPOLL), tomo I. Bele´m: Editora Universita´ria UFPA. 177–190.
Gabas N Jr (1988). Estudo fonolo´gico da lı´ngua Karo. Studies in Native American linguistics 31. Munich: Lincom. Gabas N Jr (1999). A grammar of Karo (Tupi, Brazil). Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara. Gabas N Jr (2000). ‘Genetic relationship among the Ramara´ma family of the Tupi stock (Brazil).’ In van der Voort H & van de Kerke S (eds.) Indigenous languages of lowland South America. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS). 71–82. Galucio A V M (2001). The morphosyntax of Mekens (Tupi). Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Galucio A V M (2002). ‘Word order and constituent structure in Mekens.’ Revista da Abralin (Associac¸a˜o Brasileira de Lingu¨ı´stica) 1(2), 51–74. Greenberg J H (1987). Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Melo A A S (1996). ‘Genetic affiliation of the language of the Indians Aureˆ and Aura´.’ Opcio´n – Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales 19, 67–81. Moore D (1994). ‘A few aspects of comparative Tupi syntax.’ Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnolinguisticos 8, 151–162. Moore D (1997). ‘Estrutura de cla´usulas em gavia˜o de Rondoˆnia.’ Boletim da Associac¸a˜o Brasileira de Lingu¨ı´stica (ABRALIN) 20, 91–105. Moore D (1999). ‘Tonal system of the Gavia˜o language of Rondoˆnia, Brazil, in Tupian perspective.’ In Proceedings of the Symposium Cross-Linguistics Studies of Tonal Phenomena: Tonogenesis, Typology, and Related Topics. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA). 297–310. Moore D (2002). ‘Verbos sem Flexa˜o.’ In Rodrigues A D & Cabral A S A C (eds.) Lı´nguas Indı´genas Brasileiras: fonologia, grama´tica e histo´ria (atas do i encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre lı´nguas Indı´genas da ANPOLL), tomo I. Bele´m: Editora Universita´ria UFPA. 139–150. Moore D & Galucio A V M (1993). ‘Reconstruction of proto-Tupari consonants and vowels. Survey of California and other Indian languages.’ Berkeley 8, 119–137. Rodrigues A D (1964). ‘Classificac¸a˜o do tronco linguı´stico Tupi.’ Revista de Antropologia 12, 99–104. Rodrigues A D (1966). ‘Classificac¸a˜o da lı´ngua dos Cinta-Larga.’. Revista de Antropologia 14, 27–30. Rodrigues A D (1980). ‘Tupinamba´ e Munduruku´: evideˆncias fonolo´gicas e lexicais de parentesco gene´tico.’ Estudos Linguı´sticos 3, 194–209. Rodrigues A D (1985a). ‘Relac¸o˜es internas na famı´lia linguı´stica Tupi-Guarani.’ Revista de Antropologia 27, 33–53. Rodrigues A D (1985b). ‘Evidence For Tupi-Carib relationships.’ In Stark L R (ed.) South American Indian languages: retrospect and prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press. 371–404. Rodrigues A D (1999a). ‘Macro-Jeˆ.’ In Dixon R M W & Aikhenvald A (eds.) The Amazonian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 164–206. Rodrigues A D (1999b). ‘Tupı´.’ In Dixon R M W & Aikhenvald A (eds.) The Amazonian languages. Cambridge University Press. 107–124.
Turkic Languages 1109 Rodrigues A D (2000). ‘Geˆ-Pano-Carı´b Jeˆ-Tupı´-Karı´b: sobre relaciones lingu¨ı´sticas prehisto´ricas en Sudame´rica.’ In Actas del I Congreso de lenguas Indı´genas de Sudame´rica. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma 1. 95–104. Rodrigues A D & Cabral A S A C (2002). ‘Revendo a classificac¸a˜o interna da famı´lia Tupı´Guaranı´.’. In Atas do I Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho de Lı´nguas Indı´genas da Associac¸a˜o
Nacional de Po´s-Graduac¸a˜o em Letras e Linguı´stica (ANPOLL), tomo I. Bele´m: Editora Universita´ria UFPA. 327–337. Rodrigues A D & Dietrich W (1997). ‘On the linguistic relationship between Mawe´ and Tupi-Guarani.’ Diachronica 14, 265–304. Storto L R (1999). Aspects of a Karitiana grammar. Ph.D. diss., MIT.
Turkic Languages L Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Development and Classification The Turkic language family was first attested in 8th century inscriptions. Turkic-speaking groups first appeared in the Inner Eurasian steppes, from where they moved to Central Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Siberia, etc. Because of their high mobility, Turkic expanded over a huge area. The Proto-Turkic network of varieties was dissolved by an early split of Oghur or Bulgar Turkic. Its modern representative, Chuvash, a descendant of Volga Bulgar, differs from Common Turkic by specific phonetic representations, e.g., r and l instead of z and sˇ in words such as s´eˇr ‘hundred’ and s´ul ‘year’ (Turkish yu¨z ‘hundred,’ yas¸ ‘age’). A second split is represented by Khalaj, which retains a reflex of Proto-Turkic *p- as h-, e.g., hadaq ‘foot.’ Dialect splitting has led to further differentiation of Common Turkic. There is no mutual intelligibility throughout the family today. The following division combines the current areal distribution with genealogical and typological features. 1. The Southwestern or Oghuz branch contains a western subgroup comprising Turkish, Gagauz, and Azerbaijanian (Azerbaijani, Northern and Azerbaijani, Southern), a southern subgroup comprising dialects of southern Iran and Afghanistan, and an eastern subgroup comprising Turkmen and Khorasan Turkic. 2. The Northwestern or Kipchak branch has a western subgroup comprising Kumyk, Karachay-Balkar, Crimean Tatar, and Karaim, a northern subgroup comprising Tatar and Bashkir, and a southern subgroup comprising Kazakh, Karakalpak, Kipchak Uzbek, Nogai, and Kirghiz (of different origin, but strongly influenced by Kazakh).
3. The Southeastern or Uyghur-Karluk branch has a western Uzbek subgroup and and eastern Uyghur subgroup. 4. The Northeastern or Siberian branch has a southern heterogeneous subgroup comprising Sayan Turkic (Tuvan, Tofan), Abakan (Yenisei) Turkic (Khakas, Shor), Chulym Turkic, Altai Turkic (Altai, Northern and Southern), and a northern subgroup comprising Yakut (Sakha) and Dolgan. 5. Chuvash is geographically situated in the northwestern area (Volga region). 6. Khalaj is geographically situated in the southwestern area (central Iran). Deviant languages in China are Salar, of Oghuz origin, Yellow Uyghur (Yugur, West) and Fu-yu¨ (Manchuria), both of south Siberian origin. One traditional classificatory criterion is the final consonant of the word for ‘nine.’ Its representation as r in Chuvash ta˘xxa˘r separates Oghur from Common Turkic (Turkish dokuz). The intervocalic consonant in the word for ‘foot’ divides most Northeastern languages, Chuvash, Khalaj, etc. from the rest, which exihibits -y- (Turkish ayak), e.g., Tuvan adaq, Khakas azax, Chuvash ura. Oghuz Turkic differs from the rest by loss of suffix-initial velars, e.g., qal-an [remain-PART] instead of qal-gan [remainPART] ‘remaining.’ Final -G is devoiced in the Southeast (Uyghur tag-liq [mountain-DER] ‘mountainous’), preserved in southern Siberia (Tuvan daglı¨g [mountain-DER]), and lost elsewhere (Turkish dag˘-li [mountain-DER]). Most older linguistic stages are insufficently known. Written sources, where available, provide no direct information on spoken varieties. Early Oghuz and Bulgar (East Europe, 6th–7th centuries) are unknown. There are no texts in the language of the Khazars (7th–10th centuries). Pecheneg and Kuman, predecessors of West Kipchak, are only known from loanwords, titles, and names.
1110 Turkic Languages
Written Varieties Turkic literary varieties have emerged in various cultural centers. Many older Turkic empires, however, used foreign languages for administration (Sogdian, Persian). Muslim Turks often used Persian for poetry, and Arabic for religious and scientific writing. Russian has played an important role for many groups. The following main stages of written Turkic may be distinguished. 1. An older pre-Islamic East Old Turkic period (8th century–), is represented in inscriptions, manuscripts, and block prints. East Old Turkic proper is documented in stone inscriptions (Orkhon Valley), which celebrate the rulers of the Second Eastern Tu¨rk Empire, in other inscriptions found in Mongolia and the Yenisei and Talas valleys, and also in a few manuscripts. The Old Kirghiz inscriptions are of this type. Old Uyghur is first recorded in the period of Uyghur rule over the Eastern Empire. Early Old Uyghur is attested in runiform inscriptions and manuscripts. From the 10th century on, Old Uyghur became the medium of a flourishing literary culture in the Tienshan-Tarim area, attested in texts of Buddhist, Manichaean, and Nestorian content. 2. A middle Turkic period comprises various early Islamic varieties. The first East Turkic written language, Karakhanid (11th century–), developed in Kashgar, is close to Old Uyghur but lexically influenced by Arabic and Persian. Mah. mu¯d of Kashgar provides information (1073) on Karakhanid and other contemporary Turkic varieties. Khorezmian Turkic, used in the 13th–14th centuries in the Golden Horde and Mamluk Egypt, is based on the older languages but contains Oghuz and Kipchak elements. This tradition is continued in Chaghatay (15th century–). Early Chaghatay contains regional elements of the Timurid area. Later, Chaghatay became the dominant written language of Central Asia, eventually conquering an immense area of validity and developing regional varieties. The first West Turkic written language is Volga Bulgar, insufficiently known from epitaphs of the 13th and 14th centuries. Information on early Kipchak Turkic is given in the Codex Cumanicus, compiled by Christians, and in dictionaries and grammars written in Mamluk Egypt and Syria. Oghuz Turkic is first represented by Old Anatolian Turkish (13th century–), which was a subordinate written medium until the end of Seljuk rule. Old Ottoman is the initial stage of Ottoman, which
begins with the foundation of the Ottoman Empire in 1307. In Azerbaijan a literary language developed from the 15th century on. 3. A premodern period (16th century–) begins with the development of regionally influenced written languages. Middle and Late Ottoman became the leading written language with an abundantly rich literature. Chaghatay continued to play a major role and remained the literary language of all non-Oghuz Muslim Turks until a century ago. 4. A modern period begins in the second half of the 19th century with the formation of regional written languages. The political division of the Turkic-speaking world in the 20th century and the language policies pursued in the Soviet Union, Turkey, China, and Iran had dramatic effects that increasingly obstructed transregional linguistic contacts. A dozen ‘national’ languages with a narrow radius of validity emerged. In Turkey, Ottoman was replaced by modern Turkish. The social importance of many Turkic languages was very limited. After the recent political developments, their significance is rapidly increasing, but the varieties spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., still have poor possibilities to develop. Various scripts and script systems have been applied to Turkic. A specific runiform script was created for Old East Turkic. Most Old Uyghur texts are written in Uyghur script, originating in the Near East and later taken over by Mongols and Manchus. It is similar to the Sogdian script, which is also used in Buddhist texts. A few Buddhist manuscripts are written in Brahmi script, Manichaean texts in Manichaean script, and Nestorian texts in Syriac script. Arabic script was used for the languages of the Islamic era (still used in China for Uyghur and Kazakh). A unified Roman-based script was introduced for several languages in the early Soviet period, but later replaced by different Cyrillic-based scripts. A Romanbased alphabet was introduced in Turkey in 1923. Most of the newly established Turkic republics have introduced or are introducing Roman-based scripts.
Contacts The massive displacements of Turkic-speaking groups throughout their history have led to various phenomena induced by contacts with Iranian, Slavic, Mongolic, Uralic, etc. Speakers of Turkic have copied lexical, phonetic, morphological, and syntactic elements, whereas non-Turkic (e.g., Iranian, Greek, Finno-Ugric, Samoyedic, Yeniseian, Tungusic) groups shifting to Turkic have exerted substrate influence by
Turkic Languages 1111
copying native elements into their new varieties. Languages such as Chuvash, Yakut, Salar, Yellow Uyghur, Khalaj, Karaim, and Fu-yu¨ have long developed in isolation from their relatives, preserving old features and acquiring new ones in their environments. Long and intense interaction with Iranian in Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., has led to profound convergence phenomena. Massive foreign influence has sometimes caused considerable typological deviations, e.g., drastic structural changes in Karaim and Gagauz under Slavic impact. Most written languages have been strongly influenced by Persian and Arabic. In Chaghatay (Chagatai) and Ottoman, lexical borrowing contributed to a remarkable richness of the vocabularies, whereas grammar was much less affected. The overload of Persian and Arabic in Ottoman led to strong puristic efforts in the 20th century to create a so-called Pure Turkish. Internal convergence processes have resulted in leveling of languages of the central area. Several Turkic koine´s have been used as transregional codes for trade and intergroup communication, e.g., Azerbaijanian in Iran and the Caucasus region.
Linguistic Features Despite their huge area of distribution, Turkic languages share essential phonological, morphological, and syntactic features. They have a synthetic word structure with numerous highly applicable derivational and grammatical suffixes, and a juxtaposing technique with clear-cut morpheme boundaries and predictable allomorphs. These agglutinative principles yield considerable morphological regularity and transparency. Exceptions include traces of vowel gradation in the pronominal declination, e.g., Turkish ben ‘I,’ ban-a [I-DAT] ‘to me.’ The agglutinative structure is partly deranged in languages of the northeast and southeast. Some languages, e.g., Uzbek, even display borrowed prefixes. The syllable contains minimally a vowel with maximally one preceding and one subsequent consonant. Vowel hiatus and consonant clusters are avoided. Most languages exhibit eight short vowel phonemes, a, ı¨, o, u, e, i, o¨, u¨, classified according to the features front vs. back, unrounded vs. rounded, and high vs. low. Proto-Turkic long vowel phonemes are preserved in Turkmen, Yakut, and Khalaj. Iranian and Slavic phonetic influence has sometimes affected the front vs. back distinctions. Tatar, Bashkir, Chuvash, and Uyghur exhibit systematic vowel shifts. Chuvash, Gagauz, Karaim, etc., have developed palatalized
consonants, e.g., Karaim m ´ en´ ‘I’. Tuvan and Tofan exhibit a glottal element signaling strong obstruents, e.g., a t ‘horse’ vs. at ‘name.’ The most general sound harmony phenomenon is an intrasyllabic front vs. back assimilation. An intersyllabic front vs. back harmony causes neutralization of the front vs. back distinction under the influence of the preceding syllable. If applied consistently, it excludes back and front syllables in a word, e.g., Turkish ev-ler-im-e [house-PL-POSS.1.SG-DAT] ‘to my houses,’ at-lar-im-a [horse-PL-POSS.1.SG-DAT] ‘to my horses.’ Some languages only display this kind of harmony, whereas others also apply a rounded vs. unrounded harmony, neutralization of the distinction rounded vs. unrounded in high suffix vowels, e.g., Turkish el-im [hand-POSS.1.SG] ‘my hand,’ gu¨l-u¨m [rose-POSS.1.SG] ‘my rose.’ Languages such as Yakut and Kirghiz apply this harmony to low-vowel suffixes as well, e.g., bo¨ro¨-lo¨r [wolf-PL] ‘wolves.’ There are numerous exceptions to harmony rules in loanwords. Further allomorphs are created by various consonant assimilations. The rules of word accent vary. A high pitch accent, interacting with a dynamic stress accent, mostly falls on the last accentable syllable of native words. The morphological structure has remained relatively stable through the centuries. The main word classes are nominals (nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals) and verbals. The primary stems can be used as free forms, e.g., at ‘horse,’ at! ‘throw!.’ From verbal and nominal stems, which are sharply distinguished, expanded stems are formed. Nominals take plural, possessive, case, and specific derivational suffixes. Grammatical gender is not marked. The verbal morphology comprises markers of actionality, voice, possibility, negation, aspect, mood, evidentiality, tense, person, interrogation, etc. Voice is expressed by passive, reflexive-middle, causative, and cooperative-reciprocal suffixes. The order and combinability of suffixes is basically common to all Turkic languages. Constructions with postposed auxiliary verbs (postverbs) express actional modifications. A few constructions have developed into aspect-tense categories, e.g., Turkish gel-iyor [come-PRES] ‘comes’ < *gel-e yorı¨-r [come-CONV run-AOR] (‘runs coming’). Possibility markers are formed with auxiliary verbs such as bil‘to know’ and al- ‘to take,’ e.g., Kirghiz ber-e al-[giveCONV AUX.POTEN] ‘to be able to give.’ Turkic languages share many syntactic characteristics. With respect to relational typology, they adhere to the nominative-accusative pattern. They have a head-final constituent order, with dependents preceding their heads. The unmarked order of clause constituents is subject þ object þ predicate (SOV).
1112 Turkish
Adjectival, genitival, and participial attributes precede the head of the nominal phrase. Postpositions are used instead of prepositions. There is no agreement in number or case between dependents and heads. The focus position is in front of the predicate core. The unmarked constituent order is often deviated from for discourse-pragmatic reasons. Contactinduced word order changes are common, e.g., in Gagauz, which has become an SVO language. Preposed subordinate clauses are based on verbal nouns, participles, and converbs. The use of postposed subordinative patterns with conjunctions are typical effects of Iranian and Slavic influence. Most languages possess conjunctions, even coordinative ones meaning ‘and,’ ‘or,’ and ‘but’ of Persian, Arabic, or Russian origin. Turkic lacks definite articles. The indefinite article is formally identical with the numeral ‘one’ Genitival attributes, expressing a possessor, stand in the genitive, whereas their head, indicating a possessed entity, carries a possessive suffix, e.g., Turkish at-in bas¸-i [horseGEN head-POSS.3.SG] ‘the head of the horse.’ The dominant type of nominal compounds follows the
pattern noun þ noun þ possessive suffix, e.g., Turkish el c¸anta-si [hand bag-POSS.3.SG] ‘handbag.’ All Turkic varieties exhibit numerous loanwords. Arabic and Persian loans are frequent in all IslamicTurkic languages. The Iranian influence is strong in Uyghur, Uzbek, and varieties of Iran and Afghanistan. Many languages have been subject to considerable Mongolic and Slavic influence. Loans and calques from European languages have become increasingly important. The Turkic languages spoken in China exhibit old and recent loans from Chinese.
Bibliography Deny J et al. (eds.) (1959). Philologiae turcicae fundamenta, 1. Aquis Mattiacis: Steiner. Johanson L (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. London: Curzon. Johanson L & Csato´ E´ A´ (eds.) (1998). The Turkic languages. London: Routledge. Menges K H (1995). The Turkic languages and peoples. An introduction to Turkic studies. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ro´na-Tas A (1991). An introduction to Turkology. Szeged: University of Szeged.
Turkish R Underhill, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Turkish (natively Tu¨rkc¸e), the official language of the Republic of Turkey, is spoken by a large proportion of the Turkish population. There are also Turkish speakers in the Balkans, particularly in Greece, Bulgaria, and the former Yugoslavia, although there has been extensive population inflow from those countries into Turkey, and there is a substantial minority of Turkish speakers in Cyprus. There are Turkish-influenced Turkic dialects in Iraq in the region of Kirkuk, where the speakers are called Turkmen or Turkomans. The Ethnologue entry for Turkish gives a population of roughly 46 million speakers in Turkey, and 61 million in all countries. Turkish belongs to the southwestern, or Oghuz (Og˘uz), group of Turkic languages. This group also includes Azerbaijani, spoken in Azerbaijan and in adjacent areas of Iran; Qashqay and related dialects, spoken in the Zagros mountain area of Iran; Tu¨rkmen, spoken in Turkmenistan; and Gagauz,
spoken in Bulgaria, in Romania, and principally in Moldova, although there has been substantial migration from Moldova to Turkey. Central Asian Turkic languages include the national languages of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrghyzstan, and a number of others. Turkic, in turn, belongs to the Altaic family of languages, which also includes the Mongol and Manchu-Tunguz language families. Though this relationship has recently been called into question, it was proved convincingly by Poppe more than a generation ago (Poppe, 1960). Wider affinities of the Altaic family have been suggested for Korean, and even for Japanese. Turkish scholars divide the history of the Turkish language into three periods: (1) Old Anatolian Turkish (Eski Anadolu Tu¨rkc¸esi), comprising texts dating from the earliest arrival of Turkic speakers in Anatolia, through the Seljuk period to the formation of the Ottoman Empire; (2) Ottoman (Osmanlıca), the language of the Ottoman Empire, heavily influenced by Arabic and Persian; and (3) Modern Turkish (Yeni Tu¨rkc¸e), dating from the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire and from the Turkish language reform movement of the 1920s and 1930s. The Turkish language reform movement was
Turkish 1113
launched by Atatu¨rk as part of his overall plan to distance Turkey from Middle Eastern, specifically Arabic and Persian, influences, in favor of European influence. This movement in the language area included most noticeably the replacement of the Arabic writing system with a Latin alphabet in 1928, and a drive to replace Arabic and Persian vocabulary, once pervasive in Ottoman texts, with vocabulary drawn or constructed from Turkish sources, or Turkish-looking inventions. The drive to cleanse the lexicon has waxed and waned over the interim and has acquired political correlates: writers on the left tend to use neologisms; those on the right use a more traditional vocabulary. There has been no corresponding attempt to rid the lexicon of European or English terminology (for more on the language reform movement, see Lewis (1999)). In 1997, a committee of the American Association of Teachers of Turkic Languages attempted to create a standardized English terminology for Turkish, which is used here.
Phonology Phonemes
Consonants The International Phonetic Association (IPA) representations of the Turkish consonant system are shown in Table 1. Turkish uses 21 letters for consonants: b c c¸ d f g g˘ h j k l m n p r s s¸ t v y z. These represent the expected sounds, except as follows: Letter c c¸ j s¸
Sound [dZ] [tS] [Z] [S]
In the following discussions, [tS] and [dZ] will henceforth be written /cˇ/ and //, since they function in all phonological respects as members of the natural class of stops, not as clusters. The letters k g l each stand for two sounds: a plain velar or lateral [k g l] and a front velar or palatal [c L]. In words of Turkish origin, the front velar variant occurs with front vowels and the plain velar occurs with back vowels.
In words of Arabic origin, however, /c L/ can occur with back vowels, giving rise to pairs and thus distinctive contrasts, as in kar ‘snow’ [kAr] and kaˆr ‘profit’ [cAr]. The letter g˘, or yumus¸ak ge ‘soft g’, has no consonantal sound. It normally represents an historical or underlying /g/ that has been deleted; in some Anatolian dialects, it survives as a voiced fricative [X]. Most commonly, g˘ lengthens the preceding vowel in syllable-final (coda) position, and represents nothing between vowels, as in dag˘ ‘mountain’ [dA:] and dag˘a ‘mountain (dat)’ [dAA]. Vowels Turkish vowels are traditionally represented in a ‘cube’ shape, consisting of all possible values of the features, front/back, high/low, and rounded/ unrounded, as in Figure 1. Each vowel can occur long, from the deletion of g˘, and the vowels /e i a u/ can occur long in Arabic loanwords, giving a total of 16 vowel phonemes. The vowel letters are for the most part self-explanatory, except for ı, an undotted ‘i,’ which is a high back unrounded vowel, IPA [M]. All Turkish vowels are phonetically lax, except sometimes before y or g˘, thus a e i ı o o¨ u u¨ sound like [A E I M O œ o Y]. Because the difference between ı and i is distinctive, it must be maintained for capitals also, i.e., I and I˙. Stress Stress in Turkish consists of higher pitch, rather than greater loudness on the accented syllable. Stress is normally on the last syllable of the word; as affixes are added, stress moves rightward: (1) e´l elle´r ellerı´m
‘hand’ ‘hands’ ‘my hands’
There are a number of exceptions to final stress. Some words have inherent nonfinal stress, and in these cases stress does not move with the addition of affixes. Inherently stressed words include most loans, which have their own rule for accent; in such cases, the accent may fall on a syllable other
Table 1 International Phonetic Association symbols for Turkish consonants Labial
Dental
Palatal
Front velar
Velar
p b f v m
t d s z n l r
tS dZ S Z
c
k g
l L
Glottal
h Figure 1 Turkish vowels. Front vowels are represented at the front of the cube, high vowels are at the top, and rounded vowels are to the right. Reproduced from Underhill R (1976) Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. With kind permission by MIT Press.
1114 Turkish
than that which is stressed in the source language, as in sine´ma ‘cinema’ and Kene´di ‘Kennedy’. Some affixes are prestressing; stress then falls on the preceding syllable and remains there as additional affixes are added. The rules for stress and much else in Turkish phonology are extensively worked out in Demircan (2001). Phonological Rules
Turkish being an agglutinating language, suffixes are added to stems in such a manner that segmentation is relatively easy. However, a number of changes take place in both stems and suffixes when this happens. Vowel Harmony Vowel harmony involves the two features front/back and rounded/unrounded. It is a syllable-to-syllable process by which each vowel conditions the following vowel, according to the following rules: 1. Any of the vowels can occur in the first syllable of a word. 2. A noninitial vowel assimilates to the previous vowel in frontness. 3. A noninitial high vowel assimilates to the previous vowel in rounding. A noninitial low vowel is unrounded. Thus /o o¨/ do not appear in harmonic suffixes. The process is illustrated in Table 2, which shows how the stem, dative (suffix -yA), and objective (suffix -yI) case forms of a set of nouns are used (in morphophonemic transcription, the symbol A represents the alternation between /a/ and /e/, and the symbol I represents the alternation /i ı u u¨/). A few native words and very many foreign words are nonharmonic, such as kardes¸ ‘brother’, otel ‘hotel’, and sigorta ‘insurance’. This has led some scholars to claim that vowel harmony no longer holds for stems (Clements and Sezer, 1982). In the case of a nonharmonic word, suffixes are controlled by the last syllable, as in asanso¨r ‘elevator’ (plural asanso¨rler) and kredikart ‘credit card’ (plural kredikartlar).
Other Phonological Rules Beyond vowel harmony, stems and suffixes have a highly changeable nature. Suffix-initial voiced stops devoice after a stem ending in an unvoiced consonant. Many suffixes have different postconsonantal and postvocalic forms. Stems also undergo a number of rules designed to maintain canonical syllable structure, particularly in closed syllables. Among the rules applying to syllables are final devoicing, epenthesis, degemination, and vowel shortening. There are many details concerning these rules, but as an extreme example, the verbal noun suffix best written as -DIg has 16 forms: -dik/dık/duk/du¨k/tik/tık/tuk/tu¨k/dig˘/dıg˘/dug˘/du¨g˘/tig˘/ tıg˘/tug˘/tu¨g˘
Morphology Turkish is an agglutinating language in which suffixes, in some cases a large number of them (the lists of suffixes in the following sections are not exhaustive), are added fairly transparently to stems: (2) ev evler evlerim evlerimiz evlerimizde evlerimizdeki
‘house’ ‘houses’ ‘my houses’ ‘our houses’ ‘in our houses’ ‘which is in our houses’
The Noun Paradigm
Noun stems may have the following inflectional suffixes, in order: 1. Plural -lAr (as in baba ‘father’, babalar ‘fathers’ and deve ‘camel’, develer camels). 2. Possessive (possessed agreement). 3. Case (as in oda ‘room’). (3) Nominative: Genitive (-(n)In): Dative (-yA): Objective (-yI): Locative (-DA): Ablative (-DAn): Instrumental/comitative (-y-lA):
oda odanın odaya odayı odada odadan odayla
Table 2 Turkish vowel harmony
The Verb Paradigm Stem
Gloss
Dative
Objective
bal kıl ok buz ev il go¨l gu¨l
‘honey’ ‘hair’ ‘arrow’ ‘ice’ ‘house’ ‘province’ ‘lake’ ‘rose’
bala kıla oka buza eve ile go¨le gu¨le
balı kılı oku buzu evi ili go¨lu¨ gu¨lu¨
Starting with the verb root, a number of derivational suffixes can be added to build up the verb stem. These include reflexive, reciprocal, causative, passive, impossibility, negative, and abilitative forms. At this point, from the verb stem, it is possible to go in a number of directions. For a finite (‘tensed’) verb, the next step is a tense suffix, followed normally by a personal ending:
Turkish 1115 (4) General present: Progressive: (Definite) past: Unwitnessed past: Future: Necessitative: Optative: Conditional:
gelirim geliyorum geldim gelmis¸im geleceg˘im gelmeliyim geleyim gelsem
‘I come’, ‘I’ll come’ ‘I am coming’ ‘I came’ ‘I (supposedly) came ‘I will come’ ‘I ought to come’ ‘let me come’ ‘if I come’
There is also a wide range of nonfinite suffixes possible at this point for the formation of subordinate clauses. These include verbal nouns or nominalizations, participles, and adverbial clause suffixes (traditional ‘converbs’). Auxiliary Suffixes
Finally, there is a group of suffixes that can be categorized under the heading of ‘auxiliary’. They can be added both to verbal and nonverbal predicates, hence a separate auxiliary category. They include most prominently the personal endings, but also some morphemes that can be called ‘aspects’, although they are not all aspects any more than the tenses are all tenses (abbreviations: SG, singular; PROG, progressive): (5) Yorgun -du tired -PAST ‘I was tired’.
-m. –1SG
(6) Gel -iyor -du come -PROG -PAST ‘I was coming’.
-m. -1SG
The aspects are past -y-DI, dubitative -y-mIs¸, and conditional -y-sA. Furthermore, there is an adverbial aspect -y-ken. These look very similar to some tenses, i.e., definite past -DI, unwitnessed past -mIs¸, and conditional –sA, but they differ in morphology, meaning, and prosody (all auxiliary suffixes are prestressing). The inferential/quotative, sometimes called dubitative (DUB), -y-mIs¸, deserves special discussion. This aspect, and to some extent the corresponding tense, -mIs¸, are used when the speaker wishes to be disassociated from the truth of the utterance – for example, when the speaker has information that has only been heard or recently found out (VB, verb): (7) Sen tembel -mis¸ -sin. you lazy -DUB -2SG ‘They say you are lazy’. (8) Gec¸en sene hasta -lan-mıs¸-sın. past year sick -VB-DUB–2SG ‘(I heard) you got sick last year’.
The dubitative can also be used for statements for which the speaker does have personal knowledge of
the fact, but is expressing something unexpected or surprising – for example, after trying a food that the speaker had expected to dislike: (9) Bu yemek iyi this food good ‘This food is good!’
-mis¸! -DUB
Syntax
Unmarked (normal) word order is subject-object-verb, as shown in the following example (OBJ, objective; DAT, dative): (10) Hasan Hasan
mektub -u letter -OBJ Ays¸e-ye go¨nder -di. Ays¸e-DAT send -PAST ‘Hasan sent the letter to Ays¸e’.
However, this is complicated by the fact that Turkish has pragmatically conditioned word order, by which the information status of noun phrases, rather than their grammatical function, determines their placement in the sentence. Many of the basic principles were worked out by Erguvanlı (1984). The topic is sentence initial; thus, any of the terms of Example (10) could be initial, depending on whether Hasan, the letter, or Ays¸e is the topic. New information comes in the preverbal position, thus any of the terms of Example (10), if indefinite, would move preverbally: (11) Mektub-u letter-OBJ
Ays¸e-ye bir Ays¸e-DAT a arkadas¸ go¨nder-di. friend send-PAST ‘A friend sent the letter to Ayse’.
In fact, preverbal position is focus position; thus, whwords are found here, as well as words questioned contrastively, the focused words in the answers to whquestions, or any focused argument. Though the canonical sentence pattern for English might be written as subject-verb-object-X, where X is everything else, the pattern for Turkish would be topic-X-focus verb, and is thus determined by pragmatic rather than by grammatical conditions. Furthermore, sentences are not necessarily verb final. Backgrounded or unstressed information can move to the right of the verb, producing what is traditionally called a devrik cu¨mle (tu¨mce), or ‘inverted sentence’ (NEG, negative; PL, plural): (12) Ver-me c¸ocug˘-a kibrit-ler-i. give-NEG child-DAT match-PL-OBJ ‘Don’t give the child the matches’.
The focus in Example (12) is ‘don’t give,’ and the child and the matches will have been previously
1116 Turkmen
mentioned or are clear in the context, i.e., are ‘given’ in the sense of functional syntax. Turkish is a left-branching and head-final language in which nouns follow adjectives (Example (13)), possessives (Example (14)), and relative clauses (Example (15)); postpositions follow noun phrases (Example (16)), and verbs follow direct objects, even subordinate clauses (Example (17)) (GEN, genitive; POSS, possessive; LOC, locative; PART, participle; ABL, ablative; VN, verbal noun; FUT, future): (13) c¸ok ku¨c¸u¨k bir very small a ‘A very small child’.
c¸ocuk. child
(14) Enver-in s¸apka-sı. Enver-GEN hat-POSS ‘Enver’s hat’. (15) Ko¨s¸e-de otur-an kız. corner-LOC sit-PART girl ‘The girl who is sitting in the corner’. (16) Bu haber-den dolayı. because this news-ABL ‘Because of this news’. (17) Hasan-ın yarın Hasan-GEN tomorrow gel-eceg˘-in-i duy-du–m. come-VN.FUT–3SG-OBJ hear-PAST–1SG ‘I heard that Hasan will come tomorrow’.
Notice from Example (17) that Turkish is a pro-drop language (‘pronoun dropping’; i.e., subject pronouns
normally are not used, as in Latin or Spanish). Overt pronouns appear in cases of focus or contrast, including topic change. Because relative clauses precede head nouns, and direct objects (including noun complement clauses) precede the main verb, Turkish sentences sometimes give the impression of having the reverse word order from English. English speakers reading Turkish sometimes find it easier to start at the end of a sentence and read toward the front, and Turkish speakers report that they do the same in reading English.
Bibliography Clements G N & Sezer E (1982). ‘Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish.’ In van der Hulst H & Smith N (eds.) The structure of phonological representations, part II. Dordrecht: Foris. 213–255. ¨ (2001). Tu¨rkc¸enin ses dizimi. I˙stanbul: Der Demircan O Yayınları. Erguvanlı (Taylan) E (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kornfilt J (1997). Turkish grammar. London: Routledge. Lewis G (1999). The Turkish language reform: a catastrophic success. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poppe N (1960). Vergleichende grammatik der Altaischen sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Taylan E E (2001). The verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Underhill R (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Turkmen L Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Location and Speakers Turkmen (tu¨rkmen dili, tu¨rkmencˇe) belongs to the southwestern or Oghuz branch of the Turkic language family, which also includes Turkish. It is mainly spoken in Turkmenistan (Tu¨rkmenistan do¨wleti), which is located in the Transcaspian region and whose capital is Ashgabat. Turkmenistan borders on Iran and Afghanistan in the south, Uzbekistan in the east, and Kazakhstan in the north. The area of distribution of Turkmen extends from the southeastern shore of the Caspian Sea to the Kazakh-speaking area in the north, the Karakalpak-speaking area in the northeast, the Uzbek-speaking area in the east, beyond
the Amudarya River, and the Persian (Farsi, Western) and Khorasan Oghuz (Khorasani Turkish) areas in the south, beyond the borders to Afghanistan and Iran. Though Turkmens make up 85% of the 4.8 million inhabitants, only 72% speak Turkmen. The other main languages are Russian (12%) and Uzbek (9%). Turkmen-speaking groups also live in the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, China, etc. The total number of speakers amounts to nearly 5 million. The designation ‘Turkmen’ is not unequivocal. Older Oghuz varieties spoken in Khorezm, Khorasan, Azerbaijan, Anatolia, and other regions in the Near East were referred to as ‘Turkmen.’ Several nomadic groups in Anatolia, Iraq, etc. are still called ‘Turkmen’ without being Turkmen in a linguistic sense. Since the mid-1990s, language policy aims at consolidating Turkmen as the state language and to remove the Russian dominance. Turkmen is gaining
Turkmen 1117
more social functions. The 1992 constitution defines it as the ‘‘official language of inter-ethnic communication.’’ Geographic names and administrative terms have been changed from Russian to Turkmen. In practice, however, Russian has maintained its importance in most spheres of public communication.
Origin and History The Turkmens go back to the Turkic-speaking Oghuz confederation of tribes, whose Inner Asian steppe empire collapsed in 744. Certain Oghuz groups migrated into the region between the Syrdarya and Ural rivers. By the late 10th century, the Seljuk dynasty was founded, and an autonomous state was established on the lower Syrdarya. The Seljuks left this region in the middle of the 11th century and migrated westwards. Their modern descendants are the Turks of Khorasan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. The speakers of Turkmen are mainly descendants of non-Seljuk groups that did not take part in these migrations. During the Mongol conquests in the 13th century, the remaining Oghuz tribes were pushed into the Karakum desert and the region east of the Caspian Sea. From the 16th century on, Turkmen groups migrated to Khorezm, to the southern part of today’s Turkmenistan, and to Khorasan, absorbing local Turkic and Iranian elements. The major migrations of the Salı¨r, Ersarı¨, Sarı¨q and Teke tribes took place in the 17th century. In the 18th century, the Turkmens conquered the whole core area that they inhabit today. Most tribes were subsequently divided and controlled by the Uzbek khanates of Khiwa and Bukhara, while the Persian shahs tried to subdue the southern tribes. The dependence of Khiwa and Persia came to an end after the mid-19th century. Some decades later, Russia annexed the Turkmen territory, which caused many Turkmen groups to emigrate to Afghanistan and Iran. The Turkmen area was first administered as the Trans-Caspian district in the Governorate of Turkistan. In 1924, Turkmenistan was proclaimed a Socialist Soviet Republic. In connection with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Turkmenistan declared its sovereignty in 1990, achieved its independence in 1991 (after a popular referendum), and adopted its new constitution in 1992.
(Azerbaijani) and Turkish represent the western subbranch. The specific features of Turkmen are partly archaic and partly innovative, due to language contact. Within the Turkic family, Khorasan Turkic, Uzbek, and Karakalpak are the most important contact languages. Turkmen has had intensive contacts with Persian and, during the last century, with Russian.
The Written Language Old Turkmen is not clearly documented in written sources. The oldest records of ‘Turkmen’ relate to Oghuz varieties in general. Oghuz texts of the following centuries do not exhibit any specific Turkmen features. A written Turkmen literature began in the 18th century, but the language used is a variety of the classical Chaghatay (Chagatai) language. A Turkmen standard language was created in the Soviet era and formed mainly from 1928 on. It was based on the Teke dialect as spoken in the Ashgabat region. Arabic script was used in the first period. Two script reforms, in 1922 and 1925, aimed at reflecting spoken features more adequately. A Roman-based alphabet that reflected most of these features rather accurately was in use from 1928 to 1940. A variant of the Cyrillic alphabet was adopted in 1939–1940. Since the early 1990s, there has been a transition to a Roman-based script again. In 1993, the final version of a Roman-based alphabet was adopted to replace the Cyrillic one. It has several unique letters that distinguish it from Turkey’s alphabet and the newly adopted alphabets of other Turkic republics.
Distinctive Features Turkmen exhibits most linguistic features typical of the Turkic family (see Turkic Languages). It is an agglutinative language with suffixing morphology, sound harmony, and a head-final constituent order. In the following, only a few distinctive features will be dealt with. In the notation of suffixes, capital letters indicate phonetic variation, e.g., A ¼ a/e, I ¼ ı¨/i. Segments in round brackets only occur after consonant final stems. Hyphens are used here to indicate morpheme boundaries.
Phonology Related Languages and Language Contacts The closest relative of Turkmen is Khorasan Turkic (Khorasani), spoken in northeastern Iran and Khorazm, a distinct language with which it constitutes the eastern subbranch of Oghuz. Azerbaijanian
Turkmen has, like Yakut and Khalaj, preserved ProtoTurkic long vowels in a consistent way, e.g., a:t ‘name’ < a:t (but at ‘horse’ < at), do¨:rt ‘four’ vs. Turkish do¨rt < to¨:rt. The orthography does not normally mark vowel length, but u¨: in words of Turkic origin is expressed by u¨y, e.g., su¨yt for [yu¨:t] ‘milk’.
1118 Turkmen
Proto-Turkic e: is mostly represented by Turkmen i, which mostly corresponds to Azerbaijanian e, e.g., gi:cˇ ‘late’ (Azerbaijanian gecˇ, Turkish gec¸). A striking feature of Turkmen pronunciation is the presence of the interdental fricatives y and d, which correspond to s and z in other Turkic languages, e.g., yid ‘you’ (Turkish siz). As in Azerbaijanian, the word-initial back velar g˙. corresponds to q- in other Turkic languages, e.g., gı¨:d . ‘girl’ (Azerbaijanian gı¨z, Turkish kız). Initial b- is preserved in ber- ‘to give’, ba:r ‘existing’, bar- ‘to go’ and bol- ‘to become’ (Turkish ver-, var, var-, ol-). The bilabial fricative b is used instead of labiodental v, e.g., a:b ‘hunt’ (Turkish av). It appears as the glide w between two vowels or between a liquid and a vowel. The bilabial fricative f is frequently replaced by the stop p in loans, e.g., pikir ‘thought’ (Turkish fikir). Suffix vowels mostly assimilate to the quality of the preceding vowel. Turkmen displays both front vs. back harmony and rounded vs. unrounded harmony. The latter also includes suffixes with low vowels, e.g., toy-do [feast-LOC] ‘at the feast’ vs. o¨ydo¨ [house-LOC] ‘in the house’. Long a: and e: are not rounded; there are also other exceptions. Though the orthography represents the vowels of rather closely, rounding harmony is not consistently represented. Rounding is only expressed in high vowels and not beyond the second syllable. The tendency towards rounded low suffix vowels is also observed in languages such as Kirghiz, Altay Turkic (Altai), and Yakut. Numerous consonant assimilations are observed, . e.g., men-ne [I-LOC] ‘in me’, gı¨d-dan [girl-ABL] ‘from the girl’, yol-losˇ [way-DER] ‘comrade’ (Turkish ben-de [I-LOC], kiz-dan [girl-ABL], yol-das¸ [way-DER]). They are mostly not reflected in the orthography. In copies of loanwords, nonpermissible consonant clusters are dissolved by means of prothetic or epenthetic vowels, e.g., uyyul ‘chair’ < Russian stul, pikir ‘thought’ < Arabic fikr. In recent loanwords from Russian, these vowels are not reflected orthographically.
Grammar The comparative degree of adjectives is formed with -rA:K, e.g., kicˇire:k [small-COMP] ‘smaller, rather small’ (kicˇi ‘small’). The demonstrative pronouns bu:, sˇu:, ol and sˇo[l] form a fourfold deictic system, expressing various degrees of distance (Turkish bu, o and s¸u). The old present tense, mostly called ‘indefinite future,’ is formed with -Ar, e.g., bil-er [know-AOR] ‘will know’ (Turkish bil-ir [know-AOR]), oqa:-r
[read-AOR] ‘will read’ (Turkish oku-r [read-AOR]). The negative marker is -mAd in the third person, and -mAr in the other persons, e.g., gel-mer-in [come-NEG.AOR-1.SG] ‘I will not come’ (Turkish gel-me-m [come-NEG.AOR-1.SG], Azerbaijanian gel-mer-em [come-NEG.AOR-1.SG]). A more focused present tense is formed with -yA:r, often contracted to -yA, e.g., bil-ye:r [know-PRES.3.SG] ‘knows’, oqa-ya:r [read-PRES.3.SG] ‘reads, is reading’. A few verbs exhibit contracted forms without this marker: du:r [stand-PRES.3.SG] ‘is standing’, otı¨:r [sit-PRES.3.SG] ‘is sitting’, yatı¨:r [lie-PRES. 3.SG] ‘is lying’. These forms can be used with a converb marker to express a continuous present, e.g., oqa:-p otı¨:r [read-CONV AUX-PRES.3.SG] ‘is reading’. The second-person imperatives include an unmarked singular, e.g., gel [come.IMP.2.SG] ‘come!’, a form expressing insistence, e.g., gel-gin [come-IMP.2.SG], a plural form, e.g., gel-in [come.IMP.2.PL], and intensifying forms, e.g., gel-yen-e [come-IMP.2.SG] (singular) and gel-ye-nid-la¨:n [come-IMP.2.PL] (plural). The firstperson plural has a special form that only refers to the speaker and the addressee, e.g., gel-eli-n [comeIMP.1.PL] ‘let us come’, gel-eli [come-IMP.1.INCL] ‘let us come (you and me)’. The future marker -AK and the intentional marker -mAK-cˇI lack personal markers, e.g., men gel-ek [I come-FUT] ‘I will come’ (Turkish gel-ecegˇ-im [comeFUT.1.SG]), men yad-maq-cˇı¨ [I write-INTENT] ‘I intend to write’. Turkmen has a postterminal (‘past’) participle marker -An and an intraterminal (‘present’) participle marker -yA:n, e.g., bil-en [know-POSTTERMINAL.PART] ‘having known’, bil-ye:n [knowINTRATERMINAL.PART] ‘knowing’. A categorical negation is formed with the participle in -An þ possessive suffix þ yo:q ‘non-existing’, e.g., al-amo:q (
Turkmen 1119
CONV-EV.3SG] ‘has reportedly come’. A presumptive intraterminal (present, imperfect) is formed with -yA:n-dIr, a presumptive postterminal (perfect) with -A:n-dIr, e.g., bar-ya:n-nı¨r [go-INTRATERMINAL. PART-PRESUMP.3.SG] ‘is probably going’, bar-an -nı¨r [go-POSTTERMINAL.PART-PRESUMP.3.SG] ‘has probably gone’. A number of postverb constructions with converbs . plus auxiliary verbs, goy- ‘to put’, git- ‘to go away’, cˇı¨q- ‘to go out’, dur- ‘stand’, otur- ‘sit’, yo¨r- ‘move’, etc., express modifications of the manner in which the action denoted by the lexical verb is carried out.
Lexicon The Turkmen vocabulary is basically of southwestern Turkic origin, though it also contains words typical of the Northwestern and Southeastern branches of Turkic. There are synonyms representing Oghuz and . non-Oghuz types, e.g., gapı¨ and isˇik ‘door’, dodaq and erin ‘lip’. The vocabulary contains numerous words of Arabic and Persian origin, borrowed from Persian and representing the traditional sphere of Islamic civilization, e.g., xat ‘letter’, ı¨nya:n ‘human being’, sˇa:t ‘glad’, gu¨l ‘flower’, irenk ‘color’. The Turkmen conjunctions are mainly of Arabo-Persian origin, e.g., we ‘and’, emma: ‘but’. Words of Russian origin, borrowed from the 19th century on, represent phenomena of modern life, e.g., poyyolok ‘settle. ment’, gadyet ‘newspaper’, fe:rma ‘farm’. The vocabulary contains many recent internationalisms borrowed via Russian.
Dialects Turkmen dialects and subdialects are referred to by the names of tribes and clans. One main dialect group comprises the Teke, Yomud, Sarı¨q, Salı¨r, Go¨kleng and Ersari dialects, which are rather close to Standard Turkmen. The Teke dialect, occupying the central
area, has two subdialects, Marı¨ and Akhal, the latter spoken in the Ashgabat region. The Yomud dialect is spoken on the southeast shore of the Caspian Sea and in the northern part of Turkmenistan. Ersarı¨ dialects are spoken in the eastern part of the country. The second main dialect group is found in the regions on and beyond the borders to Iran and Uzbekistan. These dialects are more distant from Standard Turkmen, lacking, for example, the interdental pronunciation of the sibilants s and z. An isolated variety of Turkmen is Tu¨rkpen (Russian Trukhmen), spoken by small groups (ca. 12 000) on the lower Kuma River in the Stavropol region of Northern Caucasus. Tu¨rkpen is strongly influenced by Noghay (Nogai). Its speakers are descended from Turkmen tribes that migrated here in the 18th century from the Mangyshlak region east of the Caspian Sea. Salar, spoken in western China, seems to go back to an early Turkmen variety.
Bibliography Baskakov N A et al. (eds.) (1970). Grammatika turkmenskogo jazyka. Asˇxabad: Akademija Nauk Turkmenskoj SSR. Bazin L (1959). ‘Le turkme`ne.’ In Deny J et al. (eds.) Philologiae turcicae fundamenta 1. Aquis Mattiacis: Steiner. 308–317. Clark L (1998). Turkmen grammar. Turcologica 34. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dulling G K (1960). An introduction to the Turkmen language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hanser O (1977). Turkmen manual. Descriptive grammar of contemporary literary Turkmen. Texts. Glossary. Wien: Verlag des Verbandes der wissenschaftlichen ¨ sterreichs. Gesellschaften O Johanson L (2001). ‘Turkmen.’ In Garry J & Rubino C (eds.) Facts about the world’s major languages: An encyclopedia of the world’ major languages, past and present. New York, Dublin: The H. W. Wilson Company, New England Publishing Associates. 766–769.
This page intentionally left blank
U Ugaritic J A Hackett, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Ugaritic language was rediscovered after a 3000year gap, when, in spring of 1928, a farmer discovered a tomb at Minet el-Beida, on the Mediterranean, in what is now Syria, about 12 km from modern Latakia and a few hundred yards away from a large tell called Ras Shamra, ‘Cape Fennel.’ In 1929, the French began excavating what turned out to be a large necropolis. They soon moved on to the nearby tell of Ras Shamra, and in May of that year the first Ugaritic cuneiform clay tablets were found. After the first tablets were published in 1930, it was clear that the repertoire of signs was small (only 30), and so the writing system was assumed to be alphabetic and without vowels. Within months, the language was essentially deciphered. The identification of the site with ancient Ugarit was confirmed in the early 1930s with the discovery of a tablet that mentioned Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit. Ugaritic is one branch of the Northwest Semitic languages, along with the Canaanite languages, the several forms of Aramaic, and other less welldocumented languages. It is written in a cuneiform alphabet on clay tablets. Because the acrophonic linear alphabet predates the Ugaritic alphabet by several centuries, Ugaritic cuneiform was probably devised to adapt the idea of the alphabet to the medium of clay and stylus. Our earliest abecedaries, which are texts that list the letters of an alphabet written in a standard order, come from Ugarit, and they exhibit both the usual West Semitic order and, strikingly, the South Semitic order in a very few texts. Why abecedaries in this South Semitic order were present at Ugarit is so far unknown. Ugaritic exhibits individual signs for 27 consonants of the West Semitic languages, plus three extra signs. There are two extra ’aleph signs, plus one for a sibilant that is used for loanwords. The three ’aleph signs are transcribed ’a, ’i, and ’u: ’a is used when an ’aleph in a word is followed by the vowel /a/, ’i is used when ’aleph is followed by /i/ or /e/ (<*ay), and
’u is used when ’aleph is followed by /u/ or /o/ (<*aw). A syllable-closing ’aleph is marked by ’i. These three signs have been very helpful in determining the vocalization of Ugaritic words, as have syllabaries that include Ugaritic words spelled out in Akkadian cuneiform, which is syllabic and so includes vowels. The Ugaritic consonants, given in the indigenous alphabet order, are ,’ b, g, , d, h, w, z, h. , .t, y, k, sˇ, l, m, d, n, z. , s, ı, p, s. , q, r, t, g. , t (plus, as was noted ¯ above, two extra ’ signs and¯ a sibilant sign used for loanwords). The vowels reconstructed for Ugaritic are a, i, u, a¯, ¯ı, u¯, o (<*aw), and e (<*ay). This cuneiform alphabet also exists in a shorter form of 22 signs, indicating that where this shorter alphabet is used, several mergers of consonants have taken place. A few tablets written in this shorter alphabet come from the site of Ugarit, but many were found farther south, at Sarepta and Kamid el-Loz in Lebanon, and at Taanach, Mt. Tabor, and Beth Shemesh in Israel. The city-state of Ugarit was an important port, with its position on the Mediterranean and its proximity to Cyprus on the west, and its access to inland routes to the north and east. There are writings found at Ugarit in several different languages: besides Ugaritic, there are texts in Akkadian (the lingua franca of the time), Sumerian, Hittite (both syllabic cuneiform and hieroglyphic), Egyptian, Hurrian, and CyproMinoan. Texts found at the sites of Mari, Alalakh, and Amarna, among others, mention the city-state. The Ugaritic texts cover a short period of time, probably late 14th to early 12th century B.C. Excavation continues, but as of this writing, approximately 50 poetic texts and 1500 prose texts have been found at Ras Shamra and at neighboring Ras Ibn Hani. The poetic texts are mythological; the prose texts are ritual and other cultic texts, administrative documents, letters, omens, medical texts, and school exercises. The poetic mythological texts are characterized by parallelism, as in these couplets from the Baal myth: Sea sends messengers/Judge River, a delegation; Message of Sea, your master/your lord, Judge River.
Like other West Semitic languages, Ugaritic has prefix- and suffix-conjugation verbs, yaqtulu/qatala,
1122 Ukrainian
but there are in addition two more prefixconjugations: yaqtul and yaqtula. The prefix-conjugation yaqtul serves as both a jussive, or indirect imperative, and as a preterit. The prefix-conjugation yaqtula is less well understood, but appears to serve as a volitive form; it also, however, seems to occur in subordinate (especially purpose) clauses. The verb stems that are extant in Ugaritic are G, Gt, D, tD, N, Sˇ (a causative), Sˇt (reflexive of the causative). Nominals in Ugaritic have masculine and feminine gender and singular, dual, and plural number. There are three cases in the singular – nominative, genitive, and accusative; the plural is diptotic – nominative and oblique. Nouns occur in both absolute (unbound) and bound states. The bound state is used for initial members of genitive chains called construct chains (see Semitic Languages) and for nouns before pronominal possessive suffixes. There is no marked definite article in Ugaritic. There is evidence for -ainsertion in the plurals of nouns of the shape C1vC2C3-: the (nominative) plural is C1vC2aC3u¯ma. For example, ‘king’ (nominative) is malku, and ‘kings’ is malaku¯ma (we can compare Biblical Hebrew me´lek, plural mela¯kıˆm).
Bibliography
Day P L (2002). ‘Ugaritic.’ In Kaltner J & McKenzie S L (eds.) Beyond Babel: a handbook for biblical Hebrew and related languages. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press. 223–241. Ginsberg H L (1970). ‘The Northwest Semitic languages.’ In Mazar B (ed.) The world history of the Jewish people, vol. 2. Givatayim: Jewish History Publications. 102–124. Goetze A (1941). ‘Is Ugaritic a Canaanite dialect?’ Language 17, 127–138. Gordon C (1965). Ugaritic textbook. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Pardee D (2004). ‘Ugaritic.’ In Woodard R (ed.) The Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 288–318. Pitard W (1999). ‘The alphabetic Ugaritic tablets.’ In Watson & Wyatt (eds.). 46–57. Rainey A F (1996). ‘Who is a Canaanite? A review of the textual evidence.’ Bulletin of the America Schools of Oriental Research 304, 1–15. Smith M S (2001). Untold stories: the Bible and Ugaritic studies in the twentieth century. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Tropper J (1994). ‘Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Language?’ In Brooke G J (ed.) Ugarit and the Bible. Mu¨nster: UgaritVerlag. 343–353. Watson W G E & Wyatt N (eds.) (1999). Handbook of Ugaritic studies. Handbuch der Orientalistik 39. Leiden: Brill.
Daniels P T & Bright W (eds.) (1996). The world’s writing systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ukrainian S Young, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Ukrainian, with some 36 million speakers in the Ukrainian Republic, forms with Russian and Belorussian the East Slavic branch of the Slavic language family. The standard language, which is written in the Cyrillic alphabet, has its roots in the 19th century – no enduring literary tradition had been able to form before this time – and is based on the relatively recent and uniform southeastern dialect. Since the late 19th century, the West Ukrainian (Galician) speech of L’viv has also played a role in the formation of the national standard. Among the vocalic features that distinguish Ukrainian from the rest of East Slavic are the preservation of o in unstressed syllables: voda´ /voda" / ‘water’ (Rus., BR /vada" /), and the merger of East Slavic (ESl.) i with y
to give a central-front mid vowel (represented in transliteration by y): synij ‘blue,’ like syn ‘son’ (Rus. sinij : syn). A new i developed in turn from ESl. *e¯: lis /l is/ ‘woods’ (Rus., BR /l is/) and from e and o in a secondarily closed syllable: sˇist’ ‘six’ (gen. sˇesty´), nis ‘nose’ (gen. no´sa). e > o after hushers and j: cˇoty´ry ‘four,’ joho´ ‘his’ (Rus. cˇety´re, jego´), but te´plyj ‘warm’ (Rus. te¨plyj /tjo`-). In contrast to Russian and Belorussian, Ukrainian consonants are not palatalized before e or y (the merger of ESl. i and y): nesty´ ‘to carry’ (Rus. nestı´ [-t i]), but there is palatalization before the new i representing ESl. *e¯, e, o: dı´ty [d i-] ‘children’ (Rus. de´ti), nis -n i-] ‘nose’ (Rus. nos). Stem-final c is typically palatalized: kinec’ [-ts ] ‘end,’ gen. kincja´ (Rus. kone´c, konca´); final labials lose palatalization: ho´lub ‘dove’ (Rus. go´lub’). Common Slavic /g/ has become /h/. Like Belorussian, Ukrainian has w (written v) corresponding to Russian v in a closed syllable: pra´vda [pra"wda] ‘truth,’ and in some cases (including
United States of America: Language Situation 1123
the masculine past tense marker) to l: vovk [vowk] ‘wolf’ (Rus. volk), buv [buw] ‘was, masc.’ (fem. bula´). Unlike other East Slavic languages, there is no regressive devoicing of voiced consonants: ka´zka ‘tale’ (with z preserved), or final devoicing: did ‘grandfather’ (with final d). In addition to the six nominal case forms of Russian and Belorussian, Ukrainian has a regular vocative (sy´nu ‘son!,’ nom. syn). As in Belorussian, there is an alternation of velar and dental stems in certain case forms: nom. rik ‘year,’ loc. ro´ci; nom. rih ‘corner,’ loc. ro´zi. The verb has two regular conjugation patterns, illustrated by nesty´ ‘to carry’ (I) and xody´ty ‘to walk, go’ (II): 1SG nesu´, xodzˇu´, 2SG nese´sˇ, xo´dysˇ, 3SG nese´, xo´dyt’, 1PL nesemo´, xo´dym, 2PL nesete´, xo´dyte, 3PL nesu´t’, xo´djat’ (like Belorussian, but unlike Russian, the 3rd person ending is palatalized). Unlike Russian or Belorussian, there is no alternation of velar and palatal stems in Ist conjugation verbs, the palatal stem having been generalized: mohty´ ‘to be able’: mo´zˇu, mo´zˇesˇ (BR mahu´, mo´zˇasˇ). Lexically, Ukrainian lacks the Church Slavicisms characteristic of Russian (Ukr. skorocˇu´ ‘shorten.1SG
PF,’ with ESl. s-, oro, cˇ; cf. Rus. sokrasˇcˇu´, with ChSl. so-, ra, and sˇcˇ), but shows a large number of borrowings from Polish: cika´vyj ‘interesting’ (Pol. ciekawy, but Rus. intere´snyj), raxu´nok ‘bill, account’ (Pol. rachunek, but Rus. scˇe¨t), otryma´ty ‘to receive’ (Pol. otrzymac´, but Rus. polucˇı´t’).
Bibliography Pugh S M & Press I (1999). Ukrainian: a comprehensive grammar. New York and London: Routledge. Shevelov G (1966). Die ukrainische Schriftsprache 1798–1965. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Shevelov G (1979). A historical phonology of the Ukrainian language. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Shevelov G (1980). ‘Ukrainian.’ In Schenker A & Stankiewicz E (eds.) The Slavic literary languages: formation and development. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies. 143–160. Shevelov G (1993). ‘Ukrainian.’ In Comrie B & Corbett G (eds.) The Slavonic languages. London and New York: Routledge. 947–998.
United States of America: Language Situation D Sharma, King’s College London, London, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The linguistic landscape of the United States, though dominated by English, encompasses an unusual diversity of indigenous and immigrant languages. No federal law currently grants English the status of official language, but it is used for virtually all official and institutional functions. Americans tend to be relatively monolingual in English (82% in 2000, Figure 1), and Spanish (11%, Figure 1) and other languages (7%, Figure 2) have a minority status in terms of size of speech community and institutional support (Figure 2).
American English Regional and Social Varieties
English was first established in America by permanent settlers in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. By 1780, the number of people of European and African origin had increased to 2.8 million but more than 20% of European Americans were still from non-Englishspeaking communities, predominantly German, Dutch,
Swedish, Irish, and French. This heterogeneity influenced the lexical stock of American English (e.g., bayou, caribou, prairie (French); cookie, waffle (Dutch); noodle, snorkel (German); corral, ranch (Spanish)) as well as its regional dialect features; Minnesota English, for instance, bears traces of Swedish phonology and syntax. German (German, Standard) once had a substantial presence, but native use is now primarily limited to the dialect of German known as Pennsylvania Dutch. Standard American English is distinctive in its phonology (rhoticity, except in parts of the South and the Northeast; greater use of /æ/, e.g., fast, can’t; intervocalic flapping of /t/, e.g., butter, writer; widespread leveling of the vowel distinction in caught and cot, except in the Northeast), syntax (simple past in perfect contexts, e.g., Did you see that film yet?; use of gotten), lexicon (sidewalk, carpark, elevator, schmuck), and spelling (center, neighbor, analyze; Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language [1828] introduced many revisions). Early linguistic atlases (Kurath, 1949) used isoglosses of lexical variants such as pail/bucket to identify three primary English dialect divisions in the United States – South, North and, to a lesser extent, Midland – within which further minor dialect divisions occur. More
1124 United States of America: Language Situation
Figure 1 Use of English and Spanish relative to total population in 1999 and 2000 (population 5 years and over). Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003).
Figure 2 Ten Languages most frequently spoken at home other than English and Spanish in 1999 and 2000 (population 5 years and over). Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003).
recent studies of contemporary dialectal phonological systems continue to reflect these divisions; new dialects are now also beginning to coalesce in more recently settled parts of the West.
Early English-speaking settlers arrived from distinct dialect regions of England and as the frontier later shifted westward, their distinct speech patterns spread along conduits of travel (see Figure 3). While
United States of America: Language Situation 1125
Figure 3 European settlement of North America since the mid-eighteenth century. Source: Reproduced from Graddol, Leith, and Swann (1996: 199).
certain features of American English have been argued to originate in the dialects of Early Modern English that first came to America (e.g., rhoticity; use of /æ/; gotten; mad ‘angry’; fall ‘autumn’), most dialect distinctions were rapidly leveled through early admixture in settlements. The distinctive features of present-day American English dialects therefore tend to derive more from ongoing language change than from early British English. Pioneering work by William Labov and other sociolinguists, beginning in the 1960s, has demonstrated that social groupings are also a key factor in American dialects. For instance, the Northern Cities Vowel shift – a series of shifts in pronunciation in the area encompassing Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, and Cleveland – results in certain linguistic features that function as social markers of class, ethnicity, age, and gender, and the associated prestige or stigma of such markers effects dialect change. This research has also indicated that despite the influence of media certain dialect boundaries, e.g., the North–South division, are strengthening in some respects.
meaning; nonstandard auxiliary use of been and done; null copula, e.g., He workin’; negative inversion and multiple negation, e.g., Ain’t nobody told me nothing.), lexicon, and styles of discourse (e.g., toasting, signifying, playing the dozens). Research has shown these features to be systematic and rule-governed, as in all dialects. British English and Creoles have both been proposed as possible origins. In 1996, the linguistic status of African-American English came under public scrutiny as the Oakland School Board in California passed a resolution declaring a social and educational need to recognize that what they termed Ebonics was the primary language of many students in the county. Although the Linguistic Society of America passed a resolution affirming the importance of recognizing African-American Vernacular English as a systematic dialect, the intensity of the public debate surrounding the school board’s resolution led to its ultimate dissolution. The controversy unmasked deeply opposed popular views on the cultural status of vernacular dialects.
African-American English
The Debate over Bilingualism
The variety spoken by many African Americans bears several defining linguistic features in its phonology (word-final consonant cluster simplification, e.g., told, best; use of /t, d, f, v/ for /y, ð/, e.g., in these, with, thumb, bath), syntax (invariant be for habitual
Early supporters of installing English as the official language of the United States included Benjamin Franklin and Noah Webster, and the English-Only movement continues this effort. As of 2004, 23 states have adopted Official English laws. However, many
1126 United States of America: Language Situation
Figure 4 Language use and nativeness across generations among selected immigrant groups. Source: Data from Lo´pez (1982) as discussed by R. Bayley in Finegan and Rickford (2004: 274).
English-Only claims, e.g., immigrant resistance to learning English and detrimental effects of bilingualism, have been discredited: research finds consistently high rates of language shift to English among immigrants (see Figure 4), and the popular belief during the first half of the 20th century that bilingualism was detrimental to intellectual development has received no empirical support. In 1968, the Title VII Bilingual Education Act allocated federal funds to children with special linguistic needs. The Official English movement resists measures of this sort, while the English Plus movement, advocating a more bilingual model for the United States, supports them.
Spanish in the United States The arrival of Spanish in the United States predates that of English, and its development in the Southwest and the Northeast has followed distinct historical and demographic patterns. Spanish colonization began in Florida with Juan Ponce de Le´on’s visit in 1513, and spread soon after to Louisiana and the Southwest, where it was administered by the Spanish Viceroyalty, with colonial Spanish remaining the local prestige language for almost two centuries. After the Mexican-American war, almost half of Mexico was ceded to the United States in 1848, including all of present-day California, Nevada, and Utah and parts of Texas, New Mexico,
Colorado, Arizona, and Wyoming. Sustained Mexican migration has continually reinforced the Spanishspeaking population of many of these states. The Southwestern states are now home to just under half of the Spanish-speaking population in the United States. Sometimes termed Chicano Spanish, the Southwestern variety bears characteristics of Mexican Spanish and American English. English influence can be seen in lexical innovations (e.g., libreria (not biblioteca) ‘library’; parientes (not padres) ‘parents’; puchar ‘to push’; fensa ‘fence’; cama king ‘king-size bed’); English-based phonology (e.g., moven for mueven, ‘they move’) and syntax (phrasal constructions in place of complex morphology) are also common. Spanish in the Northeast primarily originates from Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Colombia. In 1898, after the Spanish-American war, Puerto Rico became a territory of the United States and was the first major source of Spanish-speaking immigration to the East Coast. The majority of other immigrants arrived later; Cuban refugee migration, for instance, rose dramatically after the 1959 coup. While some phonological traits of these varieties are shared, such as deletion or aspiration of syllable-final /s/, other regional distinctions may persist: e.g., dropping of syllable-final /l/ and /r/ (Cuban) and raspy velar /r/ (Puerto Rican). As colonial Spanish developed first in the Caribbean, the Northeastern United States varieties have brought many Native
United States of America: Language Situation 1127
American, African, and Creole loans into American English, e.g., canoe (Native American), banana (African), bodega (Caribbean Spanish). Due to extensive language shift to English, a continuum of societal bilingualism has emerged in Hispanic communities, ranging from fluency in Spanish to symbolic use of Spanish by English-dominant bilinguals. Alongside the influence of English on Spanish structure, this bilingualism has given rise, particularly among English-dominant bilinguals in the younger generation, to ‘Spanglish,’ a hybrid style consisting of proficient and sustained code-switching between Spanish and English. Chicano English, by contrast, is a variety of English with Spanish influence.
Indigenous Languages Native American Languages
The languages indigenous to America have undergone extensive decimation through contact with sociopolitically empowered colonial languages. Legislation punishing instruction or use of native languages and mandating English as the exclusive language of instruction was enforced in Indian reservations from the 19th century. Estimates place the number of native languages at the time of European contact at 300–600; the current figure stands at approximately 175, of which fewer than 20 are being acquired by children and are thus potentially sustainable. Over 70% of contemporary Native American languages face imminent extinction. A revitalization movement ultimately led to the Native American Languages Act of 1992, calling for federal policy to support the cultural vitality of Native American languages and authorizing funds for their maintenance. American Creoles
New creole languages have developed indigenously in South Carolina, Hawaii, and Louisiana. In South Carolina, a creole called Gullah or Geechee (Sea Island Creole English) began to develop in 1715 when importation of African slaves, speaking different African languages natively, increased sharply in that area. Grammatical features of the variety include: pronouns such as ee, um, shum, una; duh or does be for habitual marking; done to mark completed actions; null copula, null possessive, and null simple past tense. Gullah has declined in recent decades, surviving in a few coastal enclaves. As it is relegated to the home, children may speak it natively but rapidly become bilingual. Hawaiian Creole (Hawai’i Creole English), sometimes referred to as Pidgin, began to emerge between 1790 and 1820 through contact between native
Hawaiians and Europeans; this development preceded a rise in Chinese, Portuguese, and Japanese arrivals between 1860–1900, followed by further influence from Filipino (Tagalog) and American English. These waves of contact resulted in a heterogeneous developmental process, particularly via informal and covert interaction among young speakers having English forcibly imposed on them in schools. Hawaiian Creole is characterized, among other things, by innovations in syntax (e.g., aspect marking: stei for progressive, wen for past) and in the lexicon, e.g., pau ‘finished’ (Hawaiian), obake ‘ghost’ (Japanese). Despite controversy over its societal and institutional role – only English and Hawaiian are official state languages – Hawaiian Creole is spoken and positively valued by a substantial community. Louisiana Creole (Louisiana Creole French) is sometimes described as originally one of three French-based languages in Louisiana, alongside Cajun French (French, Cajun), brought by Acadians expelled from Nova Scotia in the 18th century, and Colonial French, an extinct variety once used by French colonizers. An alternative view treats the language situation as comprising a continuum ranging from more French to more Creole usage. The Creole arose out of contact between African slaves and French colonizers during the period of 1699 and 1750; today, due to the greater social status of English and Standard French, all Louisiana Creole speakers speak another language outside their private domains. American Sign Language
American Sign Language (ASL) is a natural, visualspatial language not based on American English. In 1817, the first American school for the Deaf was established, and the resulting convergence of several varieties gave rise to an expanded contact variety. By the late 19th century, an oralist movement led to the banning of signing, a situation that persisted until the 1970s. ASL use nevertheless continued throughout, sometimes covertly, and ASL is now used by 0.5–2 million people, with considerable regional and social variation.
Minority Immigrant Languages Commonly spoken immigrant languages in the United States other than English and Spanish are listed in Figure 2, which shows immigration-driven reversals in language use during the 1990s: a dramatic increase in the use of Russian (192%), Vietnamese (99%), Arabic (74%), Chinese (62%) and Spanish (57%) contrasts with the decline in the use of several European languages.
1128 United States of America: Language Situation
European languages have been replenished by immigration since the earliest arrivals in the 15th century. The first large-scale migration of unskilled Asian laborers occurred in the mid–19th century. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean enclaves formed, while South Asian and Filipino immigrants, fewer in number of largely male, did not form self-sufficient communities as early. The second wave of Asian immigration, when quotas were extended after 1965, included refugees from Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos as well as descendants of earlier immigrants, often more educated and economically secure than their predecessors. The majority of early Arab American immigrants were Christian; subsequent to the 1950s, there has been a rise in Muslim Arab immigration, although this group remains a minority. The major varieties of Arabic represented are Lebanese and Syrian (Arabic, North Levantine Spoken), Palestinian (Arabic, South Levantine Spoken), Egyptian (Arabic, Egyptian Spoken), and Iraqi (Arabic, Mesopotamian Spoken). Among speakers of minority immigrant languages, or ‘heritage languages,’ fluency declines sharply across generations, transitioning to monolingualism within two to three generations. In particular, attrition of fluency in selected registers, shift from balanced to asymmetrical bilingualism, and decline in biliteracy across generations is widespread, largely due to institutionalized monolingualism in schools. Lo´pez’s (1982) findings, shown in Figure 4, reflect a close correspondence between the nativeness of a generation in the United States and its tendency to be English-dominant. Nevertheless, language loyalty tends to be strong across generations; in particular, Figure 4 shows a lower rate of loss of Spanish among Mexican Americans as compared to some Asian languages. Language schools, ethnically-defined neighborhoods, and religious and cultural associations serve to maintain languages among first and second generation immigrants; third generation immigrants are generally English speakers but often show renewed, albeit often nonnative, interest in their heritage languages.
Bibliography Baker C & Jones S (1998). The encyclopedia of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baugh J (2000). Beyond Ebonics: linguistic pride and racial prejudice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carver C M (1987). American regional dialects. a word geography. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Crawford J (1999). Bilingual education: history, politics, theory, and practice. Los Angeles: Bilingual Services, Inc. Ferguson C & Heath S B (eds.) (1981). Language in the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finegan E & Rickford J (eds.) (2004). Language in the USA: themes for the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fishman J (1967). Language loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton. Graddol D, Leith D & Swann J (1996). English: history, diversity, and change. London: Routledge. Green L J (2002). African American English: a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kurath H (1949). Word geography of the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Lane H, Hoffmeister R & Bahan B (1996). A journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego, CA: DawnSign Press. Labov W (1991). ‘The three dialects of English.’ In Eckert P (ed.) New ways of analyzing sound change. Orlando: Academic Press. 1–44. Lippi-Green R (1997). English with an accent: language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge. Lo´pez D (1982). Language maintenance and shift in the United States today (4 vols). Los Alamitos, CA: National Center for Bilingual Research. McCarty T L & Zepeda O (eds.) (1998). Indigenous language use and change in the Americas. Special issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language (132). Mufwene S, Rickford J, Bailey G & Baugh J (eds.) (1998). African American English: structure, history, and use. New York: Routledge. Preston D (ed.) (1993). American dialect research. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Roberts S J (2000). ‘Nativization and the genesis of Hawaiian Creole.’ In McWhorter (ed.) Language change and language contact in pidgins and creoles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 257–300. Silva-Corvala´n C (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. New York: Oxford University Press. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003). ‘Language use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000.’ C2KBR-29. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. Valdman A (1997). French and Creole in Louisiana. New York: Plenum. Veltman C (1983). Language shift in the United States. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Mouton Publishers. Wolfram W & Schilling-Estes N (1998). American English: dialects and variation. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Zentella A C (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Uralic Languages 1129
Uralic Languages A Marcantonio, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza,’ Rome, Italy ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The ‘Uralic’ languages derive their name from the Ural Mountains, the assumed homeland of the hypothetical proto-Uralic population that, according to the conventional theory, spanned out into Hungary and across a wide portion of the northern Eurasiatic area, from Norway to Western Siberia (see Figure 1).
Distribution Of the 22 million speakers of Uralic languages, about 2 million are minority speakers in Russia. The total number of speakers is decreasing; some languages are endangered and others are now extinct. The Uralic language family can be divided into eight language subgroups: 1. Saami (formerly Lapp; 34 000 speakers); about 10 dialectal varieties are spoken in the region between Sweden and the Kola Peninsula in Russia.
2. Finnic (formerly Balto-Finnic), comprising Votic (about 50 speakers, Russia), Ingrian (400 speakers, Russia), Karelian (40 000 speakers, Finland and Russia), Lude (5000 speakers, Russia), Olonetsian (30 000 speakers, Finland and Russia), Veps (6000 speakers, Russia), Livonian (about 10 speakers, Latvia), Finnish (also called Suomi; about 5 500 000 speakers), and Estonian (about 1 000 000 speakers), including the Estonian ethnic/dialectal variety Voˆru-Seto (50 000 speakers) in Estonia and Russia. 3. Mordvin (Mordva; 615 000 speakers, Russia), comprising two ethnic/dialectal varieties, Erzya (about 67%) and Moksha (about 33%). 4. Mari (formerly Cheremis; 488 000 speakers, Russia), comprising two dialectal varieties, Hill (Western) Mari (about 10%) and Meadow (Eastern) Mari (about 90%). 5. Permic, or Permian (Russia), comprising Udmurt (formerly Votyak; 464 000 speakers) and Komi, consisting of three ethnic/dialectal varieties, Komi-Zyrian (217 000 speakers), Komi-Permyak
Figure 1 The Uralic languages are spoken by 22 million people. The majority consist of the Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians, living in their nation-states; some 2 million speakers are among the ethnic minorites of Russia. Reproduced from Suihkonen P (2000), Ugriculture 2000: contemporary art of the Fenno-Ugrian peoples. Helsinki: Gallen-Kellela Museum.
1130 Uralic Languages
(94 000 speakers), and Yaz’va-Komi (about 200 speakers). 6. Ob-Ugric (Ob-Ugrian), comprising Mansi (formerly Vogul; 3000 speakers) and Khanty (formerly Ostyak; 14 000 speakers), scattered along the Ob’ and lower-Irtysh rivers and tributaries. 7. Hungarian (Magyar; 14 million speakers), including the ethnic/dialectal variety Csa´ngo´ (100 000 speakers, Romania). 8. Samoyed (Samoyedic), comprising seven closely related languages spoken in West Siberia, i.e., Nenets (formerly Yurak; 32 000 speakers), Enets (formerly Yenisey-Samoyed; about 200 speakers), Nganasan (formerly Tavgy; 1000 speakers), Selkup (formerly Ostyak-Samoyed; 2000 speakers), and three extinct languages, Yurats, Kamas (Kamassian), and Mator (Motor). Hungarian and Ob-Ugric are conventionally grouped together to form the ‘Ugric’ subgroup, but the languages are acknowledged to be radically different in phonology, syntax, and vocabulary, and accordingly this group has not been reconstructed from the primary evidence. Several minority languages, including Veps, Mordvin, Mari, Udmurt, Komi, and Ob-Ugric, enjoy official status in their national administrative regions. Despite attempts to revitalize some endangered languages through cultural/educational/ political activities and associations (e.g., ‘Saami Language Nests’ and ‘To Save Yugra’), there remains strong pressure to assimilate into the majority languages (Suihkonen, 2002).
Phonology Most Uralic languages display vowel harmony and consonant gradation, although there are substantial differences in implementation. These features are shared by nearby language groups, including Altaic and Yukaghir. Several Uralic languages also display quantitative vowel and consonant opposition. Vowel Harmony
Palatovelar vowel harmony, in which the vowels of a word unit, including suffixes, enclitics, etc., are either all back or all front, is found in Finnic (not Estonian and Livonian), Mordvin, Western Mari, some Khanty and Mansi dialects, Hungarian, and Nganasan. Compare Hungarian kert-be ‘garden-into’, kert-em-be ‘garden-my-into’ and konyha´-ba ‘kitchen-into’, konyha´-m-ba ‘kitchen-my-into’. Labial harmony occurs in Hungarian and Eastern Mari. Consonant Gradation
Abondolo (1994: 4855) found that most Finnic and Saami languages/dialects display ‘‘alternation of
strong vs. weak consonant(ism) word-medially in open vs. closed syllables.’’ For example, in comparing Finnish kirkko ‘church’ vs. kirko-ssa ‘church-INESS’ (INESS ¼ inessive) and papu ‘bean’ vs. pavu-t ‘beanPL’, the first sound of each pair, the strong grade, appears word medially in an open syllable, whereas the second sound, the weak grade, appears word medially in a syllable closed by a suffix. The Samoyed languages display a different, less homogeneous type of gradation. For example, Nganasan presents a complex co-occurrence of various mechanisms, including glottal stop alternation, truncation, syllabic and rhythmic gradation, vowel harmony, and accommodation. In some languages, within specific contexts and/or stems, the original phonetic conditioning factor for gradation has been eroded by subsequent changes; therefore, several inflectional forms can now be distinguished through grade alternation only (‘fusion’). Compare the nominative (NOM), genitive (GEN), and partitive (PARTIT) in Finnish jalka-Ø ‘footNOM’, jala-n ‘foot-GEN’, and jalka-a ‘foot-PARTIT’ with correspondent Estonian jala-Ø (genitive, weak grade) and jalga-Ø (partitive, strong grade), in which the alternation is no longer productive. Vocalism
The smallest vowel inventory (five vowels) is found in Erzya Mordvin; the richest inventory is found in Vakh Khanty, which has 11 full and 2 reduced, front and back (round and unround) vowels. There are diphthongs in Finnic, Saami, some dialects of Mansi, and Nganasan. In several languages, some vowels occur less frequently when not in the first syllable. Most languages (not Erzya Mordvin and most of Permian) present (some sort of) quantitative vowel opposition between two (e.g., Finnish) or three (e.g., Estonian) vowel lengths, to denote different meanings. Consonantism
Consonantism varies considerably. Finnish has one of the smallest inventories, with 11 consonants, the obstruents being limited to the unvoiced p, t, k. Eastern Enontekio¨ (North Saami dialect) has 31 consonants; the total inventory includes voiced stops, unvoiced nasals, fricatives, affricates, palatal (or palatalized alveolar/dental) series, glides, and laryngeal and glottal stops. Several languages present quantitative consonant opposition between two-way (e.g., Finnish) or three-way (e.g., Estonian and partly Saami) opposition, to denote different meanings. Unlike the other Uralic languages, Hungarian, Permic, and (to a lesser extent) Saami display opposition of voice – for example, voiced b and unvoiced p denote different meanings.
Uralic Languages 1131 Word Stress
The stress position varies from language to language, the governing rules often being complex or conditioned by morphophonology or phonotactics. For example, stress is fixed on the first syllable in Finnish, Hungarian, and some Khanty dialects; it is free in Erzya Mordvin, and it falls generally on the last syllable in Udmurt and on the penultimate vowel/vowel sequence in Nganasan. In Nenets, stress position varies depending on morphophonological/syllabic structure. Stress is nondistinctive, except in Udmurt in certain forms.
Morphology The Uralic languages share -Ø subject marking and a tendency for agglutination, suffixation, absence of copula, and richness of derivational morphology (Abondolo, 1998). These properties are also shared with Altaic. Grammatical, functional, and temporal/ aspectual categories are generally language specific, with evidence from historical documents and language examination indicating relatively recent formation. Fusion (see the preceding discussion of consonant gradation) also occurs in varying degrees in several languages, including Estonian, Saami, and Hungarian. Case Suffixes
The number of case suffixes varies from two (lative and locative) in Northern Khanty to 24 in KomiZyrian. In languages with rich suffixation, the majority of suffixes are local suffixes expressing three-way spatial opposition, as in stasis vs. movement (‘to’ and ‘from’). This may be enriched by other suffixes indicating internal vs. external notions in Finnic and Permic. In Hungarian, the additional notion of vicinity is also encoded, as in ha´z-ban ‘housein (side)’, ha´z-ba ‘house(inside)-into’, and ha´z-bo´l ‘house(inside)-from’; asztal-on ‘table-on’, asztal-ra ‘table(surface-of)-onto’, and asztal-ro´l ‘table(surface-of)-from’; and szobor-na´l ‘statue-in(the vicinity of)’, szobor-hoz ‘statue(the-vicinity-of)-toward’, and szobor-to´l ‘statue(the-vicinity-of)-from’. In KomiZyrian and Selkup, the case suffixes also encode animacy. Plural Markers
Plural markers also vary across the languages, some having a different marker for oblique and/or possessive forms. In Finnish, compare talo-t ‘housePL’ and talo-i-ssa ‘house-PL-INESS, in (the) houses’; in Hungarian, compare birka´-k ‘sheep-PL’ and birka´i-m ‘sheep-PL-POSS, my sheep’. The most common
plural suffixes are -t, -n, and -l. Saami, Ob-Ugric, and Samoyed have dual suffixes. Gender and Definiteness
As in Altaic languages, Uralic languages make no gender distinction (except in some nominal derivations), and there are no articles (except in Modern Hungarian); pragmatic and referential notions are typically expressed through the morphological and morphosyntactic apparatus. Mordvin distinguishes indefinite and definite forms of the noun. Verbs
Verbs are inflected for person, number, tense/aspect, and mood. Typically, there is at least a distinction between present (unmarked) and past tense (marked) and between indicative, imperative, and conditional (except in Mansi). Some languages (e.g., Estonian, Udmurt, and Selkup) also encode the category of evidentiality as mood and/or tense. Reflexivity and causativity are mostly expressed through verbal derivation. Negation is mostly (although not in Estonian, Hungarian, Ob-Ugric, and Selkup) expressed by an auxiliary (AUX) negation verb, regularly inflected, followed by the main verb, as in the following examples in Finnish: (1) e-n AUX–1SING.PRES
mene go
‘I do not go’. (2) e-t AUX–2SING.PRES
mene go
‘You do not go’.
Aspect is expressed by various means, including coverbal adverbs, auxiliary verbs, or appropriate marking for the direct object. Compare the different object marking in Finnish: (3) lue-n artikkeli-a read-I article-PARTIT ‘I am reading a/the article’. (4) lue-n artikkeli-n read-I article-ACC ‘I will read the article (completely)’.
Syntax In the Uralic languages, word order, diathesis, number agreement in noun phrases, and subordinate sentence implementations are generally language specific. In common with Altaic languages, Uralic languages share the following tendencies: postpositions, modifier(s) preceding the modified element within noun phrases, marking as singular all nouns preceded
1132 Uralic Languages
by any numeral, and expression of subordination through nominalized/nonfinite verbal phrases (Finnish and Hungarian have recently developed subordination through conjunctions).
(10) Pekka tuli puutarha-sta a¨-sta¨ Pekka came garden-from play-INF-EL ‘Pekka came from the garden from playing/ where he was playing’.
Basic Word Order
Objects
Saami, Finnish, Estonian, Komi, and Hungarian present as subject-verb-object (SVO); Udmurt, Ob-Ugric, and Samoyed present as subject-object-verb (SOV); Mari has a flexible order. Pragmatic/logic/stylistic functions usually play a role in determining word order.
Marking of the direct object is varied and complex, often depending on pragmatic/aspectual factors (as in Examples (3) and (4)), or on the type of sentence the object is in – for example, Hungarian has -t, Khanty and Sosva Mansi have -Ø, Eastern Mari and some Samoyed languages have -m, Finnish has -n or partitive for singular and -Ø or partitive for plural objects, and Udmurt has -Ø for indefinite and accusative for definite objects. Number agreement occurs between subject and predicate. Within the noun phrase, agreement in number and case suffixes occurs in some languages and to various degrees of completeness, being fully developed in Finnish.
Main Verb Phrases
Verbal phrases may be elaborated in various ways. Ob-Ugric has a passive (personal) voice – e.g., the agent is marked in Khanty by locative. Finnish uses an impersonal passive, and the agent is unspecified. In some languages, extra conjugations encode information about the object, such as number, definiteness, topicality, and referentiality. Hungarian adds one objective/definite (DEF) conjugation to the normal subjective/indefinite (INDEF) conjugation (ACC, accusative): (5) olvaso-k read–1SING.INDEF ‘I read (something)’. (6) olvaso-m read–1SING.DEF ‘I read it’. (7) olvaso-m a read–1SING.DEF the ‘I read the book’.
ko¨nyv-et book-ACC
Ob-Ugric adds three objective conjugations, for singular, dual, and plural objects. Nenets, Enets, and Nganasan have five conjugations: one subjective, three objective (as Ob-Ugric), and one objectless/ reflexive. The markers differ. Subordinate Sentences
There are several types of nonfinite (participial, infinitival, and gerundive) verbal phrases. Typically, the verb takes the relevant nonfinite morpheme, and then may be inflected with enclitics, and case, number, possessive, and passive suffixes. Compare Finnish, in which -a¨ ( -a) and -ma ( -ma¨) are infinitive morphemes (TRANSLV, translative; EL, elative): (8) syo¨-mme ela¨-a¨-kse-mme live-INF-TRANSLV–1PL eat–1PL ‘We eat to live’. (9) Pekka on koto-na leikki-ma¨-ssa¨ Pekka is home-at play-INF-INESS ‘Pekka is at home playing’.
Uralic Languages as a Family The results of recent archaeological, genetic, and anthropological research are inconsistent with the predictions of the Uralic theory, and the significance of the linguistic evidence on which the conventional theory is based has been called into question: for example, there is no reconstruction of the key Ugric node based on the primary evidence, and the common linguistic tendencies appear to be shared with other language groups, such as Altaic. Alternative models have been proposed (see Ku¨nnap, 2000; Mara´cz, 2004; Marcantonio, 2002; Wiik, 2002).
Bibliography Abondolo D (1994). ‘Uralic languages.’ In Asher R E (ed.) The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 4855–4858. Abondolo D (ed.) (1998). The Uralic languages. London: Routledge. Collinder B (1965). An introduction to the Uralic languages. Berkeley: University of California Press. Comrie B (1981). The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hajdu´ P (1975). Finno-Ugric languages and people. London: Deutsch. Hajdu´ P & Domokos P (1987). Die uralischen Sprachen und Literaturen. Hamburg: Buske. Korhonen M (1996). Typological and historical studies in language. A memorial volume. 223. Helsinki: La Socie´te´ Finno-Ougrienne. Ku¨nnap A (2000). Contact-induced perspectives in Uralic linguistics. Mu¨nchen: Lincom Europa. Mara´cz L (2004). ‘De oorsprong van de Hongaarse taal.’ In van Heerikhuizen A et al. (eds.) Het Babylonische
Urdu 1133 Europa. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 81–96. Marcantonio A (2002). The Uralic language family. Facts, myths and statistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Sinor D (ed.) (1988). The Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign influences. Leiden: Brill. Suihkonen P (2002). ‘The Uralic languages.’ Fennia 180, 165–176. Wiik K (2002). Eurooppalaisten juuret. Jyva¨skyla¨: Atena.
Relevant Websites http://www.helsinki.fi – Helsinki home page, with links to a classification by Tapani Salminen of the Uralic (FinnoUgrian) languages. http://www.suri.ee – Website on the history of the FinnoUgric peoples.
Urdu H Dua, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, India ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Urdu is the literary, cultural, and religious language of Muslims in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other parts of the world including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden. The number of Urdu speakers in census data may be under- or overestimated for social and political reasons. However, it is estimated that Urdu is spoken by 54 million worldwide, out of which 43 million speakers are found in India. In addition to being the national language of Pakistan, Urdu is one of the Schedule VIII languages of the Indian democracy, the state official language of Jammu and Kashmir, and the second official language of UP, Bihar, and Andhra Pradesh in India. It is recognized that Urdu, Hindi, and Hindustani share a common grammatical system. Urdu in its colloquial form may therefore be considered the lingua franca of one of the largest speech communities in the world. Urdu is regarded as a pluricentric language that shows different linguistic features.
Origin and Development Historically, Urdu has developed in a language contact situation over a long period from 1100 A.D. or earlier. After the Muslim invasion of India, it emerged as a speech variety in communication among Muslim rulers, traders, mystics, and the local population. The early form of Urdu developed out of the literary language Sauraseni Apabram . sa, which was in a state of transition and developing as a New Indo-Aryan language. It had a wide dialect base that included Braj Bhasha, Haryanvi or Bangaru, eastern Panjabi, and other dialects spoken in the region surrounding Delhi. Khar. i Boli was present as one of the elements in the
formative period of Urdu and it gradually became stronger with its development. By 1800, Khar. i Boli could be considered as the basic source of Urdu. During the period of development, from 1100 to 1800 A.D., Urdu was known by several different names, including Hindwi, Dehalvi, Hindustani, Zaban-e-Urdu, Dakhini or Old Urdu, and Rekhta. The first use of the language name Urdu was made in a couplet in 1776 by the poet Mashafi (1750– 1824). However, the use of Urdu, referring to camp, court, or city (Zaban-e-Urdu or Zaban-e-Urdu-eShahi or Zaban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla), had been in use from 1560. Specimens of Hindwi in the early formative period are found scattered in the Nath Panthi literature, early Sufis of North India, Amir Khusro, Nanak, Kabir, Baba Farid, and other poets. Amir Khusro (1236–1324) shows a distinct earlier form of Urdu, or Hindwi as he calls it. However, there is no evidence that the language was in continuous use from 1200 to 1650 except Bikat Kahani by Afzal, which appeared 300 years after Amir Khusro’s writings. It is therefore not possible to reconstruct a continuous history of the development of Urdu (Chatterji, 1960; Khan, 1958). Insha Allah Khan Insha’s Darya-e-Latafat (‘The river of elegance,’ 1807) presents an early linguistic study of the dialects of Delhi and Lucknow. The emergent variety Hindwi traveled in the south with the Muslim rulers of the Delhi Sultanate (1211– 1504) along with the Muslim armies, traders, Sufis, preachers, and other people. It flourished as a literary language in the Decean kingdoms of Golkunda and Bijapur. It was popularly known as Dakhini or Hindwi or Dehalvi. Dakhini has been claimed as Dakhini Hindi, Dakhini Urdu, or Old Urdu. It shows some linguistic features that are characteristic of its contact with local languages of the South. However, the origin and development of Dakhini has been traced to Haryanvi, Panjabi, Braj Bhasha, and Khar. i Boli.
1134 Urdu
During the Mughal period, Persian was the official language of the court. The elite and noblemen spoke and wrote Persian. The Mughal emperors from Akbar onward spoke an early form of Hindustani at home (Chatterji, 1960). Both the Hindus and the Mughal rulers accepted Braj Bhasha as a literary language. Akbar’s courtier, Khan Khanan Rahim, wrote in Braj Bhasha, and even Akbar attempted to write some verses in it. Hindustani or Khari Boli did not develop as a literary language in the north until Wali from Aurangabad arrived in Delhi at the end of the 17th century. Wali demonstrated that Hindustani with a scattering of Persian words could be used to write great poetry. The language used by Wali is known as Rekhta, which means ‘scattered,’ and implies that Hindustani or Urdu had not been ‘Persianized.’ The Delhi school of poetry came into existence around Wali during 1700–1720. By the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, Urdu, in its modern form, had taken deep roots. Several factors contributed to the emergence of Urdu in its distinct modern form. First, the Dakhini literature was written in the Perso–Arabic script, which had ‘‘fixed the orientation of the language’’ (Chatterji, 1960). Wali and subsequent poets and writers readily adopted the Perso–Arabic script. It became a symbol of linguistic and cultural identity. Second, conscious efforts were made by stalwarts such as Khan Arzu (1689–1756), Shah Hatim (1699– 1781), and Mazhar Janejanan (1700–1781) to weed out the Braj Bhasha or indigenous words from Rekhta and incorporate Arabic and Persian words in it during the middle of the 18th century. The extreme Persianization of Urdu became characteristic of the Lucknow school of poetry, whereas the Delhi school developed its own standard form of Urdu. Third, the use of subjunctive constructions, the continuous tenses with ‘raha,’ the ergative construction with the postposition ‘ne,’ and the formation of the present tense with imperfect participles became stable and characteristic. Finally, prose began to be written in the emergent Khar. i Boli by the end of the 18th century. The establishment of Fort William College at the beginning of the 19th century encouraged the development of two styles of prose that paved the way for the emergence of Hindi and Urdu as distinct standard varieties. The two important earliest works in Urdu prose are the Bagh-o-Bahar of Mir Amman (1804) and the Khirad Afroz of Hafizuddin Ahmed (1803–1815).
Urdu Language: Identity and Conflict The 19th century may be considered to be the century of consolidation, expansion, and growth of Urdu language identity and literature, on the one hand, and
the spread of Urdu and sociopolitical mobilization, on the other. Several mutually interactive forces played a catalytic role in this regard. A synoptic view of some of these factors reflects this. First, after the early prose produced at Fort William College, Urdu literature developed rapidly. All genres of literature, including novel, short story, drama, different forms of prose, and journalistic forms developed and made distinctive achievements. Urdu poets throughout the 19th century flourished, and Urdu entered the modern period with Hali (1837–1914) and Akbar Allahabadi (1846–1921) as well as many others. Muhammad Hussain Azad (1830–1910), in Ab-e hayat (1880), provided the first systematic account of the achievements of Urdu poetry, constructing a literary history, a canon, and the theory of poetry. Second, the establishment of several educational institutions, including Delhi College, Anjuman-ePunjab, and Mohammedan Anglo–Oriental College, played multiple roles in enriching Urdu literature with translations from English as well as original writings in different disciplines. This trend spread the use of Urdu language and literature and contributed to the development of linguistic, literary, and cultural identity. Third, Urdu language and literature gained in momentum when it replaced Persian in 1837. It was used as an official court language along with English in the British-ruled provinces in North India. It gave rise to what is popularly known as the Hindi movement. Between 1868 and 1900, the Hindus of the northwestern provinces fought against Urdu through pamphlets and memoranda. They argued that the Perso–Arabic script was alien to India, that it was unintelligible to common people, and that Hindi written in the Devanagari should be made an official language. As a result of the agitation, in 1881 Hindi replaced Urdu in Devanagari script as the official language of the neighboring province of Bihar. This paved the way for the hardening of culturalcommunal attitudes among the speakers of Urdu and Hindi, the divergence of Hindi and Urdu, and the formation of different linguistic identities. This can be seen in the exclusion of Hindu poets and the Hindu community in constructing the history of Urdu literature, on the one hand, and the switching of Hindu writers from Urdu to Hindi on the other (Faruqi, 2001). Prem Chand’s switch from Urdu to Hindi was not merely an individual, personal choice but also was intricately involved with interrelated linguistic, political, and economic developments. This process reached its culmination with the complete identification of Urdu with Muslims in the second quarter of the 20th century. The conflict between Urdu and Hindi was aggravated by the end of the 19th century and in the second
Urdu 1135
quarter of the 20th century. Two factors played a significant role in this process. First, this period saw the development of voluntary language associations such as Nagari Pracharini Sabha, formed in 1893, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, founded in 1910, and Anjuman-Taraqqi-e-Urdu, formed in 1903. These associations promoted the cause of Hindi and Urdu, divided the loyalties of Hindi–Urdu speakers and writers, strengthened the linguistic divisions, and consolidated separate identities. Second, the Hindi–Urdu conflict and identities were reinforced by the development of both Hindu and Muslim revivalism and communal antagonism in the context of the Western culture, on the one hand, and the growth of the independence movement, on the other. As a consequence, the political mobilization of the masses contributed to the congruence of symbols of linguistic, cultural, and linguistic identities with the process of nationalism and nation formation. Das Gupta (1971: 57) points out that the identification of nationalism, linguistic, and religions solidarity was ‘‘more integral and pervasive’’ in the case of Muslims as compared to that of the Hindus. Ultimately, the partition of India led to the development of Urdu language and literature in India and Pakistan along different lines. This resulted in two linguistic and literary consequences. First, both the Hindi and Urdu speakers gave up Hindustani on ideological grounds. Although Hindi speakers identified Hindustani with Urdu, the Urdu speakers considered it another form of Hindi. Second, both the Hindi and Urdu speakers lost sensitivity and ability to appreciate the literature in a language other than their own.
Linguistic Description It is generally recognized that Hindi and Urdu share a common grammatical system. They differ mainly in their writing systems, in their lexicon borrowed from Sanskrit or Persian and Arabic resources, and the minor aspects of syntax. Thus, at the phonological level, Urdu has a subset of phonemes (f x sˇ z zˇ g q) because of Perso –Arabic words, whereas Hindi has acquired , n. sˇ s. from Sanskrit words. Kelkar (1968: 80) points out that ‘‘it is highly unlikely that H s. n. i on the one hand, U q ? z x on the other will coexist in the same idiolect.’’ Similarly, Urdu has acquired some other distinctive phonological features. Khan (1978: 10–11) points out that Urdu speakers invariably break up consonant clusters in VCC structure in words of Sanskrit origin, but they pronounce the structure correctly in the Persian and Arabic words. This is partly because of cultural influence of PersoArabic vocabulary, and partly because of the educational background of speakers. This refers to the phenomenon of Schwa deletion having a wider
scope in phonological analysis. Narang and Becker (1971) show that a group of derived nouns and adjectives of Perso–Arabic origin represent an exception to the Schwa deletion rule. In short, the distinctive phonological features of Urdu are mainly due to PersoArabic words. However, it is generally not specified whether these features are characteristic of written or spoken style or both, or educated or uneducated speakers of Urdu. The issue of lexical borrowing raises different problems at the lexical or semantic level. Borrowed words may be considered in terms of word classes such as nouns, adjectives, adverbs, compound verb formatives, and so on. For instance, Hindi and Urdu show a clear difference in compound verbs consisting of noun þ verb or adjective þ verb sequences such as U sˇuru¯ karna¯, iste¯ma¯l karna¯ and H a¯rambh karna¯ and prayo¯g karna¯. It is essential to highlight some important issues that are not discussed in the analysis of lexical differences between Hindi and Urdu. First, the studies of distinctive lexicon are based on restricted data as evident from Mobbs (1981) and van Olphen (1989). The implications of the nature and scope of lexical differences between Urdu and Hindi can be understood only on the basis of a large representative sample of both spoken and written varieties belonging to different forms of literature. The corpus of three million words, each in Urdu and Hindi, available with the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, offers challenging opportunities for a wide range of linguistic studies. Second, it is necessary to recognize that the choice of a word of Persian or Arabic origin does not necessarily imply a choice in favor of Urdu. Similarly, the use of words of Sanskrit origin does not imply Hindi. In other words, both Perso–Arabic and Sanskrit words may have been assimilated and become part of the primary system of Hindustani and thus constitute an integral feature of both Hindi and Urdu. Finally, it is essential to move beyond individual lexical items and bring out the implications of borrowed words in collocations and in reflecting different cultural meanings, values, and history. In other words, it is essential to explore to what extent different sets of Perso–Arabic or Sanskrit vocabulary individually as well as in different collocations contribute to the construction of different conceptualization of entities, events, and situations, and different worldview, at the semantic level. Prem Chand’s switch from Urdu to Hindi clearly shows how he found Sanskrit vocabulary congenial to the themes of his works and the sociocultural worldview related with them (Trivedi, 1989). The borrowing of Perso–Arabic words in Urdu creates characteristic linguistic features at the grammatical level. This can be seen in a number of
1136 Urdu
word-forming suffixes and prefixes. The process of compound formation in Persian has contributed to productivity of compounds in Urdu. Similarly, the process of word formation in Urdu depends a great deal on Arabic resources. This is particularly evident in the various derived verbs with their associated participles and verbal nouns along with their word forming affixes and vowel patterns added to the root. In other words, the productive process of word formation characteristic of Urdu at the grammatical level shows a deep impact of Perso–Arabic resources. Similarly, the distinctive grammatical features of Urdu can be seen in the use of some prepositions, negative particles, formation of noun duals, or plurals in the case of some nouns that are a result of Perso– Arabic influence. The grammatical analysis of Urdu cannot ignore these linguistic devices, as they are extremely productive and provide a distinctive character. However, a number of issues remain to be explored. First, it is essential to explore how deeply these linguistic devices have influenced the structure of Urdu. It will be useful to study whether these features are particularly typical of literary or administrative language, or newspaper texts, or they are also found in everyday Urdu use. Second, it would be relevant to explore the extent to which these linguistic devices support the process of divergence of Urdu from the colloquial Hindustani grammatical system. In this respect, van Olphen (1989) points out that ‘‘it is convergence that threatens Urdu in India.’’ By contrast, Hasnain (1995) shows in a small-scale empirical study of Urdu used in mass media and education that innovations in language based on Perso–Arabic resources of word formation have implications for comprehension or intelligibility of language use. In short, whereas language innovations based on Perso–Arabic resources may contribute to divergence of Urdu from the Hindustani grammatical system, the pressure of comprehensibility may check the trend of divergence. The consequences of the dynamics of convergence and divergence will become clear only in the long run.
Codification and Standardization Language planning agencies and organizations played a significant role in the development and standardization of Urdu. Anjuman Taraqq-e-Hind, established in 1903, has been in the forefront in the development and promotion of Urdu. After the partition of India, the reorganized organization was less militant and more concerned with the promotion and popularization of Urdu among the people. It has 10 branches in different states and eminent leaders, such as Kazi Abdul Gaffar and Zakir Hussain, have played an
important role in its growth. It has made a significant contribution for the recognition of Urdu as a second official language in UP and Bihar and for the extension of its use in schools, colleges, and in radio communication. It has been engaged in the organization of celebration of Ghalib (1797–1869), Iqbal (1878–1938), and Prem Chand (1880–1936) days to popularize Urdu and Urdu conventions involving educational, literary, social, cultural, and political societies (Brass, 1975). Another organization, the Deeni Talimi Council, has focused its attention on the contents of textbooks. It works for the preservation of Muslim cultural values and basic tenets of Islam. Jamia Milia Islamia, established in 1920, has become one of the important educational and academic institutions concerned with Urdu education and academic research. The University Grants Commission recognizes it as a ‘central university.’ It not only gained prestige and respectability in Urdu education and studies but also played a constructive role in support of Urdu by influencing the language policy of the Union Government (Das Gupta, 1970). In addition to the nongovernmental organizations, the central and state governments have made a significant contribution to the development and standardization of Urdu. The Bureau for the Promotion of Urdu, established by the Government of India in 1969, has done extensive work on the codification and standardization of Urdu. It has produced 100 000 Urdu technical terms for various disciplines of natural sciences, social sciences, and art, published more than 600 books on academic subjects, and compiled Urdu–Urdu and English–Urdu dictionaries, and Urdu encyclopedias. In UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and other states, Urdu academies have been working on translation of books from English, publication of standard literary and scholarly works, university level textbooks, and the promotion of Urdu through seminars and conferences. Similar work on the codification and standardization of Urdu has been going on in Pakistan. The evaluation of the extensive work on development, codification, and standardization of Urdu needs to be studied, focusing on the impact of this on language change and development of pluricentric norms in the two countries. This is also relevant from the point of view of divergence of standard Urdu from the colloquial norm and its implications for comprehension by educated speakers of Urdu. Although the codification and standardization work by both the government and nongovernmental organizations is essential and significant, it is also important to recognize the contribution of the individuals as creative writers, researchers, scholars, educationalists, linguists, and teachers who play a critical
Urdu 1137
role in the stabilization and cultivation of the standard language. It is not possible to mention all the names of Urdu specialists who have made a substantive contribution to research and development of Urdu. It may, however, be mentioned that several eminent scholars and researchers on Urdu have been recognized for their seminal contribution in various fields of studies on Urdu including Urdu script and spelling reform, lexicography, standardization of pronunciation and vocabulary, historiography of Urdu language and literature, and linguistic analysis and description.
Urdu Literature Literature has been one of the most significant sources of language development and standardization in the case of many developed languages of the world. The history of Urdu shows parallel development of both literature as well as language. Just as Urdu language was formed in communication and social interaction between two cultures in the situation of language contact, Urdu literature shows fusion of two literary and cultural traditions. The Perso–Arabic elements in Urdu language do not merely constitute a superimposed structure but also form an integral aspect of language identity and its literary tradition. They have a rich semantic potential expressive of Islamic tradition and cultural worldview. Similarly, Urdu literature shows a synthesis between Islamic and Indian cultural traditions at literary, aesthetic, and philosophical levels. Narang (1991) maintains that although Urdu literature has been deeply influenced by Persian literature and rich Iranian and Islamic tradition, it has imbibed Indian cultural influences and has emerged as an expression of the composite culture of India. This is evident from the development of various forms and genres of literature during the last 300 years. Medieval Urdu poetry shows profound influence of Persian literary tradition in its various forms, imagery, and figures of speech, as well as themes and background. The ghazal in the medieval poetry has ‘‘no local color,’’ lacks personal touches, and appears to have largely a ‘‘museum’’ quality (Sadiq, 1984). However, in the process of development of Urdu literature over the next two centauries, ghazal grew beyond erotic themes. Sadiq (1984: 19) points out that ‘‘nothing seems to be alien to its genius and it has readily accommodated ethics, metaphysics, philosophy, mysticism, satire, politics, side by side love, which still continues to be its favourite theme.’’ The semiotic analysis of ghazals of Ghalib, Iqbal, Faiz, and Firaq Gorakhpuri (1896–1982) brings out the rich potential of the genre of ghazal. The same is
true of other genres such as Masnavi, Marsiya, Qasida, and so on. Masnavis of Mir Hasan (1727– 1786) are soaked with Indian imagery (Sadiq, 1984: 16). Srivastava (1992) shows that Masnawi as a poetic form has assimilated in its content Puranic legends, Indian folktales, semihistorical events of Indian soil, and so on in the process of its endogenous growth. The popular love lyric Qawwali was not only exclusively developed in India but also became an integral part of the secular North Indian music gaining in popularity, as did its indigenous counterparts such as Hindu Kirtan or Bhajan (Narang, 1991). Mushaira (poetic symposia) has become a popular literary convention in India, Pakistan, and other parts of the world. The modern Urdu literature has many great achievements to its credit. The individual achievements of great poets, writers, and men of letters are difficult to enumerate. However, it would be adequate to mention a few points that are characteristic of the vitality of Urdu literature. First, the development of Urdu literature has kept pace with the trends and tendencies of the time and produced poets and writers belonging to different traditions, movements, and ideologies. Similar to literary traditions in other major Indian languages, it represents a great deal of involvement, sensitivity, and an awareness of contemporary social reality. For instance, the progressive story writers in Urdu, Rajendra Singh Bedi, Manto (1913–1955), Krishan Chander (1914–1977), and Ismat Chugtai (1915–1991), give expression to economic inequality, social exploitation, and male chauvinism as do their counterparts in Hindi. Quarratul-ain-Haider (b. 1928) and Ismat Chugtai in Urdu focus on Indian women and their consciousness as do Manu Bhandari and Krishna Sobti in Hindi. The Sahitya Akademi award to Ismat Chugtai and the Jnanpeeth award to Quarraul-ain-Haider have gained recognition for Urdu literature at the national level. Second, Urdu literature is not merely restricted to poetry or fiction. It encompasses a wide range of literary criticism, folk literature, children’s literature, and scientific literature. In terms of total literary output, Urdu does not lag behind several major Indian languages. Finally, it is worth emphasizing that several Urdu poets and writers have carried forward the tradition of the synthesis of the Islamic and the Indian cultures. In this context, Salahuddin Pervez has achieved a great distinction in his novel Identity Card for giving expression to the spirit of Islamic thought and its interaction with the Indian spiritual–cultural system and transforming it into a powerful universal humanistic Indo-Islamic ethos. There is a distinct progress
1138 Urdu
in sincere appreciation and creative assimilation of Buddhist thought and its cultural tradition. Both poets and fiction writers discover a rich potential of myths, jataka tales, and Buddhist philosophy. Quarratul-ain-Haider in her masterpiece Aag Ka Darya (‘The river of fire’) makes an imaginative representation of Vedic and Buddhist elements in the spiritual saga of man. Khalilur Rahman Aazmi (d. 1978), one of the pioneers of the new movement in Urdu poetry, presents Gautam as a symbol of perfection. Similarly, Yusuf Zafar, a leading figure of New Poetry in Pakistan, portrays Buddha as an embodiment of love and compassion and a landmark in the spiritual history of mankind. In short, Urdu literature shows a genuine creative assimilation of the ancient Indian cultural tradition and philosophy in the context of the contemporary problems of mankind in modern age. The standardization and elaboration of the Urdu language shows not only its communicative dynamics and expressive potential but also the loyalty and identity of its speakers. Thus, the Urdu language and literature have gained recognition because of their vitality and achievements and spread at the international level.
Bibliography Bailey T G (1928). A history of Urdu literature. (rpt. 1979). Delhi: Longman. Beg M K A (1995). ‘The standardization of script for Urdu.’ In Hasnain I S (ed.) (1995) Standardization and modernization. New Delhi: Bahari Publications. 227–241. Brass P R (1975). Language, religion and politics in north India. Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Chatterji S K (1960). Indo–Aryan and Hindi. Calcutta: Mukhopadhyay. Das Gupta J (1970). Language conflict and national development: group politics and national language policy in India. Berkeley and Los Angles: University of California Press. Das Gupta J (1971). ‘Language, religion and political mobilization.’ In Rubin J & Jernudd B H (eds.) (1971) Can language be planned? Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Dua H R (1992). ‘Hindi-Urdu as a pluricentric language.’ In Clyne M (ed.) Pluricentric languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 381–400. Dua H R (1995). ‘Sociolinguistic processes in the standardization of Hindi–Urdu.’ In Hasnain I S (ed.) Standardization and modernization. New Delhi: Bahari Publications. 177–196. Faruqi S R (2001). Early Urdu literary culture and history. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Hasan M (2002). ‘Buddhist elements in Urdu literature.’ Indian Literature 208, 168–180. Hasnain I S (1995). ‘Innovations in language – an experiment in comprehensibility with reference to Urdu in mass media and education.’ In Hasnain S I (ed.) Standardization and modernization. New Delhi: Bahari Publications. 213–226. Kachru Y (1990). ‘Hindi–Urdu.’ In Comrie B (ed.) Major languages of South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. London: Routledge. 53–72. Kelkar Ashok R (1968). Studies in Hindi-Urdu: introduction and word phonology. Poona: Deccan College. Khan M H (1969). ‘Urdu.’ In Sebook T A (ed.) Current trends in linguistics, vol. V. The Hague: Mouton. 277–283. Khan M H (1978). ‘A phonetic and phonlogical study of the word.’ In Singh K S (ed.) Readings in Hindi– Urdu linguistics. Delhi: National Publishing House. 3–33. King C (1994). One language, two scripts: the Hindi movement in nineteenth century north India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Mobbs M C (1981). ‘Two languages or one? the significance of language names ‘‘Hindi’’ and ‘‘Urdu.’’’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2(3), 203–211. Narang G C (1991). Urdu language and literature: critical perspectives. Delhi: Sterling Pulbishers. Narang G C & Becker D A (1971). ‘Aspiration and nasalization in the generative phonology of Hindi–Urdu.’ Language 47(3), 647–667. Pritchett F & Faruqii S R (2001). Ab-e hayat shaping the cannon of Urdu poetry. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rai A (1984). A house divided: the origin and development of Hindi/Hindawi. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sadiq M (1984). A history of Urdu literature. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Schmidt R L (1999). Urdu: an essential grammar. London and New York: Routledge. Schmidt R L (2003). ‘Urdu.’ In Cardona G & Jain D (eds.) The Indo-Aryan languages. London and New York: Routledge. Srivastava R N (1969). Review of Kelkar, Ashok R. (1968). Studies in Hindi–Urdu: introduction and word phonology. Poona: Deccan College. Language 45, 913–927. Srivastava R N (1992). Review of Narang, Gopi Chand (1992). Urdu Language and literature: critical perspectives. Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Trivedi H (1989). ‘The Urdu Premchand: the Hindi Premchand.’ In Mohan C (ed.) Aspects of comparative literature. New Delhi: India Publishers and Distributors. van Olphen H H (1989). ‘Lexical convergence in Urdu and Hindi.’ In Paper presented in the International Seminar on the Common Bases of Urdu and Hindi. Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University.
Uto-Aztecan Languages 1139
Uto-Aztecan Languages C Fowler, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Uto-Aztecan is a large family of indigenous languages whose descendants are distributed from Oregon in the north to El Salvador in the south, with the heaviest concentrations of contemporary speakers in northern and central Mexico. Today over 45 extant and extinct languages are recognized as part of the family, with some of the extant languages represented by 50 or fewer speakers and others by well over 100 000 (Campbell, 1997; Ethnologue, 2004). In times past, speakers of these languages included peoples displaying the full range of socioeconomic adaptations, from small extended families who lived by hunting and gathering to clans of small village farmers to intensive agriculturalists organized into vast empires. Today, in many communities in the United States, public education and culture change have reduced the number of speakers to dangerously low levels, and language extinction appears inevitable. For others, concerted efforts at language salvage and revitalization that are currently underway may prolong or actually reverse the decline. For several of
the more remote and robust languages of Mexico the picture is brighter and there appears to be less danger of significant language loss in the immediate future. The languages within the Uto-Aztecan family are divided into three more or less contiguous geographic clusters across their broad range. The names for each cluster and views as to their internal relationships have changed through time and are still subject to some debate. The units are generally referred to as (1) Shoshonean or Northern Uto-Aztecan, which includes several branches and languages concentrated in the Great Basin and southern California in the United States; (2) Sonoran, which includes the languages of southern Arizona in the United States and of Sonora, Chihuahua, and Durango in northwest Mexico; and (3) Aztecan or Nahuatl, with languages widespread in central Mexico and outliers in El Salvador. The Sonoran and Aztecan languages are often subsumed under the term Southern UtoAztecan, either as a geographic reference to contrast them with the languages of the north or in recognition of a genetic relationship. The languages within each of the clusters and the branches with which they are affiliated are given in Table 1.
Table 1 Uto-Aztecan languages Northern Uto-Aztecan Numic: Western [2 languages ¼ Mono (Monache, Owens Valley Paiute) and Northern Paiute (including Bannock)] Central [3 languages ¼ Panamint (Timbisha), Shoshone (Western, Northern, Eastern, Gosiute) and Comanache] Southern [2 languages ¼ Kawaiisu and Ute (Northern and Southern Ute, Southern Paiute, Chemehuevi)] Takic: Serrano-Gabrielin˜o [3 languages ¼ Serrano (Vanyume), Kitanemuk, *Gabrielin˜o (Fernanden˜o) Cupan [3 languages ¼ Cahuilla, Cupen˜o, Luisen˜o (Juanen˜o)] *Tataviam (?) Tubatulabal Hopi Southern Uto-Aztecan Tepiman: Upper Piman [1 language ¼ (Pima, Tohono O’odham, Nevome)] Lower Piman [1 language ¼ (Mountain, Yepachi, Yecora-Maycoba)] Northern Tepehuan Southern Tepehuan [1–3 languages ¼ (Southern Tepehuan, Tepecano)] Taracahitan: Tarahumaran [2–7 languages ¼ Tarahumara (Western, Northern, Central, Southern, Ariseachi, Summit) and Guarijio (Upland, Lowland)] Opatan [2 languages ¼ Opata and Eudeve] Cahitan [1–2 languages ¼ Yaqui and Mayo] Corachol: Cora [1–2 languages (Cora, Santa Teresa Cora)] Huichol Aztecan: *Pochutla General Aztec (4–28 languages/dialects ¼ Pipil, Nahuatl (Mexicano, Aztec, Tetelcingo, Zacapoaxtla, etc.) After Campbell, 1997; Goddard, 1996; Ethnologue, 2004; does not include all extinct* languages.
1140 Uto-Aztecan Languages
Records and studies of Uto-Aztecan languages extend back to the time of the Spanish conquest of Mexico with the compilations of Fray Bernardo de Sahagun from 1540 to 1560 on Classical Aztec or Nahuatl, as well as by other early pioneers. Documentation of most of the northern languages did not begin until exploration and colonization of the western United States in the first decades of the 19th century. As explorers, military expeditions, traders, and missionaries began to compile vocabularies of western U.S. and northern Mexican languages, the work on genetic classifications of them began in earnest. Initial compilations by Albert Gallatin in the 1830s and 1840s, Johann Carl Buschmann in the 1850s, and Albert Gatschet in the 1870s, among others, led to the inclusion in the family of most of the languages and branches recognized at present. Most controversial was the linking of Nahuatl to the Sonoran and ultimately Shoshonean languages, proposed by Bushmann and accepted by Gatschet in 1878, but rejected by John Wesley Powell in his classification of 1891. Daniel Brinton in his classification the same year accepted the linkage and is credited with naming the family, choosing a northern language (Ute) and a southern one (Aztec) to represent the unity (Goddard, 1996; Lamb, 1964). However, not until Edward Sapir (1913–1914) provided the first systematic study of sound correspondences and lexical reconstructions within the family by comparing Southern Paiute with Nahuatl was the overall relationship considered to be demonstrated. Since that time, work has concentrated on better understanding internal and external relationships for the family, and on the basic description and documentation of the individual languages (Goddard, 1996; Lamb, 1964). A link between the Uto-Aztecan language family and the Tanoan languages of the U.S. Southwest and thus ultimately to Kiowa of the U.S. Plains was first suggested by Sapir in his 1929 macro-classification of North American Indian languages. This grouping was referred to by him as Aztec-Tanoan, and later given the position of a phylum or superstock. Benjamin Lee Whorf and George Traeger provided sound correspondences and reconstructions to show the Tanoan linkage, although they initially rejected the inclusion of Kiowa. The Kiowa-Tanoan linkage was confirmed in the late 1950s and early 1960s (Goddard, 1996: 313, 317), but the Aztec-Tanoan combination has not fared as well. Suggestions of this and yet more remote relationships for Uto-Aztecan languages, all of which appear doubtful, are reviewed by Campbell (1997). The internal relationships of some of the UtoAztecan branches and sub-branches are still debated. The combinations of languages that make up the
northernmost branch, Numic, found in the Great Basin of the United States, are solid. Two languages, Hopi of northern Arizona and Tubatulabal (Tu¨batulabal) of southern Sierran California, are understood to be independent branches. Early extinctions and thus lack of data for some of the languages of the Takic branch of southern California make internal relationships difficult to determine with certainty, particularly the position of Garbrialin˜o and Tataviam (Campbell, 1997: 135). Powell and A. L. Kroeber suggested that these four branches were related to each other by more than geography, and referred to them all as Shoshonean (Lamb, 1964). Miller (1983, 1984), based on a review of cognate sets and comparisons of sound systems, rejected this relationship as genetic, preferring to view the four as independent branches of the family. Others accept the unity of these four branches, citing shared innovations in the sound systems and aspects of morphology as evidence (Goddard, 1996; Campbell, 1997; Heath, 1977, 1985; Manaster Ramer, 1992). Internal diversity within the remaining branches of the family is also debated, with some arguing for and others against various subgroupings. Again, the problem of language extinctions and thus lack of data enters into the discussion (see Campbell, 1997: 133–135 for details), with Miller (1983) remarking that relationships make the family resemble less a tree than a vine that has been severely pruned! Names for the remaining branches also differ, but there is general agreement on Tepiman (Pimic), Taracahitan (Taracahitic), Corachol (Cora-Huichol), and Aztecan (Goddard, 1996; Campbell, 1997). The position of a fifth branch, Tubar, is likewise debated, with some placing it within Taracahitan (Kaufman, 1974). Some keep Tarahumara and Cahitan as independent branches (Ethnologue, 2004), and others include these with the first three named as a genetic subunit called Sonoran. Sonoran has a long history going back to Buschmann, with the most recent evidence being presented by Hale (1964). The unity of Southern Uto-Aztecan, including Sonoran and Aztecan, is less controversial than the proposal for Northern UtoAtecan (Campbell, 1997; Goddard, 1996; Heath, 1977, 1985; Manaster Ramer, 1992; Miller, 1983, 1984), although there is still some argument over the position of Aztecan as either having independent status within that unit or being more closely related to Corachol (Campbell and Langacker, 1978). Most of the languages of Uto-Aztecan, with the exception of those that went extinct early, have been reasonably well studied, beginning with the work on Southern Paiute grammar, texts, and a dictionary by Sapir in 1910 (Sapir, 1930–1931). Most recent in a
Uto-Aztecan Languages 1141
long line of descriptive works is the publication of the massive Hopi dictionary (Hill et al., 1998), representing the largest compilation to date for a Native American language. In between, sufficient descriptive works have been published by numerous authors to provide the data for reconstruction of the basic sound system of the proto-language, as well as an outline of some of its grammatical features, and a partial lexicon. The Proto-Uto-Aztecan sound system is considered by most to contain a single series of voiceless stops (p, t, c, k, kw, ), -s, h, two nasals [m, n (or N)], a lateral (l), plus w, y, and possibly r, along with a five vowel system (i, a, $i , o, u) plus vowel length (following Campbell, 1997). There is some disagreement as to the identity and directionality of the n, N0, and l: **n > *N and **l > *n, particularly in selected environments in Northern Uto-Aztecan, or **N > *n and **n > * l in selected environments in Southern UtoAztecan (see Campbell, 1997: 136–137) for discussion). The status of **r is likewise not clear, with some suggesting that it is one reflex of **t (Campbell, 1997: 137). Additional work with the cognate sets initially compiled by Miller (1967, 1988) may clarify the matter. The basic sound system has come down to the daughter languages with various alternations, with not all paths particularly clear. Work on comparative grammar dates to the 1960s and 1970s (Heath, 1978; Langacker, 1977; Steele, 1979; Voegelin, Voegelin and Hale, 1962). Based on these studies, the proto-language is considered to have had several features, including an ‘absolutive’ noun suffix, used to mark a noun that is neither possessed nor carries another postposition; an auxiliary that contained a complex of modal, pronominal, and tense elements; and various pronomial elements on the verb that marked a reflexive object (Steele, 1979: 444–448). The proto-language is also considered to be a verb final language, with a much richer verb morphology than noun morphology. The broad distribution of Uto-Aztecan languages has spurred several investigations into the linguistic prehistory of the family, with archaeologists, anthropologists, and linguists making contributions through the years. Comparative lexical work has suggested homelands for Proto-Uto-Aztecan in various locations within its present range, and various features, including agriculture, for its earliest speakers (Fowler, 1983; Hill, 2001, 2003). The language family has thus been fertile ground for testing many hypotheses from historical and theoretical linguistics to anthropological concerns. Today, the expertise of many Uto-Aztecan specialists, especially in the United States, is also being given to Native communities in
partnerships addressing language salvage and revitalization in order to preserve these significant languages for speakers in the future.
Bibliography Campbell L (1997). Oxford studies in anthropological linguistics 4: American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell L & Langacker R (1978). ‘Proto-Aztecan vowels: Parts 1, 2, and 3.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 85–102; 197–210; 262–279. Ethnologue (2004). ‘Language family trees: Uto-Aztecan.’ http://www.ethnologue.com. Fowler C S (1983). ‘Some lexical clues to Uto-Aztecan prehistory.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 49, 224–257. Goddard I (1996). ‘The classification of the Native languages of North America.’ In Goddard I (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians 17: Languages. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 290–323. Hale K L (1964). ‘The sub-grouping of Uto-Aztecan languages: lexical evidence for Sonoran.’ In XXXV congresso International de Americanistas, Me´xico, 2, 511–517. Heath J (1977). ‘Uto-Aztecan morphophonemics.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 43, 27–36. Heath J (1978). ‘Uto-Aztecan *na-class verbs.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 211–222. Heath J (1985). ‘Proto-Northern Uto-Aztecan principles.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 441–443. Hill J H (2001). ‘Proto-Uto-Aztecan: a community of cultivators in central Mexico?’ American Anthropologist 103, 913–934. Hill J H (2003). ‘Proto-Uto-Aztecan and the northern devolution.’ In Renfrew C & Bellwood P (eds.) Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge, MA: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. 331–440. Hill K C, Sekaquaptewa E, Black M E, Malotki & the Hopi Tribe (1998). Hopi dictionary. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Kaufman T S (1974). ‘Meso-American Indian languages.’ In Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th edn. Chicago. 11, 956–963. [Reprinted 1985 in Encyclopedia Britannica (15th edn.). Chicago. 22, 767–774.] Lamb S M (1964). ‘The classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages: a historical survey.’ In Bright W (ed.) Studies in California linguistics. University of California publications in linguistics 34. Berkeley: University of California. 106–125. Langacker R W (1977). ‘An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar.’ Summer Institute of Linguistics publications 56: studies of Uto-Aztecan grammar I. Arlington: SIL and University of Texas at Arlington.
1142 Uyghur Manaster Ramer A (1992). ‘A Northern Uto-Aztecan sound law: *-c-–> *y-.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 58, 251–268. Miller W R (1967). ‘Uto-Aztecan cognate sets.’ University of California publications in linguistics 48. Berkeley: University of California Press. Miller W R (1983). ‘Uto-Aztecan languages.’ In Ortiz A (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians 10: Southwest. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 113–124. Miller W R (1984). ‘The classification of Uto-Aztecan languages based on lexical evidence.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 50, 1–24. Miller W R (1988). Computerized data base for UtoAztecan cognate sets. Salt Lake City: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. [CD-R version by K C Hill University of Arizona, 2004.] Sapir E (1913–1914). ‘Southern Paiute and Nahuatl: a study in Uto-Aztecan’ (2 parts). Journal de la Socie´te´
des Ame´ricanistes de Paris, n. s. 10, 379–425; 11, 443–488. Sapir E (1930–1931). ‘The Southern Paiute language’ (3 parts). Part 1: ‘Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean language.’ Part 2: ‘Texts of the Kaibab Paiutes and Uintah Utes.’ Part 3: ‘Southern Paiute dictionary.’ Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65, 1–296, 297–535, 737–730. Steele S (1979). ‘Uto-Aztecan: an assessment for historical and comparative linguistics.’ In Campbell L & Mithun M (eds.) The languages of Native America: historical and comparative assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press. 444–544. Voeglin C F, Voegelin F M & Hale K L (1962). Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics memoir 17: Typological and comparative grammar of Uto-Aztecan I: Phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Uyghur L Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
university level, Chinese, the dominant language, is necessary for higher education. The Uyghurs make strong efforts to maintain and cultivate their language. In Kazakhstan, a few Uyghur schools exist, and there is a certain publishing activity in Uyghur.
Location and Speakers Uyghur (uyXur tili, uyXurcˇa), formerly called Eastern Turki, is spoken in the Chinese Xinjiang Autonomous Region (Eastern Turkistan). It belongs to the Southeastern (Uyghur, Uyghur-Karluk, or Chaghatay) branch of the Turkic language family. At least 10 million native speakers of Uyghur live in Xinjiang. This region borders Kirghizstan and Tajikistan in the west; Kazakhstan in the northwest; Mongolia in the north and northeast; the Russian Federation in the north; Afghanistan, Jammu, and Kashmir in the southwest; Tibet in the southeast; and the Chinese provinces Gansu and Qinghai in the east. Other languages spoken in Xinjiang include Chinese, Kazakh, and Kirghiz. The speakers of Uyghur predominantly live in the oases north of the Tarim river, on the southern slopes of Tienshan, and on the northern slopes of Kunlun in the southern Taklamakan desert up to the region west of the Lop desert. About half a million speakers of Uyghur live in eastern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. The status of Uyghur in Xinjiang is stable. Official documents are issued in both Uyghur and Chinese. Though education in Uyghur is possible up to the
Origin and History The Old Uyghurs, living near the Selenga River on the territory of today’s Mongolia, were vassals of the eastern Tu¨rk confederation. They defeated the Tu¨rk in 744 and created an empire that extended from Lake Baikal to the Altay Mountains. From here, they expanded their realm to Gansu in the east, and incorporated the Tarim basin and the Ferghana valley. The Uyghurs entertained close contacts with China, adopted Manicheanism, and acted as the religion’s protective power. In 840, the Uyghurs were defeated by the Kirghiz, another Turkic-speaking tribal confederation. Most Uyghurs and many of their subjects fled southward. One group settled in the Ordos region of northern China and assimilated with Chinese and Mongols. The Uyghurs who settled in the Gansu corridor of western China, establishing contact with Tibetans and Mongols, are the ancestors of today’s Yellow Uyghurs. The largest group fled to the Tarim basin. In Turfan, the southwesternmost possession of their steppe empire, the Uyghurs established the kingdom of Kocho, which expanded rapidly over large parts of the Tarim basin. It existed until the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, and as a semiautonomous state
Uyghur 1143
for some time afterwards. A rich sedentary culture emerged, in which the Uyghur language was used for a comprehensive literary production. Various Turkic groups had settled in this region from the 6th century on, particularly in the colonies of the Tu¨rk empire. The western Tarim basin was predominantly populated by Karluks. Large parts of the area had thus been Turkicized long before the Uyghurs settled here. The Turkic-speaking groups eventually absorbed the indigenous non-Turkic population of Indo-European origin, i.e., speakers of Soghdian (Sogdian) and Tokharian. The southern oases north of Kunlun were mostly populated by Saka speakers. Their region, which had its center in Khotan, essentially remained untouched by Turkicization up to the Mongol period. The Old Uyghur culture was finally extinguished through the advancement of Islam. The first Islamic Turkic state in the east, the Karakhanid empire, was established in the 10th century, with Kashgar developing into the leading Islamic center in the east. Later on, the oasis states of the Tarim basin were controlled by Karakitay, Mongols, Junggars, and various local rulers. In the 20th century, Eastern Turkistan became a bone of contention in conflicts between Russia, China, and Britain.
Related Languages and Language Contacts Uyghur is closely related to Uzbek. Modern Uyghur partly goes back to Old Uyghur, which is close to the language of the Orkhon inscriptions of the Tu¨rk dynasty. It is not a direct continuation of Old Uyghur, but differs considerably from it as a result of interaction with Indo-European varieties such as Soghdian and Tokharian, and other Turkic varieties. The Turkic varieties of Eastern Turkistan, a major crossroad of Central Asia, have been in contact with numerous other languages. A strong substratum influence has been exerted by speakers of Indo-European shifting to Turkic. Uyghurs had early contacts with Mongols, and later contacts with Kirghiz and Kazakhs. Elements of Persian and Arabic origin were spread by merchants and religious teachers along the Silk Road. Contacts with Russian began in the early 20th century. The long contacts with Chinese have been particularly important. The presence of Chinese speakers in Xinjiang has increased considerably since the 1950s.
a religious – predominantly Buddhist, but also Manichaean and Nestorian Christian – nature. A rich treasure of Old Uyghur documents, written in various scripts, has been preserved, the last ones dating back to the 15th century. In the Islamic era, Eastern Turkistan was the birthplace of the literary language known as Karakhanid (‘Khakani’ Turkic), created in the 11th century in Kashgar, the cultural center of the Karakhanid state. Kashgar also became the basis of the eastern variety of the transregional literary language Chaghatay, which developed from the 15th century on in the Timurid realm. Modern written Uyghur is the last stage in this literary tradition. In 1922, an assembly in Tashkent decided to adopt the historical term ‘Uyghur’ for speakers of Eastern Turki in Russian Turkistan. The designation was officially accepted in Xinjiang in 1934. Standard Uyghur, the official local language of Xinjiang, was originally based on varieties spoken in the Ili region, mainly on Soviet territory. The basis of the current standard language are the dialects of Ghulja and U¨ru¨mchi. Since 1954, the Language and Script Work Committee (Til-ye˙ziq xizmiti komiteti) is responsible for its norms. The current standard pronunciation was determined in 1987 and slightly revised in 1997. Modern Uyghur was first written with Arabic script. A Cyrillic script was introduced in 1957 but soon replaced by the Roman-based ‘new script’ (ye˙ngi ye˙ziq), based on the Chinese pinyin system. Since this experiment was unsuccessful, the Arabic-based ‘old script’ (kona ye˙ziq) was revived in 1983. The return to it has made written communication with other Turkic-speaking groups more difficult. For Uyghur varieties of the Soviet Union, Arabic script was used up to 1930, then a Roman-based alphabet was used, and, from 1947 on, a Cyrillic script, which is still used in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.
Distinctive Features Uyghur exhibits most linguistic features typical of the Turkic family (see Turkic Languages). It is an agglutinative language with suffixing morphology, sound harmony, and a head-final constituent order. In the following, only a few distinctive features will be dealt with. In the notation of suffixes, capital letters indicate phonetic variation, e.g., A ¼ a/e, G ¼ X/g, K ¼ q/ k. Segment within round brackets occur after consonant-final stems only. Hyphens are used here to indicate morpheme boundaries.
The Written Language
Phonology
Old Uyghur was a highly developed literary language, attested by rich historical materials, mostly of
Uyghur displays many features that are lacking or uncommon in other Turkic languages. The back
1144 Uyghur
vowel ı¨ is missing in many environments where it is normally found in Turkic, e.g., yil ‘year.’ It is present in the neighborhood of back velars, e.g., qı¨z ‘girl’ (written qiz). The Arabic-based script does not distinguish the vowels i and ı¨, though it otherwise provides diacritic signs to designate vowels in an unambiguous way. The typical Turkic frontness-backness and rounded-unrounded harmony is preserved. The latter is relatively weak, many suffixes lacking variants with rounded vowels. Certain vowel changes and phonological irregularities, in particular regressive assimilations, can be interpreted as Indo-European substratum phenomena. Unaccented nonhigh vowels are raised in open syllables, i.e., a, e, e˙ > i, o > u, o¨ > u¨, e.g., bali-lar ‘children’ (bala ‘child’), yu¨ru¨g-u¨m [heart-POSS.1.SG] ‘my heart’ (yu¨rek ‘heart’). Words of Arabic and Persian origin are not subject to this rule. Two rules of regressive assimilation may be due to contact with Iranian. First, a and e in open first syllables are raised to e˙ under the influence of i or ı¨ of the following syllable, e.g., e˙t-im [horse-POSS.1.SG] ‘my horse’ (at ‘horse’) or ‘my meat’ (et ‘meat’). Second, a and e in open first syllables are rounded under the influence of u or u¨ in the following syllable, e.g., to¨mu¨r ‘iron’ < temu¨r. Finally -G is preserved in monosyllabic words, e.g., taX ‘mountain,’ but it is mostly changed to -K in nonfirst syllables, e.g., taX-lı¨q [mountain-DER] ‘mountainous.’ Initial zˇ- occurring before high vowels corresponds to y- in many other Turkic languages, e.g., yil ‘year’ (Turkish yıl). The consonants r and l are often deleted, particularly before obstruents, e.g., qa[r] ‘snow,’ qa[r]ga ‘crow,’ bo[l]sa [be(come)COND.3.SG] ‘if it is.’ Loanwords are restructured according to native phonotactical rules. Thus, f is mostly replaced by p, e.g., pikir ‘idea’ (
Grammar The ablative suffix is -Din, as in Old Uyghur, whereas most Turkic languages exhibit -Dan, e.g., o¨y-din [house-ABL] ‘from the house.’ Uyghur has lost, as Chaghatay already had, the ‘pronominal n,’ which occurs, in most Turkic languages, in third person possessive suffixes before case suffixes, e.g., o¨y-i-ge [house-POSS.3.SG-DAT] ‘to her/his house’ (cf. Turkish ev-in-e [house-POSS.3.SGDAT]). The polite form of the second person plural pronoun is si-ler [you-PL]. There is a general present tense marker going back to *-a tur-ur (converb suffix þ ‘stands’), e.g., oqu-y-du [read-CONV-3.SG] ‘reads,
will read,’ and a more focal present marker going back to *-p yat-a tur-ur (converb þ ‘lie’ þ converb þ ‘stands’), e.g., oqu-wati-du [read-FOCAL.PRES3.SG] ‘is reading.’ Evidentiality is expressed with the copulas e˙ken/e˙misˇ and the past suffix -(i)p-tu. The marker -gan-di expresses presumption. More than 20 auxiliary verbs are used in postverb constructions to express manner of action.
Lexicon Uyghur displays numerous words of Arabic and Persian origin. Many words for abstract concepts are inherited from the Karakhanid-Chaghatay literary tradition. Though this influence has now decreased, one-fifth of the vocabulary is still of Arabic-Persian origin. A large part of the modern technical and administrative vocabulary has been copied from Russian. The lexical influence of Chinese has become increasingly stronger, and many Chinese neologisms have been copied. In the 1960s, the use of Chinese scientific terminology was obligatory. There is now a tendency to replace Chinese words with products of Turkic word formation, loan translations, and internationalisms copied from Russian.
Dialects The classification of Uyghur dialects is still controversial. A northern group includes dialects spoken north and east of the Tienshan mountains and immediately south of them. It comprises the westernmost dialects of Kashgar and Yarkent, the more central dialects of Aqsu and Kucha, and the eastern dialects of Turfan and Qumul. The Kashgar-Yarkent dialect is strongly influenced by varieties of Western Turkistan. The Turfan dialect is of special interest, since it seems to stand in a direct historic relationship with Old Uyghur. A particular variety is Taranchi, spoken in the Ili valley by groups that emigrated from Eastern Turkistan at the end of the 18th century. This dialect, which is close to Uzbek, served as the basis of written Uyghur in Russian Turkistan. It is still spoken by Uyghurs in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, etc. A southern group comprises the Khotan dialects. A third group consists of the now nearly extinct Lopnur dialect, which was spoken the eastern Tarim basin and displayed Kirghiz and Mongolian influences. The Khoton (or Busurman ‘Muslim’) dialect is spoken in the region between the lakes Ubsu-nur and Chirgis-Nur in western Mongolia. The Eynu variety, spoken at various places in southwestern Xinjiang, combines an Uyghur morphosyntax with a special vocabulary of non-Turkic – partly Iranian and partly unknown – origin. Its speakers, all adult men,
Uzbek 1145
use it as a secret language to make their conversations unintelligible to outsiders. Salar and Yellow Uyghur were formerly considered dialects of Uyghur. Salar is of Oghuz Turkic origin, whereas Yellow Uyghur is the continuation of an Old Uyghur dialect.
Bibliography Dwyer A M (2001). ‘Uyghur.’ In Garry J & Rubino C (eds.) Facts about the world’s major languages: an encyclopedia of the world’s major languages, past and present. Dublin: The H. W. Wilson Company/New York: New England Publishing Associates. 786–790. Hahn R F (1991). Spoken Uyghur. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Hahn R F (1998). ‘Uyghur.’ In Johanson L & Csato´ E´ A (eds.) The Turkic languages. London: Routledge. 379–396.
Jarring G (1933). Studien zu einer osttu¨rkischen Lautlehre. Lund: Borelius, Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Jarring G (1946–1951). Materials to the knowledge of Eastern Turki 1–4. Lund: Lunds Universitets a˚rsskrift. Jarring G (1964). An Eastern Turki-English dialect dictionary. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. Menges K H (1955). Glossar zu den volkskundlichen Texten aus Ost-Tu¨rkistan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Nadzhip E N (1971). Modern Uigur. Moscow: Nauka. Pritsak O (1959). ‘Das Neuuigurische.’ In Deny J et al. (eds.) Philologiae turcicae fundamenta 1. Aquis Mattiacis: Steiner. 525–563. Schwarz H G (1992). An Uyghur-English dictionary. Bellingham: Western Washington University Press. Wei C Y (1989). ‘An introduction to the Modern Uygur literary language and its dialects.’ Wiener Zeitschrift fu¨r die Kunde des Morgenlandes 79, 235–249.
Uzbek L Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Location and Speakers Uzbek (ozbek tili, ozbekcha) belongs, like modern Uyghur, to the southeastern (Uyghur, Uyghur-Karluk, or Chaghatay) branch of the Turkic language family. It is spoken in various dialects in Western Turkistan, primarily in the Republic of Uzbekistan (Ozbekiston Respublikasi), which occupies the major part of Transoxiana and has common borders with Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. The Uzbek-speaking areas are concentrated in the the lower Zerafshan and upper Syrdarya valleys and in the Ferghana valley, west and northwest of western Tienshan. Though the Uzbeks make up 80% of the population of the republic, Uzbek is spoken by less than 75%, i.e., about 19.8 million people. Other languages of Uzbekistan include Russian and Tajik. The latter is mainly spoken in the oases of Bukhara and Samarkand and in the Ferghana valley. Russian is mainly spoken in the capital, Tashkent. Karakalpakistan, which comprises the northwestern part of Uzbekistan, is an autonomous republic with a special status and a language of the Kazakh type. Karakalpaks make up 2% of the population. Many Karakalpaks use Uzbek as a second language. Uzbek is also spoken in parts of Tajikistan (1.2 million speakers), northern Afghanistan (1.5 million), Kyrgyzstan (600 000),
Kazakhstan (350 000), Turkmenistan (360 000), and China (Xinjiang) (15 000). The total number of speakers amounts to about 24 million people. Uzbek–Russian bilingualism is widespread in Uzbekistan, and Russian has a strong position. Uzbek is, however, one of the most firmly established Turkic languages, the second after Turkish in terms of cultural importance. It has been subject to systematic language planning and cultivation. Post-Soviet Uzbek is in a transitional period of dynamic developments. In general, the status of the Russian language has declined. In the first post-Soviet years, Russian was still defined as the medium of ‘crossnational communication’ in Uzbekistan. Later, it lost this role and its status as a compulsory subject in Uzbek education. However, the goal of enforcing obligatory use of the indigenous languages in public functions within a few years’ time has proved unrealistic.
Origin and History The historical background of the current linguistic situation is highly complex. In what is now Uzbekistan, varieties of southeastern Turkic have been spoken for a millennium, both by nomadic groups and by a sedentary population in close contact with Iranian-speaking groups. An intensive Iranian– Turkic bilingualism developed in Transoxiana and Ferghana. Sizeable Iranian-speaking groups eventually shifted to Turkic. The Uzbek conquest brought in a different element (the original Uzbeks spoke a Kipchak language of the Kazakh type). After the fall
1146 Uzbek
of the Golden Horde, the Uzbeks left the Kipchak territory in the Ponto-Caspian area, seized the power in Transoxiana in about 1500, overthrew the Chaghatay empire, and established the khanates of Khiva and Bukhara. The language of these politically dominant groups was gradually absorbed by varieties of southeastern Turkic (‘de-Kipchakization’). Different degrees of maintenance of Kipchak elements and of Iranicization mirror the transition from nomadic to sedentary life. Modern Uzbek is based on the language of the old sedentary Turkic population but displays a few Kipchak features. The original Kipchak varieties have gradually vanished with the abandonment of the nomadic lifestyle. Some remnants of them are found in northern and northwestern Uzbekistan. Russia conquered Uzbekistan in the late 19th century. In the 1920s, Soviet Turkistan was split into a number of socialist republics, and an Uzbek republic was set up in 1924.
Related Languages and Language Contacts Uzbek is most closely related to modern Uyghur, with which it shares important features. The oldest Turkic population of the area had close relations to speakers of Iranian. The predecessor of Uzbek was strongly influenced by Sogdian and, after the Muslim conquest, New Persian. Long-standing intensive contacts with East Persian have led to copying of numerous features in phonology, morphology, vocabulary, and syntax. There are many striking structural similarities between Uzbek and Tajik. These influences, along with later Kipchak Turkic and Russian influences, have given Uzbek a highly composite character. Uzbek–Tajik bilingualism is still alive in some areas, e.g., in and around Samarkand and Bukhara. An increasing Uzbek influence on Tajik may be observed. Kirghiz–Uzbek bilingualism is found in Kirghiz towns bordering on the Uzbek Ferghana valley.
The Written Language Persian was for a long time the prestigious language of administration and higher culture in Transoxiana. Its importance later decreased in favor of Chaghatay, the Persian-influenced literary language of the Chaghatay empire cultivated in Samarkand, Bukhara, Tashkent, Ferghana, and other centers. From the 18th century on, Chaghatay developed further through successive modernization and adaptation to regional spoken varieties. The ‘Sart’ literary language, used until 1920, consisted of Chaghatay with certain modern regional elements. After the
Russian conquest of the region, Uzbek was established as the standard language. It was first based on northern dialects, and later, after 1937, on the southern dialects of Tashkent and Ferghana. Modern standard Uzbek is the common ‘roof’ of highly different varieties. Uzbek was first, as Chaghatay, written in Arabic script. A Roman-based script was introduced in 1929 and revised in 1934. In 1937, the orthography was simplified. Due to this reform, Uzbek texts became less easily intelligible to readers in neighboring Turkic areas. The old role of Uzbek as a transregional language was thus drastically restricted. A Cyrillic-based script was introduced in 1940 and 1941 and was later modified. The transition to a Roman-based alphabet was enacted by law in 1993. The new script system was revised in 1995. It is based on the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) and dispenses with diacritic signs. The new system preserves the principles of the Cyrillic-based system. It essentially represents a transliteration of the Cyrillic spelling and is thus very different from the Roman-based system of the 1930s.
Distinctive Features Uzbek exhibits most linguistic features typical of the Turkic family (see Turkic Languages). It is an agglutinative language with suffixing morphology, sound harmony, and a head-final constituent order. In the following discussions, only a few distinctive features will be dealt with. In the notation of suffixes, capital letters indicate phonetic variation, e.g., A ¼ a/ e, G ¼ g/g, K ¼ q/k. Hyphens are used to indicate morpheme boundaries. Phonology
The phonetic realizations of the vowels vary greatly. The standard orthography is very vague about the actual pronunciation. With the revision of the Romanbased script in 1934, the vowel signs were reduced to six. When, in 1937, the strongly Iranicized Tashkent dialect was chosen as the norm for the standard language, the signs for o¨, u¨, and ı¨ disappeared, and the front vowel æ was written with the letter ‘a.’ These principles have been maintained in the new Romanbased system. Modern spelling thus applies a system of six vowel signs, identical with the system used for Tajik. It does not reflect the fact that the distinctions between back and front vowels have been largely preserved. Standard Uzbek is claimed to have, as a result of Iranian influence, the six vowel phonemes a, e, a˚, i, o, and u. This analysis is mirrored in the orthography. The sign ‘a’ stands for a front æ, but also for a backed
Uzbek 1147
‘a’ when adjacent to back-velar or uvular consonants. The higher vowel e occurs in first syllables, e.g., er ‘husband’ and keræk ‘necessary.’ A labialized a˚ occurs in first syllables, e.g., a˚lti ‘six’ and a˚ra ‘interval,’ confusingly enough written with the letter ‘o.’ Similarly, the letter ‘i’ stands for a front i, but also for a backed ı¨ when adjacent to back-velar or uvular consonants, e.g., yaxsˇı¨ ‘good.’ High, unrounded vowels are often reduced or lost in closed syllables before certain consonants, e.g., [bir] ‘one.’ The vowels o˙ and u˙ (with a somewhat retracted pronunciation) occur instead of Common Turkic o¨ and u¨, e.g., o˙lik ‘dead’ and tu˙n ‘night.’ The distinctions o vs. o˙ and u vs. u˙ are not reflected in the script. Thus, pairs such as bol- ‘become’ vs. bo˙l- ‘divide’ and ucˇ ‘end’ vs. u˙cˇ ‘three’ are homographic in modern spelling. Due to Iranian influence, the manifestations of sound harmony are less straightforward than in most other Turkic languages. There are disturbances of the vowel harmony in most urban dialects, whereas the northern dialects have preserved vowel harmony. Suffixes are very often invariable and their vowels are not assimilating to the frontness–backness or the roundedness–unroundedness of the preceding vowel. The notation of consonants in the new orthography follows the principles of the Cyrillic-based script. For example, ‘ch’ represents cˇ, ‘sh’ represents sˇ, and ‘j’ represents . The back velars q and g are represented by q and g"; the front velars k and g are represented by ‘k’ and ‘g’. As in Uyghur, final -G has mostly changed to -K in nonfirst-syllable positions, e.g., sariq ‘yellow’ and tirik ‘alive’ (cf. Turkish sarı and diri). The realizations of suffixes are highly regular. Uzbek displays less consonant assimilations of suffix-initial n, d, and l than most neighboring languages do. The standard spelling is basically morphological and normally does not indicate vowel harmony or consonant assimilations. In loanwords, high epenthetic vowels are inserted to dissolve nonpermissible consonant clusters, e.g., fikir ‘thought’ (written fikr). However, elements of Russian, Arabic, and Persian origin usually reflect the original forms as written in Cyrillic and Arabic script. Assimilations and other adaptations are thus obscured, e.g., nisbat ‘relation’ for [nispæt]. Grammar
Uzbek lacks the ‘pronominal n’ in the declension of nouns with third-person possessive suffixes, e.g., qoli-da [hand-POSS.3.SG-LOC] ‘in his/her hand’ (Turkish kol-un-da [hand-POSS.3.SG-LOC]). The genitive suffix -nin is mostly pronounced as -ni, thus coinciding with the accusative suffix. Like Uyghur, Uzbek has abandoned the old pronominal flexion in favor of nominal
flexion, e.g., sen-gæ [you-DAT] ‘to you’ (Turkish sana [you-DAT]). The demonstrative pronouns constitute a four-place system with bu ‘this,’ sˇu ‘this (in view),’ osˇa ‘this (in view, more distant),’ and u ‘that.’ Lower numerals can assume the suffix -tæ, e.g., ikki-tæ ‘two (pieces).’ The suffixes -a˚w and -ælæ form collective numerals, e.g., ikk-a˚w ‘the two’ and ikk-ælæ-si [two-COLL-POSS.3.SG] ‘both of them.’ The general present-tense marker goes back to converb suffix þ ‘stands,’ e.g., kel-æ-di [come-PRES3.SG] ‘comes, will come.’ More focal present markers include -(æ)yæp and -(æ)ya˚tir, going back to constructions with ya˚t- ‘to lie,’ e.g., ya˚z-yæp-ti [write-FOCAL.PRES-3.SG] ‘is writing (just now)’ and kel-æ-ya˚tir [come-FOCAL.PRES-3.SG] ‘is coming.’ Other focal forms with various nuances can be formed with auxiliary verbs meaning ‘to stand,’ ‘to sit,’ or ‘to move,’ e.g., ya˚z-ib turib-mæn [write-FOCAL.PRES-1.SG] ‘I am writing.’ Evidentiality is expressed by the indirective past marker -(i)bdi and the indirective copula particles ekæn/emisˇ, e.g., ayt-ib-di [say-EV3.SG] ‘obviously said,’ unut-ib-mæn [forget-EV-1.SG] ‘I have obviously forgotten,’ and kæsæl ekæn [ill COP.EV] ‘is obviously ill.’ The interrogative forms -mi-kæn and mi-kin express doubt, e.g., kel-gænmikan? [come-POSTTERMINAL.PAST INTERROG] ‘has (s)he really come?’ The postterminal (‘past’) marker -gæn is used as participle and as a finite form, as in most other Turkic languages, corresponding functionally to Turkish -mIs¸, -(y)An, and -DIK. There is also an intraterminal (‘present’) participle in -digæn. Postverb constructions with converb forms of the lexical verbs plus auxiliary verbs are used to express semantic modifications, including manner of action, e.g. -æ ber- ‘to do continuously, to keep doing.’ The Persian impact on Uzbek syntax is considerable. Lexicon
The Uzbek vocabulary contains many loans of Arabic– Persian origin, mostly copied from Persian and inherited from the old literary language, Chaghatay. The strong Iranian influence on Uzbek has led to borrowing of word-formation affixes, even prefixes, e.g., na˚-togri ‘untrue’ (na˚- ‘non-’ copied from Persian plus Turkic togri ‘right, true’). Female gender is expressed in some nouns borrowed from Arabic and Russian, e.g., sˇa˚ir-a [poet-FEM] ‘poetess’ (sˇa˚ir ‘poet’) and student-ka [student-FEM] ‘female student’ (student ‘student’). Most conjunctions are of Arabic–Persian origin. Dialects
The dialects exhibit different degrees of Iranicization. The northern dialects, spoken in southern Kazakhstan, north of Tashkent, show little Iranian
1148 Uzbek
influence. Southern Uzbek includes the dominant urban dialects of Tashkent, Bukhara, Samarkand, etc., which go back to varieties of the settled populations. They have been heavily influenced by East Persian in their vowel system, for example. Moderately Iranicized dialects are spoken east of Tashkent, in the Ferghana valley, representing a successive transition to Uyghur. The rural dialects of the Kipchak type are Kazakh dialects. Oghuz Turkic dialects, improperly called Oghuz Uzbek, are spoken in Khorezm and adjacent areas. Related dialects are also spoken in southern Uzbekistan and in southern Kazakhstan.
Bibliography Boeschoten H (1998). ‘Uzbek.’ In Johanson L & Csato´ E´ A´ (eds.) The Turkic languages. London & New York: Routledge. 357–378. Borovkov A K (ed.) (1959). Uzbeksko–russkij slovar’. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannyx i nacional’nyx slovarej.
¨ zbekische Grammatik. Leipzig: Gabain A von (1945). O Otto Harrassowitz. Johanson L (2001). ‘Uzbek.’ In Garry J & Rubino C (eds.) Facts about the world’s major languages: an encyclopedia of the world’s major languages, past and present. New York, Dublin: The H. W. Wilson Co., New England Publishing Assoc. 791–793. Kononov A N (1960). Grammatika sovremennogo uzbekskogo jazyka. Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Raun A (1969). Basic course in Uzbek. Bloomington: Indiana University/The Hague: Mouton. Sjoberg A F (1963). Uzbek structural grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University/The Hague: Mouton. Waterson N (1980). Uzbek–English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ¨ zbekische.’ In Deny J et al. (eds.) Wurm S (1959). ‘Das O Philologiae turcicae fundamenta 1. Aquis Mattiacis: Steiner. 489–524.
Relevant Website http://www.turkiclanguages.com – Website with many Turkish language resources.
V Vietnamese J Edmondson, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Historical Origins The Vietnamese are thought to be descended from a precursor people who once dwelled near the Viet-Lao border of Central and Northcentral Vietnam where today are still found Vietic groups such as the Mu’o`’ng, Nguo`ˆ n, Arem, Ru. c, Po. ng, Arem, Ma`, y, Sa´ch, Ma˜ Lie`ˆ ng, and Tha` Vu. ’ng (Nguye˜ˆ n Ta`i Caˆn, 1995), (Ferlus, 1979, 1982, 1991, 1996, 1997). Long ago some of these groups moved north into the Red River Valley, lived under their own Hu`ng Vu’o’ng kings, and then allied with the indigenous Ta`y ethni-, cities in the joint Ta`y-Viet Kingdom of Aˆu-La. c at Coˆ Loa Citadel near Hanoi (257 to 208 B.C.). This lineage ended when the First Emperor of China and builder of the Great Wall dispatched the Chinese general Zha`o Tuo´ (in Hanyu Pingyin transcription) or Trieˆ. u Ða` (in Vietnamese), who conquered Aˆu-La. c and introduced 100 000 soldiers, Chinese rule, Chinese Chu˜’ Ha´n ‘Han (Chinese) character writing or script’, and the Mandarin administrative system. Vietnam remained a Chinese province until A.D. 939. After the Chinese departed, the Vietnamese continued the practice of borrowing from the Chinese cultural lexicon as well as structural and grammatical forms, and continued developing the character script, Chu˜’ Nho or ‘learned which was then renamed script’, and which contrasted with newly created characters used for writing purely Vietnamese lexical items. This new demotic script was called Chu˜’ Noˆm ‘southern, local, vernacular script’ or simply Noˆm, which was clearly in evidence by the 13th century, but was perhaps in use as early as the 10th century. Consider the following examples of strategies used for crafting Noˆm characters: (1) gio`’i meaning ‘heaven’ and ‘heaven, sky’ from Chinese meaning ‘above’; (2) d–a´ˆ t ‘earth’ composed of , thoˆ ‘earth’ for the meaning and , taken from one for the sound d–a´t; (3) ca´ ‘fish’ is a half of
‘fish’ for the meaning and ca´ combination of for the sound; and (4) ba ‘three’ is composed of the radical meaning ‘three’ and ba for the sound. These examples show that 10th century Vietnamese were very much aware of the principles used in the construction of Chinese characters, namely to combine a radical part for meaning and a phonetic part for the sound, but the example for sky, heavens shows that sometimes other methods of creation were used. Chinese influence in Vietnamese is generally very important and is the result of (1) 1000 years of occupation by Chinese speakers, (2) the role of Chinese as the spoken and written language of administration and, (3) the fact that Chinese continues to be the source of borrowing even today. Chinese loans in contemporary Vietnamese, called Sino-Vietnamese, can make up as much as 80% of the vocabulary in some semantic domains, (Hoa`ng, 1991: 5). But the depth of Chinese influence extends beyond the lexical. Indeed, some of the typological incongruities of morphology and syntax are now considered to be the result of contact with Chinese and other languages. Politically independent at last, the Vietnamese then turned their attention to southern rivals, the Champa Kingdom. Three hundred years of greater and lesser hostilities ensued, with ebbs and flows evident in marriage alliances and other accommodations; Vietnamese absorbed some early loans from this source as well. In the 14th century, the Vietnamese gained ultimate control and the boundaries of the language were advanced southward until Vietnam reached its current geographic extension. Chinese Chu˜’ Ha´n with an admixture of Chu˜’ Noˆm writing flourished until the late 1600s when an outside force, Jesuit missionaries including Alexander de Rhodes and Francisco de Pina, developed an orthography based loosely on Portuguese and on Italian models that were intended not for the court but for believers among the common people. It was a romanized script with diacritics for tones and vowels, called Chu˜’ Quo´ˆ c Ngu˜’, whose timeline can be sketched as follows: 1620–1631 embryonic beginnings, 1631–1648 revisions, 1651–1659 dissemination, and 1772–1838 finalizing stage, (Ly´, 1999: 234–5).
1150 Vietnamese
Over the 18th and 19th centuries, official character script and popular roman script co-existed, but gradually Chu˜’ Quoˆ´c Ngu˜’, aided first by French colonial proclivities in favor of a Latin-based script and the Church and later by populist movements, led to a shift in orthography; the character-based writing of Vietnamese was finished entirely by 1917 when the French eliminated the Chinese examination system, cf., Alexandre de Rhodes (1651) and Nguyeˆ˜n Ðı`nh Hoa` (1973, 1992). Regional Varieties
The regional varieties of Vietnamese are divided into three main types: Northern (e.g., Hanoi), Central (e.g., Hue´ˆ ), and Southern (e.g., Ho`ˆ Chı´ Minh City). Recently, it has been suggested by Ferlus and Nguye˜ˆ n Ta`i Caˆ’n that a fourth regional area should be added, Northcentral Vietnam or Area IV (Nghe.ˆ An Province), as this area preserves several special features lost elsewhere, cf., below and Alves (2000). Phonological Forms
Vietnamese of the northern type has six tones, the southern type five, and central/northcentral types five or six, all of which can be traced back to a parent tone system of three columns of level, rising, and falling tones and two rows, high and low. Haudricourt (1954) proposed that Vietnamese was originally not a tonal language but that tonality arose as a part of the historical development of Vietnamese. In this theory syllable-final consonants caused changes of pitch; rising tones were produced in syllables that formerly ended in -p, -t, -k, - , whereas falling tones were created in syllables that once ended in -s or -h, and mid-level tones were created when syllables possessed no final consonants to draw the pitch up or down. Haudricourt’s famous theory of Vietnamese tonogenesis explains how a non-tonal Mon-Khmer language could changes its typological features and become tonal. Vietnamese tone categories are also associated with specific voice quality contrasts that accompany each tone, perhaps a residue of its tonogenetic history. Thus the tone called ngang demonstrates mid-level with modal voice (tones are notated with the scale-of-five system in which 5 is the highest and 1 is the lowest level, cf. Y. -R. Chao, 1930); huye`ˆ n falls from mid with lax/breathy voice; sa´˘ c rises sharply from mid with tense voice ending in a glottalized coda; na.˘ ng falls with increasingly tense voice from early in the syllable to glottal statis; h i is a fall-rise tone; nga˜ has a glottal interruption in the center of the syllable, sounding almost as if it were composed of two syllables V V, with overall a very high rising pitch, cf., Nguye˜ˆ n and Edmondson (1997). The
names ngang, huyeˆ`n, etc., illustrate the tone they name. See Table 1. Vietnamese consonants in Hanoi speech distinguish five places of articulation – labio-dental, dentialveolar (the t series is denti-alveolar initially and apico-postalveolar finally), palatal, velar, and glottal, and several manners of articulation – voiceless aspirated stops, voiceless unaspirated stops, preglottalized voiced stops, fricatives (x is a laminoprepalatal narrow grooved fricative), liquids, and nasals. Compare Chu˜’ Quoˆ´c Ngu˜’ and IPA values of these consonants in Table 2. In southern Vietnamese there are some important differences in initials compared to Hanoi. Notably trand s- are retroflexed [
Table 1 Vietnamese tone categories
High Low
Level
Rising
Falling
ngang [NaN33] huye`ˆ n [huien 31] ¨ ¨
sa´˘ c [sa˘k35 ] D na.˘ ng [na˘N21 ] D
, , hoi [hoi323] nga˜ [Na4 5]
Table 2 Vietnamese consonant system ph- [f] -p [ ]
th- [ h] t[ ]
b- [ b]
d– [ d] x-, s- [s] r-, d-, gi- [z] n [n] 1- [1]
kh- [x] c, k, q- [k] tr-, ch [t ]
v- [v] m [m]
g(h)- [g] or [X] hnh [J]
ng(h) [N]
Vietnamese 1151
[z 31] du. c a suffix [zM 21 ], ho. c ‘study, -ology’ D piastre’ [ d u 31]. u [ha 2¨ 1¨ ] and d–o`ˆ ng ‘Vietnamese D ¨¨ Similarly, whenever the palatals -ch or -nh follow the unrounded vowels -i, -eˆ, or -a, then diphthongization occurs as before, but there is no rounding, as all segments are unrounded to begin with, e.g., minh ‘clear, bright’ [miiM33], thı´ch ‘to like’ [thiic35 ], le.ˆ nh ‘order, command’ [lei J21 ], eˆ´ch ‘frog’ [eic35 ], anh D [kiM33] and thach ‘stone’ ‘Sir, you, older brother’ . i [thk c21 ]. The rhymes of Vietnamese syllables can have the W W: a a u u o o O O/. If nuclear vowels: / i ie e E E one assumes that /ie ^MV uV / function as the long versions of /i M u/, then all vowels except /e/ have long and short forms. In Table 4 one sees the possible
Table 3 Regional variation of initials from Alves (2000). QN=Quoˆ´c Ngu˜, NV=Hanoi, NCV=locations in Nghe.ˆ An Province, CV=Hue´ˆ , SV=Ho`ˆ Chı´ Minh City QN
NV
NCV
CV
SV
s x tr ch r d gi v -nh -n -ng -ch -t -c
s s c c z z z v M n J c t k
s r c r j z v M n J c t k
s r c r j j j n n/N N t t/k k
s r c r j j j n n/N N t t/k k
combinations of these nuclear vowels with the set of possible codas. Nuclear vowels may occur in open syllables, i.e., with -ø coda or in one of the following combinations: -j (graphically -i/-y), w (graphically -o/-u), -m, -p, -n, -t, -nh, -ch, -ng, -c. There are some notable areas where combinations are disallowed. For example, there are no rhymes *ij, *uw, or *ow, palatal coda may combine only with -a- and -i-, and velars may not combine with high front vowels except /E:/. Word Category and Constructions
Contrary to some reports, Vietnamese is not an absolutely monosyllabic language, but one with many compounds and reduplicated structures. Compounds demonstrate disyllabic construction and have either been borrowed intact, from Chinese (so nouns are right-headed, e.g., coˆ d–a. i [old-[eraN]N] ‘antiquity’, thanh aˆm [voice-[sound , , N]N] ‘sound’, and verbs are left-headed aˆu thoˆ [V[V vomit]-spit] ‘to vomit’) or are pure Vietnamese creations of Vietnamese or mixed lexical roots, all left-headed ngu`’o’i Vie.ˆ t [N[N people]- Viet] ‘Vietnamese people’, nha` thu’o’ng [N[N house]-of the injured] ‘hospital’, la`m vie.ˆ c [V[V do]work] ‘to work’, except for the group of father-mother compounds, which consist mostly of semantically paired things, e.g., boˆ´ me. father-mother ‘parents’, ba`n gheˆ´ table-chair ‘furniture’, ba´t dı˜a bowl-plate ‘dishes’, which function as a unit without head. Vietnamese reduplicatives are also very productive, such as complete reduplicatives having the same onset and rhymes, cu’o`’i-cu’o`’i ‘laugh a little’, no´i no´i ‘keep talking’, register change reduplicatives with the repeated part, be it on the right or left, having opposing
Table 4 Vietnamese rhymes with nuclear vowel(s) in the left column and codas in rows. Compiled from Leˆ´ Va˘´n Ly´ (1948), Haudricourt (1951), Gordina (1960), Emeneau (1951), as reported in Cao Xuaˆn Ha. o (2003: 88–103) Ø
i ie e E E
X X a a u u o O o O
i ia eˆ e e u’ u’a o’ a u ua oˆ o -
j -i/y
w -o/u
m -m
p -p
n -n
t -t
-nh
c -ch
r -ng
k -c
u’i u’o’i aˆy o’i ay ai ui uoˆi oˆi oi -
iu ieˆu eˆu eo u’u u’ou aˆu au ao -
im ieˆm eˆm em u’om aˆm o’m a˘m am um uoˆm oˆm om -
ip ieˆp eˆp ep u’op aˆp o’p a˘p ap up oˆp op -
in ieˆn eˆn en u’on aˆn o’n a˘n an un uoˆn oˆn on -
it ieˆt eˆt et u’t u’ot aˆt o’t a˘t at ut uoˆt oˆt ot -
inh anh -
ich ach -
eng u’ng u’ong aˆng a˘ng ang ung uoˆng oˆng ong oˆoˆng oong
ec u’c u’oc aˆc a˘c ac uc uoˆ oˆc oc ooc
1152 Vietnamese
high-low register of the same tone class, e.g., xe. p ‘be flattened’ vs. xe´p-xe. p ‘be completely flattened’ (with a sa˘´c tone syllable being here followed by a na˘. ng reduplicant); some have vowel changes in the reduplicant, e.g., hoˆ´c ‘hole, hollow’ vs. hoˆ´c-ha´c ‘be emaciated, gaunt’; some can have changes of onset in the first element and some in the second element as roˆ. n ‘be noisy’ vs. choˆ. n-roˆ. n ‘be agitated’ and xe. p ‘beflattened’ vs. xe. p-le´p ‘be completely flattened’, (Thompson, 1987). Regarding word categories, Vietnamese has the following: nouns Leˆ Quy´ Ðoˆn 18th century author, ho. c sinh ‘student’, ga` ‘chicken’; classifiers hai con cho´ two-CLS-dog ‘two dogs’, ca´c ca´i ba`n plural-CLStable ‘tables’; locatives ngoa`i ‘outside’, ba˘´c ‘north’; numerals hai ‘two’, ba ‘three’; verbs d–i ‘to go, walk’, no´i ‘to talk’; stative verbs (adjectives) toˆ´t ‘good’, mo´’i ‘new’; and pronouns. It is noteworthy for its rich and complex set of pronouns. There are personal pronouns toˆi ‘I, me (with modesty, servant)’, ta ‘I (emphatic), one’, tao ‘I (arrogant)’, ma`y, mi, bay ‘you (arrogant)’, and no´ ‘it (animal)’ or ‘he (for children or contemptible persons, criminals)’. The term mı`nh, meaning ‘body’ is used for ‘you (intimate)’. The term chu´ng ‘group of animate objects’ can be combined with the above to make plurals such as chu´ng toˆi ‘we-exclusive’ and chu´ng ta ‘we-inclusive’. In public discourse, kinship names are often used, e.g., chi. ‘older sister, you-Ms.’, ba` ‘grandmother, old woman, you-Madame’, anh ‘older brother you-Sir’, cha´u ‘niece/nephew, grandchild, you-Young Person’, coˆ ‘father’s sister, you-Ms.’ (One speaker from Hanoi said that coˆ was obligatory to address one’s female teachers.) These can become like 3rd person pronouns by adding a´ˆ y, e.g., anh a´ˆ y ‘he, that Sir (a contemporary)’, chi. a´ˆ y ‘she, that Ms. (a contemporary)’, but there is also no´ ‘he (deprecating)’ and ho. ‘they’. Kinship names also have features of anaphoric nouns, they contain additional information about gender and degree of familiarity, and they function differently in tracking participants in discourse. Phrases and Sentences
Phrases are mostly left-headed, e.g., attributive adjectives follow heads, d–o`ˆ ng Vie.ˆ t Nam piaster-Vietnam ‘the Vietnamese piaster’, complements follow heads, a˘n co’m eat-rice ‘to eat (food)’, whereas adverb-like elements can appear to the left or right of the head, ra´ˆ t d–a´˘ t very-expensive ‘very expensive’ but d–a´˘ t la´˘ m expensive-very ‘very expensive’. Sentences tend to have known, presupposed information at the beginning and new, asserted information at the end. One manifestation of this principle is that
after introducing a referent, a close-knit group of clauses or a topic chain follows whose subjects are PRO, the zero pronoun. For example in the famous story about Baˆ`n with no overt pronouns, one finds: Baˆ`n ch la` moˆ. t anh nghe`o xa´c, ei nga`y nga`y lang thang kha˘´p xo´m na`y kha´c ei xin a˘n. Baˆ`ni just be a person poor, ei day-day wandered all over hamlet this different ei beg eat ‘Baˆ`n was a poor fellow [who] day after day wandered about from one place to another begging for food.’ Sources and Conclusion
There are several worthy examples of grammars and dictionaries of Vietnamese. For the English speaker, there is Nguyeˆ˜n Ðı`nh Hoa` (1997) grammar, which is richly exemplified, but reflects the spelling and sometimes the usage before 1975. Thompson (1965, 1987), written in the 1960s, also has a lot of examples, but employs a structuralist model of grammar that might be difficult for some to understand. Some of the examples are also no longer acceptable to contemporary speakers. Cao Xuaˆn Ha. o (2003) in an 800-page collection of his essays has discussed Vietnamese from the phonological, grammatical, and semantic perspectives. His bibliography includes many important scholars from the U.S. western Europe, and Russia, such as Bloomfield, Bybee, Chao Yuen Ren, Chomsky, Ducrot, McCawley et al., and a glossary of linguistic terms with English definitions. Notable dictionaries are those by Nguyeˆ˜n Ðı`nh Hoa` in many editions, Bu`i Phu. ng (1995) in many editions, and Vieˆ. n Ngoˆn Ngu˜’ Ho. c (2000), the model for the contemporary language and the standardsetting dictionary from the Linguistics Institute of Vietnam. Despite the obvious influences of contact, Vietnamese shows a surprising number of unique features (e.g., tense markers for past and future, some rightand some left-headed typological features), arguably the richest set of pronouns in East and Southeast Asia as well as properties typical of the linguistic area (e.g., a fully developed tone-voice quality sound system, a sharply reduced coda inventory, foursyllable elaborate expressions, and a numeral classifier system). Vietnamese is thus ultimately not very similar to Mon-Khmer, cf., Haudricourt (1953), and is certainly not similar to Sinitic, but a language perhaps analogous in its position to Modern English in the sense that it too has lost many features found in related languages. Yet, despite borrowing and shift influences, Vietnamese, like English, remains an independent and distinctive language in its own right.
Vietnamese 1153
Bibliography Alves M (2000). ‘A look at north-central Vietnamese.’ To appear in the papers from the 12th meeting of the Southeast Linguistics Society. University of Illinois, Urbana. , Bu`i P (1995). Tu`’-d–ieˆn Vieˆ. t-Anh (Vietnamese-English dic, tionary). Ha` Noˆ. i: Nha` Xuaˆ´t Ban Theˆ´ Gio´’i. ´ ´ Cao X H (2003). Tieˆng Vieˆ. t maˆy va´ˆ n d–e`ˆ ngu˜’ aˆm ngu˜’ pha´p ngu˜’ nghı˜a. (Vietnamese – some questions about its pho, nology, syntax, and semantics). Ða` Na˘˜ng: Nha` Xuaˆ´t Ban Gia´o Du. c. Chao Y-R (1930). ‘A system of tone letters.’ Le Maıˆtre phonetique 45, 24–27. , Ða`o D A (1996). Ha´n-Vie.ˆ t tu`’-d–ieˆ n. (Sino-Vietnamese dictionary). Hoˆ` Chı´ Minh: Nha` Xuaˆ´t Ba, n Tha`nh Phoˆ´ Hoˆ` Chı´ Minh. De Rhodes A (1651). Dictionarium annamiticum Lusitanum et Latinum. Rome: Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. Emeneau M B (1951). ‘Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) grammar’ (vol. 8). University of California Publications in Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Ferlus M (1979). ‘Lexique thavung-franc¸ais.’ Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Orientale 5, 71–94. Ferlus M (1982). ‘Spirantisation des obstruantes modiales et formation du syste`m consonantique du vietnamien.’ Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Orientale 11(1), 83–106. Ferlus M (1991). ‘Vocalisme du proto-Viet-Muong.’ Paper circulated at the twenty-fourth ICSTLL. Chiang Mai University, Oct. 10–11, 1991. Ferlus M (1996). ‘Langues et peuples viet-muong.’ MonKhmer Studies 26, 7–28. Ferlus M (1997). ‘Proble`mes de la formation du syste`m vocalique du vietnamien.’ Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Orientale 26, 1. Ferlus M (1998). ‘Les syste`mes de tons dans les langues vietmuong.’ Diachronica 15.1, 1–27. Gordina M V (1960). Osnovn’ie voprosy foneticheskogo stroia vietnamskogo iazyka (Basic questions about the phonetic principles of the Vietnamese language). Leningrad. Haudricourt A G (1951). ‘Les voyelles bre`ves du vietnamien.’ Bulletin de la Socie´te´ de Linguistique de Paris 48, 1, 90–93. Haudricourt A G (1953). ‘La place du vietnamien dans les langues austroasiatiques.’ Bulletin de la Socie´te´ de Linguistique de Paris 49, 122–128. Haudricourt A G (1954). ‘De l’origine des tons en vietnamien.’ Journal Asiatique 242, 80–81.
, Hoa`ng V H (1991). Tu`’ d–ieˆn yeˆ´u toˆ´ Ha´n Vie.ˆ t thoˆng du. ng (Dictionary of common use Sino-Vietnamese forms). Ha` Noˆ. i: Nha` Xua´ˆ t Ba, n Khoa Ho. c Xa˜ Hoˆ. i. Jacques R (2002). Portuguese pioneers of Vietnamese linguistics/pionniers portugais de la linguistique Vietnamienne. Bangkok: Orchid Press. Le´ˆ Va´˘ n Ly´ (1948). Le parler vietnamien. Paris: Hu’o’ng Anh. , Ly´ Toa`n Tha˘´ng (1999). Veˆ` vai tro` cua Alexandre de Rhodes , – ´ ´ d oˆi vo´i su. ’ cheˆ ta´c va` hoa`n chı nh chu˜’ quo´ˆ c ngu˜’. Giao lu’u va˘n ho´a va` ngoˆn ngu˜’ Vie.ˆ t-Pha´p (On the role of Alexandre de Rhodes in the creation and spread of the , quoˆ´c ngu˜’ writing system). Hoˆ` Chı´ Minh: Nha` Xuaˆ´t Ban ´ Tha`nh Phoˆ. Nguye˜ˆ n D H (1973). ‘An 18th-century Chinese-Vietnamese dictionary: The book of three thousand characters.’ Paper presented at the 183rd meeting of the American Oriental Society. Nguye˜ˆ n Ð H (1992). Vietnamese phonology and graphemic borrowings from Chinese: the book of 3000 characters revisited. Mon-Khmer Studies 20, 163–182. Nguye˜ˆ n D H (1995). Vietnamese-English dictionary (Tuttle Language Library). Tokyo: Tuttle. Nguyeˆ˜n D H (1997). Vietnamese: Tieˆ´ng Vie.ˆ t khoˆng son pha´ˆ n. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Nguyeˆ˜n H Q (2001). Ngu˜’ pha´p Tieˆ´ng Vie.ˆ t (A, grammar of , Vietnamese). Ha` Noˆ. i: Nha` Xuaˆ´t Ban Tu`’ Ðieˆn Ba´ch Khoa. ˜ Nguyeˆn T C (1995). Gia´o trı`nh li. ch su, ’ ngu˜’ aˆm Tie´ˆ ng Vieˆ. t (Textbook on the history of Vietnamese phonology). Ha` , Noˆi: Nha` Xuaˆ´t Ban Gia´o Du. c. ˙ Nguyeˆ˜n V L & Edmondson J A (1997). ‘Tones and voice quality in modern northern Vietnamese: instrumental case studies.’ Mon-Khmer Studies 28, 1–18. Thompson L C (1965, 1987). ‘A Vietnamese reference grammar.’ Mon-Khmer Studies, 13–15. Vieˆ. n Ngoˆn Ngu˜’ , Ho. c (Linguistic Institute of Vietnam) (2000). Tu`’-Ðieˆ n Tie´ˆ ng Vie.ˆ t (Vietnamese dictionary). , Ða` Na˘˜ng: Nha` Xuaˆ´t, Ban. – Vu˜ V K (1996). Tu`’-d ieˆ n Chu˜’ Noˆm (Chu Nom dictionary). , Ða` Na˜˘ ng: Nha` Xua´ˆ t Ban. Yakhontov S E (1991). ‘Ve`ˆ su´’ phaˆn loa. i ca´c ngoˆn ngu˜’ o, ’ ´ ’ (On categorizing among the lanÐoˆng Nam Chaˆu A guages of SE Asia). Ngoˆn Ngu˜’ 1.
Relevant Website www.osh.netnam.vn.
1154 Vure¨s
Vure¨s C Hyslop, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Vure¨s, the name currently preferred by the speakers of the language, is referred to in Ethnologue as the Vetumboso or Vures dialect of Mosina. Mosina is a distinct language, now nearing extinction, with approximately eight speakers residing in the village of the same name, in the southeast of Vanua Lava Island, the Banks group of islands, northern Vanuatu. Vure¨s is now the dominant language spoken on the island, with upward of 1000 speakers. It is spoken predominantly in the villages of Vetuboso, Wasaga, and Kerebetia and in smaller surrounding hamlets in the southwest of Vanua Lava. Like all languages of Vanuatu, Vure¨s is a member of the Oceanic subgroup of the Austronesian family. Within Vanuatu, it belongs to the Northeast Vanuatu-Banks Islands branch of the Northern Vanuatu linkage. The languages of Northern Vanuatu tend to be fairly conservative Oceanic languages. Vure¨s has a number of features that are representative of the subgroup and others that are more distinctive. There are 15 consonants and nine vowels in the phonemic inventory, the number of vowels being quite high relative to other Oceanic languages. Notable features of the consonant inventory that are frequently observed in Oceanic languages are prenasalized voiced stops and a labialized labio-velar stop and nasal. The language is nominative-accusative, with the grammatical relations subject and object being distinguished purely by AVO/SV word order. There is no marking of the subject and object within the verb phrase, which is unusual for an Oceanic language. Oblique arguments are mainly marked by prepositions and occur at the periphery of the clause. The language is both agglutinative and synthetic; however, compared to other Oceanic languages, there is not a great deal of morphology. There is very little
inflectional morphology; aspect and negative polarity are marked by prefixes on the verb and by some particles. There are no tense distinctions. Derivational morphology is also limited, which is linked to the fact that many words are precategorial. This means that they can occur in their underived form as members of more than one word class; in particular, many roots occur as nouns and verbs. Further, many verbs are ambitransitive. The marking of possession is a complex area of the grammar, a characteristic common to Oceanic languages. For nouns that are inalienably possessed, such as kinterms, body parts, and intimate possessions, the possessor is marked directly on the noun as a suffix. For other items, the possessor is marked on a relational classifier that indicates the function that the item has for the possessor. In Vure¨s there are six classifiers that mark the possessed item as food, drink, transport, domesticated plants and animals, clothing, or a general default category. Complex predicates are commonly expressed in Vure¨s by verb serialization. A serial verb construction can combine verbs to express varied meanings and functions, such as causatives, abilitatives, directionals, and aspectual functions, and some less transparent functions. For example the verb gial ‘to lie, pretend’ can serialize with another verb to express the meaning of pretending to perform the action of the other verb.
Bibliography Franc¸ois A (2001). Contraintes de structure et liberte´ dans l’organisation du discours: Une description du Mwotlap, langue Oce´anienne du Vanuatu. Ph.D. thesis. Universite´ Paris-IV Sorbonne. Lynch J & Crowley T (2001). Languages of Vanuatu: a new survey and bibliography. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Lynch J, Ross M & Crowley T (eds.) (2002). The Oceanic languages. Curzon Language Family Series. Surrey: Curzon Press.
W Wa J Watkins, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The variety of Wa described here is known as Paraok/ peraOk/ by the people who speak it, and is widely ¨ recognized as a standard form of the language. The scope of the name ‘Wa’ is complex, but it is the most inclusive and current among the many names used to refer to the speakers of Wa languages and also corresponds to the terms Waˇ in Chinese and in /wa / in Burmese. Wa encompasses a cluster of some 40D dialects belonging to the Waic subgroup of the Palaungic branch of Northern Mon–Khmer languages and is spoken by up to about one million people living between the Salween and Mekhong rivers, an area straddling the border between northeastern Myanmar (Burma) and China’s southwestern Yunnan province. About two-thirds of the Wa-speaking population live on the Burmese side of the border and one-third on the Chinese side; most Wa are bilingual in Burmese or Chinese, respectively. The first Wa orthography intended for popular use was developed in the 1930s by the Baptist missionary
Vincent M. Young, whose translation of the New Testament was published in the 1930s. Orthographies devised for Wa have used the Roman alphabet, sometimes with certain modifications. Young’s orthography was ambiguous and inconsistent in a number of ways, for instance, by failing to represent the register contrast, final glottal consonants, and voiced/sonorants. It has been improved in recent years, however, by incorporating certain features of the phonologically faithful orthography developed by Chinese anthropologist-linguists in the 1950s, which is rather different in design. The most widely encountered orthographies may be compared in Table 1. The syllable-initial consonants of Wa are set out in Table 2. Wa makes a 4-way voicing contrast in initial stops at 4 places of articulation, and has a range of breathy-aspirated sonorants. Complex initials are restricted to labial or velar stop þ /l/ or /r/; final consonants are restricted to /p t c k/, nasals, / /, and /h/. In Wa, as in other Mon–Khmer languages, the vowel inventory (Table 3) is effectively doubled because each vowel can occur in either of two registers, ‘clear’ and ‘breathy,’ analogous to the ‘head’ and
Table 1 Various orthographies for Wa Transcription Bible Wa spelling Revised Bible Wa spelling PRC Wa spelling Gloss Translation
lai pOt ¨ H Lai pawt au, Lai pawt aux, La¯i bo¯d ex, letter write 1SG ‘Have you read my letter yet?’
kMm kuim keem: geem then
hOc hoit hoit hoig yet
J P j ak jak jak nqag read
mai mai maix maix 2SG
nOh naw? nawh? noh? 3SG
Table 2 Wa consonants Bilabial
Plosive
pp
h m
Nasal
mm
Fricative
v vP
P
Dental/alveolar m P
b b
h n
tt
n P
d d
P
nn
Palatal h J
tC tC JJ
P
s
Approximant
r rP
Lateral approx.
l lP
Velar J
dó dó
P
kk NN
Glottal
h N
N P
g g
P
h y yP
1156 Wa
‘chest’ registers of Cambodian (Central Khmer). The register contrast in Wa, as in Mon–Khmer generally, has a complex of phonetic correlates, including fundamental frequency, vowel quality, phonation type, and vowel duration. The blend of these in any individual speaker’s production of the register complex may vary. The register contrast cooccurs with final laryngeal consonants, as illustrated by the set of six words in Table 4. The Wa system of personal pronouns (Table 5) retains dual number and contrasts inclusive and exclusive second-person pronouns. In Wa, the Mon–Khmer morphological prefixation system has all but disappeared, leaving only a few nonproductive semisyllabic prefixes – of which by far the most common is /se/ – and sound alternations that cover a broad, ill-defined range of functions, illustrated in Table 6. Two characteristics of Wa syntax are that modifiers follow what they modify, as do relative clauses: thus ‘the letter that I wrote,’ from Table 1, is expressed as ‘letter [write I].’ Secondly, VERB SUBJECT OBlai pOt ¨ H JECT word order is commonly observed: ‘you read it’ may be translated JjPak mai nOh ‘read you it,’ though
Wa is an isolating language, adept in the formation of periphrastic compounds. There has been extensive borrowing from Shan, and locally from Chinese and Burmese in areas where those languages are spoken. Loaned vocabulary is frequently supported by a generic Wa word, as in Table 7. Functional literacy in Wa is very low. Wa speakers are much more likely to be literate in the national language of the country in which they live, although some villages may organize grassroots schooling, typically undertaken in a Christian context, and some schools in Wa-speaking China provide, in theory, five years of Wa-language education. Government schools in Burma must use only Burmese.
Table 3 Wa vowels
Table 6 Vestiges of Mon–Khmer morphological affixation in Wa
Monophthongs
Close Mid-close Mid-open Open
i e E
M W a a
iu ia ei ai
iau uai oi Oi aM
(1) hoc kE tin yuh ti come 2PL here do¨ what? What did the two of them come here for? pu ¨ younger. brother They came to see my younger brother.
(2) hoc come
> > > > > > > >
.l.iah
Polyphthongs
u o O
SUBJECT OBJECT VERB word order is also possible. Two sentences in Wa are shown in (1) and (2):
ui ua ou au
iau uai
laN raM pu ¨ .t.iN kiap n dai N gaM
ti
SUBORD
N
gl. .iah glaN N graM m bu ¨ n d. .iN se.Ngiap se.ndai se.NgaM N
sOk H search
six long deep thick big pinch (v.) eight happy
> > > > > > > >
1SG
sixty length depth thickness size clip (n.) no change in meaning no change in meaning
Table 4 The Register contrast and laryngeal final consonants
Open syllable Final h Final
Clear register
Breathy register
tE ‘sweet’ tEh ‘lessen’ tE ‘land’
tE ‘peach’ tEH h ‘turn over’ tEH ‘wager’ H
Table 7 Two Wa loanwords mak.muN ¨ mango Shan:
pli fruit Wa
JE H house ; mak.mu:N
Wa
tCau.sM classroom Chinese: jia`oshı`
¼ ‘mango’
¼ ‘classroom’
Table 5 Wa pronouns Person
Sing.
Dual
Plural
1st (incl.) 1st (excl.) 2nd 3rd
(I) – mai you (sg.) nOh he, she, it
a yE pa kE
ei we (including you) yi we (not including you) pei you (pl.) ki they
you and me he and I you two they two
Wakashan 1157
Bibliography Diffloth G (1980). ‘The Wa languages.’ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 5, 2. Diffloth G (1991). ‘Palaungic vowels in Mon–Khmer perspective.’ In Davidson J H C S (ed.) Austroasiatic languages: essays in honour of H. L. Shorto. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Drage G (1907). A few notes on Wa. Rangoon: Superintendent of Government Printing. Henderson E J A (1952). ‘The main features of Cambodian pronunciation.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14, 149–174. Ladefoged P (1983). ‘The linguistic use of different phonation types.’ In Bless D & Abbs J (eds.) Vocal fold physiology: contemporary research and clinical issues. San Diego: College Hill Press. 351–360. Scott Sir J G (1896). ‘The wild Wa: a head-hunting race.’ Asiatic Quarterly Review 1– 2, 138–152. Shorto H L (1963). ‘The structural patterns of the northern Mon–Khmer languages.’ In Shorto H L (ed.) Linguistic comparison in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 45–61.
Svantesson J-O (1983). ‘The phonetic correlates of register in Va.’ In Cohen & van den Broeck (eds.) Abstracts of the 10th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Dordrect: Foris. Svantesson J-O, Wa´ng Jı¯ngliu´ & Che´n Xia¯ngmu` (1981). ‘MonKhmer languages in Yu´nna´n.’ Asie du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien 12(1–2), 91–100. Watkins J (2002). The phonetics of Wa: experimental phonetics, phonology, orthography and sociolinguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University. [Pacific Linguistics 531.] Zho¯u Zhı´zhi & Ya´n Qı´xia¯ng (1984). Waˇyuˇ . [Handbook of Wa]. Beˇijı¯ng: Mı´nzu´ jiaˇnzhı` chu¯baˇnshe`. Ya´n Qı´xia¯ng , Zho¯u Zhı´zhi , Lı˘ Da`oyoˇng , Wa´ng Jı¯ngliu´ , Zha¯o Mi´ng , Ta´o We´n& Tia´n Ka¯izhe`ng (eds.) (1981). Pug la¯i ju¯n ‘Cix ding Yı¯ie si ndong La¯i Vax mai La¯i Hox’/Waˇ-Ha`n jiaˇnmı`ng cı´diaˇn [A concise Wa-Chinese dictionary]. Ku¯nmi´ng: Yu´nna´n mı´nzu´ chu¯baˇnshe`. (1998). Waˇyuˇ yuˇfaˇ [Wa Zha¯o Ya´nshe` grammar]. Ku¯nmı´ng: Yu´nna´n mı´nzu´ chu¯baˇnshe`.
Wakashan J Stonham, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pilling (1894) attributed the term ‘Wakashan’ to Captain James Cook’s observations in Nootka Sound in 1778 wherein he stated: ‘‘I would call them Wakashians, from the word wakash, which was very frequently in their mouths,’’ (Cook, 1821: 308). Gallatin (in Pilling, 1894) first used the term to designate the Wakashan family and Boas (1890) solidified the boundaries of the family. The Wakashan family is spread over Vancouver Island and the adjoining areas of the mainland, including northwestern Washington state and the central British Columbia coast.
Languages The languages of the Wakashan family may be divided into two major subgroups, a northern and a southern group. The Northern group consists of four main languages: Haisla, Oowekyala and Heiltsuk (mutually intelligible), and Kwakwala (Kwakiutl), located on northeastern Vancouver Island and adjacent parts of the mainland north as far as Kitimat, British Columbia. Within the Northern branch,
Kwakwala is the best documented, with an early grammar by Hall (1888) and another by Boas (1900). The most northerly language in the family is Haisla, with at least two dialects: Henaksiala and Haisla proper. Oowekyala is spoken by only a handful of people in the area of Rivers Inlet and is to a large extent mutually intelligible with Heiltsuk. Heiltsuk also has two dialects, spoken in Bella Bella and Klemtu, and there is some early work on it by Boas. The Southern branch of Wakashan consists of three main languages: Nuuchahnulth (Nootka), Ditidaht (Nitinat), and Makah, located on the west coast of Vancouver Island and the tip of northwestern Washington state. Within each language there are various, mutually intelligible dialects. Nuuchahnulth is the most widely spoken of this group, constituting a chain of dialects ranging the length of the west coast of Vancouver Island from Brookes Peninsula to Barkley Sound. Ditidaht constitutes the southernmost Wakashan language on Vancouver Island. It has a close relationship with both the more northerly Nuuchahnulth and the more southerly Makah, which is the only Wakashan language spoken outside of Canada, in Washington state. Recent estimates of the number of speakers of Wakashan languages vary from approximately 600 to 1200 speakers for all languages ( Statistics Canada,
1158 Wakashan Table 1 Proto-Wakashan phoneme inventory p b p’
t d t’
m m’
n n’
|a l |’a L l l’
cb dz c’b s yc y’c
ko go k’o xod w ’ w
k g k’ x g g’ i(:)
q
qo
G
o G
q’ x.
q’o x. od
h
u(:) a(:)
a
In IPA, /tL/ and /tL’/. In IPA, /ts/ and /ts’/. c In IPA, /j/ and /j’/. d In IPA, /w/ and /wo/. b
2003; Cook and Howe, 2004). (By comparison, there are estimated to be 1185 speakers of Gaelic languages in Canada.) Geographically, the Wakashan languages are adjacent to several other language families, including Athabaskan in the north, Chemakuan in the south, and Salish throughout the area.
Proto-Wakashan Jacobsen (1979b) located the original home of the family on Vancouver Island or adjacent parts of the mainland, from which it has spread north and south. Swadesh (1953) proposed the Proto-Wakashan phoneme inventory shown in Table 1. Sapir (1921) suggested that Wakashan constituted one member, along with Salish and Chemakuan, of a Mosan subgroup, which, together with Kutenai and AlgonquianRitwan, made up a larger superfamily. Swadesh (1962) noted similarities between Wakashan and EskimoAleut, but little has been done to further any of this research recently (see Areal Linguistics). For a summary of work on the comparative-historical study of Wakashan, see Jacobsen (1979b).
Phonology The phonological inventory of all Wakashan languages consists of a large number of consonant phonemes and a relatively small number of vowel phonemes, usually with a vowel length distinction. In the Northern group there is a three-way distinction among obstruents, involving lax, glottalized, and voiced stops, whereas in the Southern branch there is only a lax versus glottalized distinction, with voiced stop reflexes of the original nasal phonemes appearing in Ditidaht and Makah. Northern Wakashan has a long/short opposition in the vowel system, whereas the Southern group displays a three-way phonemic length distinction that is realized as a two-way contrast on the surface. The phonemic distinction is due to a third category of
‘variable-length’ vowels that are long in the first two syllables of the word but short elsewhere, as in -na k ‘have’ in Lucˇnaak ‘have a wife’ versus t’an’anak ‘have a child.’ Within Northern Wakashan, Oowekyala is purported to have glottalized vowels, which may appear only in the first syllable of a word. Howe (2000) provided minimal pairs such as ma’Lela ‘two people working together’ versus maLela ‘swimming’ and a’s ‘animal fat, oil, grease, blubber’ vs. as ‘far out at sea or seaward.’ In Northern Wakashan, the domain of primary stress assignment is the entire word, with stress assigned to the first heavy syllable or to the final vowel if no heavy syllable is encountered. In Southern Wakashan, the domain of primary stress is the first two syllables, with weight contributing to the placement. It should be noted that, although most Wakashan languages employ stress assignment, Kortland (1975) observed that Heiltsuk makes tonal distinctions instead. Syllable structure is similar for all the languages, allowing complex codas but simple onsets. Boas (1947) stated for Kwakwala that ‘‘consonantic clusters do not occur in initial position. Monosyllabic stems are of the types CVC, CVCC, CVVC, CVVCC.’’ Southern Wakashan likewise involves an obligatorily filled onset (one and only one consonant) and potentially complex codas with up to three, or even four, consonants. Oowekyala appears to exhibit the most extreme cases of consonant clusters, according to Howe (2000). The processes of glottalization (‘hardening’) and lenition (‘softening’) are quite unique in Wakashan and are invariably triggered by the attachment of a suffix to a base ending in a potential candidate for the change. In Southern Wakashan, glottalization affects both obstruents and sonorants, changing stops and affricates to their glottalized counterparts, fricatives to laryngealized glides, and sonorants to their laryngealized counterparts. Lenition, which affects only fricatives in Southern Wakashan, converts them to either /y/ or /w/, depending on whether they are labialized or not. These processes are more complex in Northern Wakashan. Boas (1947) provided the examples (somewhat modified for this presentation) from Kwakwala (Table 2). One final phonological process worth noting is vowel epenthesis in Makah. In this language (and to some extent in the neighboring Ditidaht), there is a co-occurrence restriction against a voiced or glottalized consonant appearing in the onset of the second syllable when the coda of the first syllable is filled. The resulting cluster is broken up by inserting a lengthened copy of the vowel of the first syllable between the two consonants. Compare the Nuuchahnulth forms, c’ aqmis ‘tree bark’ and c’ usy’ak ‘shovel’
Wakashan 1159 Table 2 Kwakwala lenition and glottalizationa Base
eep wat p’es mex c’uuL
Lenition
‘to pinch’ ‘to lead’ ‘to flatten’ ‘to strike’ ‘to be black’
eeb.ayu wad.eko p’ey.aayu men.ac’e c’uul.atu
Glottalization
‘dice’ ‘led’ ‘means of flattening’ ‘drum’ ‘black-eared’
eep’.id wat’.eene p’aap’ec’.a maamen’.a c’ul’.emyu
‘begin to pinch’ ‘act of leading ‘try to flatten’ ‘ready to strike’ ‘black-cheeked’
a
/./ indicates morpheme boundary. Source: Boas (1947).
with the following Makah examples (from Davidson, 2002). (1a) c’ aqaabis c’ aq-bis bark-collectivity.of ‘tree bark’ (1b) c’ usuuyak c’ us-yak dig-thing.for ‘shovel’
Other common phonological processes include labialization of back consonants, delabialization, and various forms of coalescence, syncope, and epenthesis.
Table 3 Verbal suffixes in Kwakwala Verb suffix
Words
-(g)ila ‘to make’
|eenagila ‘to make oil’ |aawayuqwila ‘to make a salmon weir’ ’ ala suupam ‘to quarrel over an axe’ ’ ala k’elkw am ‘to quarrel over a digging stick’ haahaxagelala ‘to wear a shirt’
’ ala -am ‘to quarrel about’
-(g)elala[R] ‘to wear’
Source: Boas (1947). [R] indicates reduplication.
Morphology
Table 4 Uses of reduplication in Kwakwala
These languages are all highly polysynthetic, with complex morphophonemics, and rely heavily on suffixation. Reduplication is the only productive morphological operation that results in a preposed element. There are large numbers of both derivational and inflectional suffixes, but only one root may appear in each word, resulting in an absence of lexical compounding of the usual sort. Lexical suffixes in Wakashan, unlike Salish, run the gamut of possibilities, including verbal, nominal, adjectival, locative, and adverbial functions. Perhaps the most interesting are the verbal morphemes, which interact with arguments within the sentence, resulting in their combination into a complex predicate, as illustrated in Table 3. The last example in Table 3 illustrates another property of Wakashan suffixes: the ability of the suffix to trigger various effects on the stem to which they attach, including reduplication and vowel lengthening. The following examples from Makah illustrate these triggers (adapted from Davidson, 2002, where [L] indicates lengthening of the first vowel).
Distributive/ plural
(2a) hihitax. s iq hita-x. sa[R]-’iq empty.root-in.bushes-DET ‘in the bushes’
Diminutive Repetitive
With derivational suffix
gyuk ‘house’
gyigyukw ‘houses’
n’ala ‘day’ t’eesem ‘stone’ begw ‘man’ meexa ‘to sleep’ hanla ‘to shoot’
n’en’ala ‘days’ t’at’edzem ‘small stone’ baabagem ‘boy’ meemexa ‘to sleep repeatedly’ hanLhanla ‘to shoot repeatedly’ haahaxagelala ‘to wear a shirt’
-(g)elala[R] ‘to wear’
Source: Boas (1947).
(2b) yuuxLapaal yuxL-api[L]-’ a|-’i float-in air-TEMP¼3.SING.IND ‘snow is blowing in the air’
k’wisii k’wisii snow
Reduplication is a highly productive process used to indicate a number of distinct grammatical categories. As shown in Table 4, it is employed in derivation, aspect, and inflection as a marker of the distributive or plural, diminutive, and repetition or iteration and as a concomitant of certain derivational suffixes. Wakashan also employs a set of classifiers that categorize nouns for the purpose of enumerating
1160 Wakashan Table 5 Kwakwala classifiers
n’em m’al yud
‘one’ ‘two’ ‘three’
/-uko/ ‘person’
/-sg m/ ‘round object’
/-xla/ ‘dish, spoon’
n’emuko m’al’uko yuduko
n’emsgem m’al’tsem yuduxsem
n’emexla ’ alexla m yudexoexla
e
Number
Source: Boas (1947).
and qualifying, as well as in a pronominal function, as shown by the examples from Kwakwala in Table 5. The various combinations of suffixes may result in rather long and complex words, as demonstrated by the examples from Nuuchahnulth in (3) (from Sapir and Swadesh, 1939. NOW ‘contemporaneous,’ SW ‘switch reference,’ CLS ‘classifier’). (3a) uuq|n’uk’wa|’atquucˇ u -’aq| -n’ukw -’a| -’at -quucˇ REF -inside -inhand -NOW -SW -3S.CND ‘if one is holding it’ (Source: Sapir and Swadesh, 1939) (3b) a a a|qimLh. timyiLm’inh. aaq|e icuu DUPDUPa| -qimL -h. ta -maL REPSUF two -CLS -onfoot[R] -move - aaq| -(m)e icuu -’iL -m’inh. -onfloor -PL -INTENT-2PL.IND ‘You will carry two dollars on your feet’ (Source: Sapir and Swadesh, 1955)
Syntax Basic word order for Wakashan languages is, in general, head-initial, with VSO being the most common order. The degree to which individual languages allow the transposition of subjects and objects is one area of variation within the family. There is no case marking on nominals, but in some contexts complex prepositions may be used to indicate the grammatical role of arguments, as in the following example from Ditidaht (adapted from Klokeid, 1978). (4) c’uqwsˇi| a ux. w NOM hit ‘John hit Bill’
John John
uuyuqw ACC
Bill Bill
Within the nominal phrase, quantifiers precede adjectives which, in turn, precede the head noun, as exemplified by the following examples from Nuuchahnulth (Rose, 1981). Relative clauses follow the head noun, as in (5b). ’a (5a) iih. saya nism very distant land ‘a really distant land’ x. utaay [yaaqh. w’ aL naq knife that.used ‘the knife that Bill used’
(5b) ha
DET
Bill] Bill
There are well-developed person-number inflectional paradigms that typically appear after the first position in the sentence in clitic-like fashion. Boas (1900: 715) remarked on ‘‘. . . the tendency of adverbs and auxiliary verbs to take the subjective ending of the verb, while the object remains connected with the verb itself. k’e´e sen du´uquaq not-I see-him, shows the characteristic arrangement of sentences of this kind.’’ Possession associated with the arguments of the clause is sometimes marked on the predicate, as shown in the examples in (6) from Kwakwala (Boas, 1900). (6a) n’eeken Genem say.my wife ‘my wife said’ (6b) n’eekeexen Genem say.he.my wife ‘he said to my wife’ (6c) n’eekeexees Genem say.he.his wife ‘he said to his (own) wife’ (Boas, 1900)
Tense markers exhibit the special Wakashan characteristic of appearing on both nouns and verbs, leading to the common conclusion that there are no category distinctions in these languages (however, cf. Jacobsen, 1979a). A form of syntactic compounding exists, at least in some members of the family, as illustrated by the following examples from Nuuchahnulth. (7a) iih. ii [yacˇmuut |aqmis] the big bladder oil ‘the large oil bladder’ (Sapir and Swadesh, 1939) (7b) [muunaa n’iiqn’iiqay’ak] machine sew -tool ‘a sewing machine’ (Sapir and Swadesh, 1955)
Further Reading For further information on Wakashan, the reader is referred to the references appended to this article, in particular the discussion in Boas (1947), Davidson (2002), Howe (2000), Jacobsen (1979a, 1979b), Lincoln and Rath (1980, 1986), and Stonham (1999, 2004).
Wambaya 1161
Bibliography Boas F (1890). ‘The Nootka.’ Report of the 60th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 60, 582–604. Boas F (1900). ‘Sketch of the Kwakiutl language.’ American Anthropologist 2, 708–721. Boas F (1947). ‘Kwakiutl grammar with a glossary of the suffixes.’ Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 37(3), 202–377. Cook E-D & Howe D (2004). ‘Aboriginal languages of Canada.’ In O’Grady W & Archibald J (eds.) Contemporary linguistic analysis, (5th edn.). Toronto, Canada: Addison Wesley Longman. 294–309. Cook J (1821). The three voyages of Captain James Cook round the world. Complete in Seven Volumes. Vol. 6. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown. Davidson M (2002). ‘Studies in Southern Wakashan (Nootkan) grammar.’ Ph.D. diss., State University of New York at Buffalo. Hall A J (1888). ‘A grammar of the Kwagiutl language.’ Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 6(2)I. Howe D M (2000). ‘Oowekyala segmental phonology.’ Ph.D. diss., University of British Columbia. Jacobsen W H Jr (1979a). ‘Noun and verb in Nootkan.’ In Efrat B S (ed.) British Columbia Provincial Museum Heritage Record 4: The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages. Victoria, Canada: British Columbia Provincial Museum. 83–155. Jacobsen W H Jr (1979b). ‘Wakashan comparative studies.’ In Campbell L & Mithun M (eds.) The languages of Native America. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 766–791. Klokeid T J (1978). ‘Surface structure constraints and Nitinaht enclitics.’ In Cook E-D & Kaye J (eds.) Linguistic studies of native Canada. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press. 157–176. Kortlandt F H H (1975). ‘Tones in Wakashan.’ Linguistics 146, 31–34.
Lincoln N J & Rath J C (1980). North Wakashan Comparative Root List. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper 68. Ottawa, Canada: National Museums of Canada. Lincoln N J & Rath J C (1986). Phonology, dictionary and listing of roots and lexical derivates of the Haisla language of Kitlope and Kitimaat, B.C. Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper 103. Ottawa Canada: National Museums of Canada. Pilling J C (1894). Bibliography of the Wakashan languages. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. Rose S M (1981). ‘Kyuquot grammar.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Victoria. Sapir E (1921). ‘A bird’s-eye view of American languages north of Mexico.’ Science 54, 408. Sapir E & Swadesh M (1939). Nookta texts, tales and ethnological narratives, with grammatical notes and lexical materials. Philadelphia and Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America. Sapir E & Swadesh M (1955). Native accounts of Nootka ethnography. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics. Statistics Canada (2003). Aboriginal peoples of Canada: a demographic profile. (January 21, 2003 report on the 2001 Census.) http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/english/ bs.c?catno¼96F0030X2001007. Stonham J (1999). Aspects of Tsishaath Nootka phonetics and phonology. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Stonham J (2004). Linguistic theory and complex words: Nuuchahnulth word formation. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Swadesh M (1953). ‘Mosan I: a problem of remote common origin.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 19, 26–44. Swadesh M (1962). ‘Linguistic relations across Bering Strait.’ American Anthropologist 64, 1262–1291.
Wambaya R Nordlinger, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Wambaya is a non-Pama–Nyungan language of northern Australia (of the Mirndi group), originally spoken in the Barkly Tablelands region of the Northern Territory. The Wambaya people suffered greatly from the invasion of their land, their subsequent removal from their traditional country, and the dispersal of their
community. As a result of these and other factors, the Wambaya language has now almost disappeared. There are only a handful of (semi-)speakers remaining, most of whom live in the towns of Tennant Creek, Elliott, and Borroloola. Wambaya is closely related to two further dialects – Gudanji and Binbinka. Gudanji is in much the same state as Wambaya with only a handful of (semifluent) speakers left; and there are no longer any remaining speakers of Binbinka. Like all Australian languages, Wambaya was not traditionally written, and so the earliest records we have of the language are those collected by white researchers since the early 20th century. Some lexical
1162 Wambaya
items were recorded by Mathews (1900, 1908) and by Spencer and Gillen (1904), largely concerning the kinship system. The first detailed grammatical information for Wambaya is found in the field notes recorded by Ken Hale in 1959 (Hale, 1959, 1960) and is continued in Neil Chadwick’s work on the whole Barkly language group (including also Jingulu [Djingili] and Ngarnka [Ngarndji]) dating from the 1970s (Chadwick, 1978, 1979, 1984, 1997). My own fieldwork on the language began in 1991 and has so far resulted in the publication of a grammar of Wambaya (Nordlinger, 1998a), the development of a dictionary and learner’s guide (Nordlinger, 1998b, 1998c), and a number of articles (Nordlinger, 1995, 2001; Nordlinger and Bresnan, 1996; Green and Nordlinger, 2004). The grammatical features discussed in this brief article are all discussed and exemplified in greater detail in Nordlinger (1998a).
apical series is neutralized in initial position. Initial apicals are all represented orthographically as apicoalveolars (d, n, l). Biconsonantal clusters are common, but only word-medially. Such clusters usually contain an apical or laminal consonant followed by a labial or dorsal consonant (e.g., anmurru ‘cuddle,’ bardgu ‘fall,’ marrgulu ‘egg,’ ngajbi ‘see,’ manganyma ‘tucker, nonmeat food’), but other combinations are possible also (bungmaji ‘old man,’ wugbardi ‘cook’). There is one triconsonantal cluster rrgb (lurrgbanyi ‘grab,’ gurrgbarra ‘stare’). A brief discourse in the language written in the conventional orthography is provided in (1). This example illustrates many of the grammatical properties to be discussed below. (1) Yarru go.NF
Phonology Phonologically, Wambaya is a typical Australian language, with five places of articulation for stops, including two apical series (apico-alveolar and retroflex) and one laminal series. There is no voicing contrast. There is a nasal corresponding to each stop articulation, and three laterals (in the nonperipheral places of articulation). There are three vowel phonemes, and no productive length distinction. The phoneme inventory and the orthographic symbols corresponding to each phoneme are provided in Table 1. All Wambaya words are minimally disyllabic and virtually always vowel-final. (The one exception is the auxiliary, see below, which can end in a consonant if it contains one of three nasal-final affixes: -any ‘direction away, past tense,’ -amany ‘direction towards, past tense,’ or -n ‘progessive aspect’.) Primary stress is generally on the first syllable of the word. Words can begin with a vowel (as in alaji ‘boy’), or a consonant (daguma ‘hit,’ juwa ‘man,’ ngajbi ‘see’). There are no words beginning with the consonants r [r], rr [&/r], ly [L] and further, as is common among Australian languages, the distinction between the two
ngurr-any 1PL.INC-PST.AWAY
gurdi-nmanji bush.IV.OBL-ALL
ngaj-barda. see-INF
Gannga return.NF
ngurr-amany 1PL.INC-PST.TWDS
bangarnigadi. this way
Gurijba good..IV.NOM
gi-n 3SG.S.PRES-PROG
mirra sit.NF
ngarrga maga. my.IV.NOM house.IV.NOM ‘We went to the bush to have a look (at my house). Then we came back this way. My house is fine.’
Morphology Wambaya, being one of the southernmost non-Pama– Nyungan languages, is typologically atypical in having lost virtually all prefixing morphology (see Nordlinger, 1998a; Green and Nordlinger, 2004; Harvey et al., to appear for discussion). All productive morphology is suffixing. Like many other Australian languages, Wambaya has extensive case and agreement morphology – all elements of an NP must show concord in gender, number, and case – and ‘free’ (i.e., pragmatically determined) word order. The two open word classes are verbs and nominals. Concepts translated into European languages as adjectives are split across these two classes. For example, bulyingi ‘small,’ bugayi ‘big,’ gurijbi ‘good,’ and bagijbi ‘bad’ are nominals, while baliji ‘be
Table 1 Wambaya phonemes Consonants
Bilab.
Apico-alv.
Apico-postalv. (retroflex)
Lamino-palatal
Velar
Stop Nasal Lateral Tap/Trill Semivowel Vowels
b (b) m (m)
d (d) n (n) l (l) &/r (rr)
B (rd) 0 (rn) U (rl)
J (j) J (ny) L (ly)
g (g) N (ng)
r (r) u (u)
j (y)
w (w) i (i) (i: (ii)) a (a) (a: (aa))
Wambaya 1163
hungry,’ gurda ‘be sick,’ and laji ‘be quiet’ are intransitive verbs. Verbs are characterized by the fact that they must always cooccur with the auxiliary (see below), which carries subject/object agreement information and tense/aspect/mood for the clause. Verbs have only a small amount of inflectional morphology, contrasting future/imperative, and nonfuture (unmarked) forms. This lack of morphology appears to result from the fact that these are historically derived from uninflected coverbs, with the synchronic auxiliary being the original inflected main verb (see Green and Nordlinger, 2004 and below for discussion). There are two inflectional classes for verbs, membership of which is phonologically conditioned. Vowel-final verb stems belong to the J-class of verbs, consonant-final verb stems belong to the Ø-class of verbs (and there are, of course, a dozen or so irregular verbs that don’t follow the pattern of either class). These classes are distinguished by the fact that in the J-class, there is a thematic -j- added before any verbal affixes, while there is no thematic consonant in the Øclass. The two classes also have different nonfuture tense inflections. Examples of the two paradigms are: (2) daguma- ‘hit’ (J-class): daguma (nonfuture), daguma-j-ba (future/imperative), daguma-jbarda (infinitive) (3) gulug- ‘sleep’ (Ø-class): gulug-bi (nonfuture), gulug-ba (future/imperative), gulug-barda (infinitive)
In contrast to verbs, nominals have a large amount of morphology. As is relatively common among northern Australian languages, there are four genders – masculine (class I), feminine (class II), vegetable (class III) (including nonmeat food and some body parts), and neuter (class IV) (residue). These genders are marked on nominals and their modifiers by suffixes, and are marked on demonstratives by cognate prefixes (vestiges of the earlier prefixing system, see Green and Nordlinger, 2004 and Harvey et al., to appear for discussion). Example (1) above shows concord with adjectives (gurijba ‘good.IV’) and possessive pronouns (ngarrga ‘my.IV’). That these forms are truly agreeing with the head nominal barrawu ‘house’ can be shown by contrast with the following example in which they are agreeing instead with a class I nominal janji ‘dog.’ (4) yini ngarri janji this.I my.I dog.I ‘this is my good dog’
gurijbi good.I
Nominals are also inflected for number – dual and plural – although since the unmarked nominal can have singular, dual, or plural interpretations, this inflection is optional. Pronouns (a subclass of nominals)
Table 2 Wambaya core case system
distinguish singular, dual, and plural numbers and make an inclusive/exclusive distinction in the 1st person nonsingular. Nominals are obligatorily inflected for case. Wambaya is what has been called a ‘split-ergative’ language. Nominals inflect according to an ergative/ absolutive distinction, while pronouns inflect largely on a nominative/accusative pattern. We can, therefore, distinguish three distinct case contrasts, as in Table 2, where A stands for ‘transitive subject,’ S for ‘intransitive subject,’ and O for ‘transitive object.’ In the following table, the shading indicates homophony between forms; thus, nominals have homophonous nominative and accusative forms, while pronouns have homophonous ergative and nominative forms. As well as the three core cases shown in Table 2, there are nine further cases in Wambaya, including: dative, ablative, allative, comitative, genitive, proprietive, privative, perlative, causal, and originative. The ergative case additionally covers locative and instrumental functions. Gender markers also distinguish case, having one form before cases with zero realizations (i.e., the nominative and the accusative), and another form (called the ‘oblique’ form) before all other cases. For example, jan-ji ‘dog-I.NOM’ vs. janyi-ni ‘dog-I.OBL-ERG’; guji-nya ‘mother-II.NOM’ vs. guji-ga-nka ‘mother-II.OBL-DAT’; mangany-ma ‘foodIII.NOM’ vs. mangany-mi-nka ‘food-III.OBL-DAT.’ All verb-headed clauses in Wambaya must contain a grammatical auxiliary containing subject and object cross-referencing bound pronouns and clausal tense/ aspect/mood information. While word order is grammatically free in Wambaya for the most part, the auxiliary is unusual in having a fixed position: it must always occur in second position in the clause (after the first constituent, which may be a single word or a complex NP). The auxiliary appears to have derived from a fully inflecting verb with pronominal agreement prefixes and tense/aspect/mood suffixes. An original main verb–coverb structure (as is common in other northern Australian languages, see McGregor, 2002), has become an auxiliary-verb structure in Wambaya, with the auxiliary retaining only the grammatical information of the original main verb, and the original coverb now contributing all lexical meaning. Remnants of an original main verb are found in the directional/tense
1164 Wambaya
portmanteaux in the synchronic auxiliary, as in the contrast between ngurr-any ‘1PL.INC-PST.AWAY’ and ngurr-amany ‘1PL.INC-PST.TWDS’ in (1). Examples of auxiliaries in transitive and reflexive/reciprocal clauses include the following: (5) Garndani-j-ba nyi-ngg-a! Daguma 2.SG-RR-NF hit.NF shield-TH-FUT gunu-ny-u ninki! 3.SG.M.A-2O-FUT this.I.SG.ERG Shield yourself! He’s going to hit you!
As shown by the second clause in (5), the interaction between the tense marking on the auxiliary and the verb is complex, and under certain conditions the two may encode different tense values, together defining the tense/mood value for the clause as a whole. See Nordlinger and Bresnan (1996) and Nordlinger (1998a) for detailed discussion.
Syntax
(9) Ngaj-bi ng-a see-NF 1.SG-PST ‘I saw him eating.’
gaj-barda. eat-INF
Switch reference is not encoded in purposive clauses (marked with the dative case, or with the infinitive, as in (1)), nor in relative past tense clauses (marked with the ablative case). Equational, identificational, and attributive clauses are generally headed by nominals, with no copula verb. In these clauses, the nominal predicate and its subject typically agree in number, gender, and case (i.e., nominative). Such nominal clauses cannot contain an auxiliary. (10) Naniyaga guji-nya that.SG.II.NOM mother-II.NOM ‘That’s my mother.’
ngarri-rna. my-II.NOM
Bibliography
Wambaya exhibits the three classic properties of ‘nonconfigurationality’ (Hale, 1983): ‘free’ word order, null anaphora, and discontinuous constituents. Core NPs are generally optional – the reference of the subject and object being retrievable from the bound pronouns in the auxiliary – and thus Wambaya sentences commonly consist of simply a verb followed by the auxiliary as in (6). Nominal modifiers can appear separately to the heads they modify, their coreference indicated by gender, number, and case agreement (7). (6) Ngaj-bi irri-ng-a. 3PL-1O-NF see-NF ‘They’re looking at me.’ (7) Nganki ngiy-a this.SG.II.ERG 3.SG.F.A-PST wardangarri-nga-ni. moon-II.OBL-ERG ‘This moon grabbed (her).’
lurrgbanyi grab.NF
Case marking occurs on nonfinite verbs in subordinate clauses to encode relative tense and, in some cases, switch reference. In (8), the use of the ergative/locative case in the subordinate clause (here in initial position) signals that the two events are cotemporaneous (relative present tense) and that the subject of the subordinate clause is coreferential with the subject of the main clause. In (9), the infinitive marker is used in a cotemporaneous subordinate clause to signal that the subordinate subject is coreferential with the main clause object. (8) Ngarli-ni irri-ng-a ngurra abajabajami. talk-LOC 3.PL-1O-NF 1.PL.INC. make.crazy.NF ACC
‘They make us confused (when they’re) talking.’
Chadwick N (1978). The West Barkly languages, complex morphology. Ph.D. diss., Monash University. Chadwick N (1979). ‘The West Barkly languages: an outline sketch.’ In Wurm S (ed.) Australian Linguistics Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 653–711. Chadwick N (1984). ‘The relationship of Jingulu and Jaminjungan.’ MS: AIATSIS. Chadwick N (1997). ‘The Barkly and Jaminjungan languages: a non-contiguous genetic grouping in north Australia.’ In Tryon D & Walsh M (eds.) Boundary rider: essays in honor of Geoffrey O’Grady. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 95–106. Green I & Nordlinger R (2004). ‘Revisiting Proto-Mirndi.’ In Bowern C & Koch H (eds.) Australian languages: classification and the comparative method. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 291–311. Hale K L (1959). ‘Wambaya (Wambaia) Notes.’ Unpublished field notes. Hale K L (1960). ‘Some notes on Goodanji.’ Unpublished field notes. Hale K L (1983). ‘Warlpiri and the grammar of nonconfigurational languages.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5–47. Harvey M, Green I & Nordlinger R (To appear). ‘From prefixing to suffixing: typological change in northern Australia.’ Submitted to Diachronica. Mathews R H (1900). ‘The Wombya organization of the Australian Aborigines.’ American Anthropologist, Lancaster 2, 494–501. Mathews R H (1908). ‘Marriage and descent in the Arranda tribe, Central Australia.’ American Anthropologist, Lancaster 10, 88–102. McGregor W B (2002). Verb classification in Australian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nordlinger R (1995). ‘Split tense and mood inflection in Wambaya.’ In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 226–236.
Warlpiri 1165 Nordlinger R (1998a). A grammar of Wambaya (Northern Territory, Australia). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Nordlinger R (1998b). An elementary Wambaya dictionary (with English–Wambaya finder list). MS: Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Nordlinger R (1998c). A learner’s guide to basic Wambaya. MS, Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
Nordlinger R (2001). ‘Wambaya in Motion.’ In Simpson J, Nash D, Laughren M, Austin P & Alpher B (eds.) Forty years on. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 401–413. Nordlinger R & Bresnan J (1996). ‘Nonconfigurational tense in Wambaya.’ Proceedings of the LFG Conference, Grenoble, August 1996. CSLI Publications. Spencer B & Gillen F J (1904). Northern tribes of central Australia. London.
Warlpiri R Hoogenraad, Alice Springs, NT, Australia ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Warlpiri is a Pama-Nyungan language of the Ngumbin-Yapa subgroup (see McConvell and Laughren, 2004) spoken by some 3000 Yapa ‘people’ (typically Warlpiri people). The Warlpiri heartland is the Tanami Desert to the northwest of Alice Springs in Australia’s Northern Territory, but the Warlpirispeaking population now lives mainly in four communities around the margins of this area: Lajamanu, Nyirrpi, Yurntumu, and Wirliyajarrayi. There are also sizable populations in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, and in Aboriginal communities around the Warlpiri area. Warlpiri is also used over a larger area as a lingua franca – possibly up to 1000 Aboriginal people speak Warlpiri as a second language. Warlpiri had seven dialects, which are now being reduced to four communalects: Yurntumu/Nyirrpi, Lajamanu, Wirliyajarrayi, and Wakirti Warlpiri (Alekarenge and Tennant Creek). All the neighboring languages belong to the PamaNyungan family: Ngumbin-Yapa subgroup (Warlpiri, Ngardi, Jaru, Nyininy, Gurindji, Mudburra, Warlmanpa), Warumungu, Western Desert group (Pintupi Luritja, Pintupi, Kukatja), Arandic Group (Alyawarr, Kaytetye, Central Anmatyerr). Though there are significant differences between them, they share many of their core structural and sociolinguistic features.
A Warlpiri encyclopedic dictionary is in preparation: the database currently has over 9500 entries. Hale (1995) is a simple dictionary with nearly 2000 entries, and has an appendix with a concise grammatical inventory (as has Hale et al., 1995). Phonology
Table 1 shows the consonant phonemes in the standard orthography in use since 1974. The contrast between postalveolar stop rt and flap rd is only allophonic in eastern dialects: Wirliyajarrayi and Wakirti Warlpiri. There are three vowels, i, u, and a. High vowels u and i harmonize with adjacent high vowels across morpheme boundaries: progressive in nominals, wati-ngki man-ERG, kurdu-ngku child-ERG, but regressive in verbs, kipi-rni winnow-PRES, kupu-rnu winnow-PAST. The low vowel a blocks vowel harmony: kirlilkirlilpa-rlu galah-ERG; yirra-rni put-PRES, yirra-rnu put-PAST. A syllable may have one ‘short’ vowel or a sequence of two identical vowels, e.g., ngurrpa ‘ignorant of,’ nguurrpa ‘windpipe.’ The Word
Warlpiri words must have at least two vowels, in the same or sequential syllables, with an initial consonant
Table 1 Warlpiri consonants Peripheral Bilabial
Velar
Laminopalatal
Apicopostalveolar (retroflex)
Apicoalveolar
p m
k ng
j ny ly
rt rn rl rd
t n l rr
Warlpiri Grammar Ken Hale was Warlpiri’s ‘recording angel,’ starting in 1959 (see the bibliography in Simpson et al., 2001). There is a learner’s guide (Laughren et al., 1996), and good overviews are provided by Nash (1986), Hale et al. (1995), Simpson (1991), and the collection of papers in Swartz (1982a).
Stop Nasal Lateral Flap/ tap Glide
Coronal
w
y
r
1166 Warlpiri
and a final vowel and stress on the first syllable. The alveolar/postalveolar distinction (see Table 1) is neutralized word initially. The laminopalatal ly only occurs following a vowel. There is a mora (or vowel) counting rule that determines the choice between the two forms of the locative (-ngka vs. -rla) and ergative (-ngkui vs. -rlui), with minimal words hosting the velar allomorph, e.g., ngurrpa-ngku vs. nguurrpa-rlu (Hale, 1995: Appendix). Clauses
Warlpiri has a classical nonconfigurational clause structure, with ‘free’ word order, discontinuous constituents, and a high reliance on zero anaphora (Hale, 1983; Hale et al., 1995; Swartz, 1991). It has verbal and nominal (i.e., verbless) clauses. The nominal clause can be rendered as a verbal clause using one of the stance verbs as copula (see Table 2). Ngapa ngurrju. Ngapa-ka karri-mi ngurrju. water good water-AUX vertical.(stand)-PRES good ‘The water is good.’
The verbal clause consists of an obligatory verb and associated auxiliary complex, and a number of optional case-marked nominal constituents, as well as adverbial enclitics and particles with clausal or subclausal scope (Laughren, 1982a). Dependent and nonfinite subordinate clause types are discussed in Hale (1976) and Hale et al. (1995). Verbs
There are 170 simple verb stems, which inflect for tense and mood in five conjugations. Past, nonpast
Table 2 Warlpiri stance verbs/copula (verb ‘to be’) Neutral
Vertical
Horizontal
Humped
nyinami
karrimi
ngunami
parntarrimi
‘sit, stay’
‘stand’
‘lie’
‘crouch’
and irrealis verbs co-occur with aspect auxiliaries (see Table 3), while the imperative, infinitive, future, and presentational forms do not. Derivational morphology creates a nomic or agentive/instrumental noun from verbs (Hale, 1995), and inceptive and iterative verb forms which inflect for tense and mood, e.g., payirni-njina- ‘go and ask’ vs. payirni-njina-na-‘go about asking.’ Verbs are fixed in one of five transitivity patterns specifying syntactic case arrays: intransitive, biintransitive, middle, transitive, and bi-transitive (Swartz, 1982b). The inchoative -jarri- and the transitivizer -ma- are two very productive verb formatives with nominal stems. They form interrogative verbs: Nyarrpajarrija? ‘What did (he) do?’ and Nyarrpa-manu? ‘What did (he) do to (it)?’ Verbal meanings are further expanded by a large open noninflecting category termed preverb, particularly with the eight monosyllabic verb roots (Nash, 1982): nyanyi ‘seeing,’ purda-nyanyi ‘hearing,’ parnti-nyanyi ‘smell.’ Nominals, e.g., jarda ‘sleep, asleep,’ can act as preverbs; jarda-ngunami ‘asleeplying, sleeping.’ Nominals
Nominals make up the largest grammatical class, and include substantives (nouns) and descriptive terms (adjectives), free pronouns, the deictics and determiners, question words, etc. In verbal clauses they are optional. Nominals host number-marking suffixes (see Table 4), followed by a range of syntactic and semantic case suffixes (Hale et al., 1995). The three syntactic cases are in an ergative system. The ergative, -ngkui or -rlui, marks the subject (agent) of a transitive verb. The absolutive, -Ø (zero), marks the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb. The dative, -kui, marks indirect object and some oblique functions. There are a number of spatial cases, listed in Table 5, as well as an alienable possessive case. A grammatical
Table 3 The Warlpiri auxiliary complex Aspect and tense
-Ø- (i.e., nothing)
-ka-
Perfective
Imperfective
-lpa-
Nonpast
Past
Irrealis
Nonpast
Past
Irrealis
Immediate probability ngarrirni ‘about to tell, may tell’
Completed action ngarrurnu ‘has told, told’
Past possibility, probability ngarrikarla ‘would/should have told’
Happening; habitually happens -ka ngarrirni ‘is telling, tells’
Action in progress in past -lpa ngarrurnu ‘was telling’
Possibility, probability -lpa ngarrikarla ‘would/should tell’
Warlpiri 1167 Table 4 Warlpiri grammatical number
Nouns, interrogatives, adjectives Definite deictic and determiners Indefinite determiners 3rd Person subject pronominal clitics 3rd Person object pronominal clitics
Singular (one)
Dual (a pair)
Paucal (several)
Plural (more)
-Ø -Ø
-jarra -jarra
-patu -patu
-Ø -rra
jinta
jirrama -pala -palangu
marnkurrpa
-Ø -Ø
Table 5 Warlpiri spatial cases -ngkarla -wana
locative ‘at, on, in’ ‘along, around’
-kurra allative ‘to, up to’
panu
-lilu -jana
Table 6 Warlpiri spatial location and orientation: deictics -ngurlu -jangka
elative ‘from’ ‘from’ origin, cause
case may suffix to a stem containing a semantic case (see Simpson, 1991).
Definite Location certain
Close
Nearby
Further
Auxiliary Complex
The auxiliary complex is in the Wackernagel position, i.e., after the first constituent of the clause. The auxiliary complex comprises: . an optional finite complementizer (Hale et al., 1995) . an aspect marker, which in concert with the verb tense specifies the temporal and aspectual meaning of the clause (Table 3) . up to three pronominal clitics marking subject and nonsubject functions (Hale, 1973, 1982). There is a systematic mapping of the syntactic case array specified by the verb – in an ergative system – onto the auxiliary pronominal clitics – in a subjectobject system – described from different perspectives by Swartz (1982b) and Hale (1982). The free pronouns and the pronominal clitics mark person and number (Table 4). Third person singular subject and direct object is unmarked. A clause can be very minimal, without any overt nominals or auxiliary morphemes, or it can be expanded with case-marked nominals, etc. Jarnturnu. ‘He trimmed it.’
can be expanded to: Wati-ngki-Ø-Ø-Ø karli-Ø jarntu-rnu. man-ERG-PERF-3rd.sing.SUBJ-3rd.sing.OBJ boomerangABS trim-PAST ‘The man trimmed the boomerang.’
Expanding this, and changing the participants and aspect to show additional possibilities:
Distant
Indefinite
Not visible
Location uncertain
nyampu
yalarnimpi
mirnimpi
‘this, here’
‘this one not visible’
‘somewhere here’
yalumpu
yalarni
mirni
‘that, there’
‘that one not visible’
‘somewhere there’
yali
(yalarnimpayi?)
mirnimpayi
‘yon, yonder’
‘yonder not visible’
‘somewhere yonder’
yinya
yalarnirra
mirnirra
‘far yonder’
‘that one far off out of sight’
‘far away, a long way away’
Table 7 Warlpiri direction of action relative to speaker, suffixed to the inflected verb Centripital
Centrifugal
Perpendicular
þrnirnu ‘towards (hither)’
þrra ‘away (thither)’
þmpa ‘across’
Ngajarra-ku kula-lpa-Ø-jarrangku-rla karli-Ø jarntu-rnu wati-ngki 1st.exl.dual-DAT NEG.COMP-IMPERF-3rd.sing.SUBJ1st.exl.dual.-DAT boomerang-ABS trim-PAST manERG
‘Us two (excluding you) was not for whom the man was trimming the boomerang.’
Meaning, Context, and Registers I now discuss briefly some Warlpiri cultural preoccupations – with land, social relationships, and proper behavior – that are reflected in the language. Tables 5–7 shows some of the ways in which spatial orientation and direction is encoded in the language. For instance, there is a rich set of deictics encoding distance, visibility, and definiteness, and the choice of copula is determined by the perceived orientation of the subject (see Table 2). In addition, there is a system
1168 Warlpiri
of absolute three-dimensional spatial reference based on the four compass directions and up and down. The directional suffixes in Table 7 and additional suffixes create a rich system of spatial reference (Laughren, 1978). Although Warlpiri had no counting system, Table 4 shows that it marks grammatical number on all nominals and references it in the pronominal clitics. There is a particular emphasis on pairing, reflected in the obligatory marking of dual, and the dual indefinite determiner. There is also a preoccupation with relationships: the kin terminology allows any Yapa to be referenced as a relation, with higher order groupings into patrilineal, matrilineal, and generation moieties. There is also a sociocentric system of eight subsections or ‘skin names.’ Pairing shows up again in an extensive set of trirelational kin terms, which allow any pair of people to be referenced as a triangulation of the relationship between the speaker and each of the pair, and the relationship between the pair (Laughren, 1982b), e.g., makurnta-rlangu, the relationship between one’s brother-in-law and mother, who stand in the avoidance relationship of mother-in-law/son-in-law to each other (kurnta ‘shame, proper behavior’). Relationship to land is also registered in the kinship system. Warlpiri has respect registers, characterized by obliqueness, used when speaking about or to relations and ritual associates in avoidance or respect relationships (Laughren, 2001). Rdaka-rdaka ‘Hand Talk’ is a sign language used when speaking is inappropriate, especially by bereaved widows and mothers in the jilimi ‘single women’s camp’ (Kendon, 1988). Baby Talk is used to talk to babies, incrementally building up the phonological, grammatical, and semantic features of Warlpiri for them as they develop (Laughren, 1984). All these registers are characterized by hyperpolysemy and a systematic reduction in distinctions, giving us an insight into the organization of Warlpiri semantics, grammar, and phonology.
Bibliography Hale K L (1973). ‘Person marking in Walbiri.’ In Anderson S R & Kiparsky P (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. 308–344. Hale K L (1976). ‘The adjoined relative clause in Australia.’ In Dixon R M W (ed.) Grammatical categories in
Australian languages. Canberra, New Jersey: Humanities Press. 78–105. Hale K L (1982). ‘Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses.’ In Swartz (ed.). 217–315. Hale K L (1983). ‘Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5–47. Hale K L (1995). An elementary Warlpiri dictionary (revised edition). Alice Springs: IAD Press. Hale K L, Laughren M & Simpson J (1995). ‘Warlpiri.’ In Jacobs J, van Stechow A, Sternefeld W & Vennenmann T (eds.) Syntax—handbook, vol. 2. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1430–1451. Kendon A (1988). Sign language in Aboriginal Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laughren M (1978). ‘Directional terminology in Warlpiri.’ Launceston Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 8, 1–16. Laughren M (1982a). ‘A preliminary description of propositional particles in Warlpiri.’ In Swartz (ed.). 129–163. Laughren M (1982b). ‘Warlpiri kinship structure.’ In Heath J, Merlan F & Rumsey A (eds.) Oceania Linguistic Monographs N 24: Languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia. Sydney: University of Sydney. 72–85. Laughren M (1984). ‘Warlpiri baby talk.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 4, 73–88. Laughren M (2001). ‘What Warlpiri ‘‘avoidance’’ registers do with grammar.’ In Simpson et al. (eds.). 199–225. Laughren M, Hoogenraad R, Hale K & Japanangka Granites R (1996). A learner’s guide to Warlpiri. Alice Springs: IAD Press. McConvell P & Laughren M (2004). ‘The Ngumpin-Yapa Subgroup.’ In Bowern C & Koch H (eds.) Classification and the comparative method. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 169–196. Nash D (1982). ‘Warlpiri verb roots and preverbs.’ In Swartz (ed.). 165–216. Nash D (1986). Topics in Warlpiri grammar. New York/ London: Garland Publishing. Simpson J (1991). Warlpiri morpho-syntax: a lexicalist approach. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic. Simpson J, Nash D, Laughren M, Austin P & Alpher B (eds.) (2001). Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Swartz S M (ed.) (1982a). Work Papers of SIL-AAB, Series A. Vol. 6: Papers in Warlpiri grammar: in memory of Lothar Jagst. Darwin:. Swartz S M (1982b). ‘Syntactic structure of Warlpiri clauses.’ In Swartz (ed.). Darwin: Summer Institute for Linguistics. 69–127. Swartz S M (1991). Constraints on zero anaphora and word order in Warlpiri narrative texts. Darwin. SIL-AATB, Occasional Papers 1. Darwin: Summer Institute for Linguistics.
Welsh 1169
Welsh P W Thomas, School of Welsh, Cardiff University, Wales, UK ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Demographic Features According to the 2001 census, 582 000 people, or 20.8% of the total population of Wales, claimed to be able to speak Welsh; almost 798 000, or 28.4% of the population, claimed to have at least one language skill in Welsh. Before 2001 successive censuses had recorded a decline in the number of Welsh speakers: 10 years previously, in 1991, there were 508 000 speakers who comprised 18.7% of the population. Apart from some very young children, all Welsh speakers in Wales are bilingual and can also speak English. There are no official counts of Welsh speakers outside Wales but surveys commissioned by S4C, the Welsh television channel, suggest that there are more than 200 000 in England. One particular area where emigrants from Wales continue to speak Welsh is Patagonia, in the Chubut province of Argentina. The first settlers arrived in 1865, hoping to found a ‘New Wales’; many of their descendants are bilingual in Welsh and Spanish. The density and numbers of Welsh speakers show considerable geographic variation. For example, 69% of the population of Gwynedd, in the north-west, can speak the language, compared to 11% of the population of Cardiff, the capital, in the south-east. But while the 69% of Gwynedd represents almost 78 000 speakers, the 50% of Carmarthenshire in the south-west represents more than 84 000 individuals. There are also more Welsh speakers in urban than rural areas. For example, there are almost 26 000 speakers in rural Powys in mid Wales, but almost 28 000 in the post-industrial Rhondda-Cynon-Taf valleys, 29 000 in the southern city of Swansea, and 32 500 in Cardiff, the capital. The increase in Welsh speaking is the result of growth on two main fronts. The first, and most obvious, is among school children. In addition to the growing number of Welsh-medium schools, it became compulsory in 1990 for children in English-medium state schools to learn Welsh up to the age of 14; in 1999 the upper age limit was raised to 16. These changes are reflected in the 2001 census, which recorded that 40.8% of all children between the ages of 5 and 15 could speak Welsh. The second growth area in the number of Welsh speakers is the many thousands of adults who are learning the language.
The change in the ability to use Welsh is accompanied by increasing institutional support. A Welsh television channel, S4C, was established in 1982, followed in 1998 by S4C Digital, which broadcasts over 80 hours of Welsh television a week. There are several local radio stations and a national Welsh language radio station, Radio Cymru, which broadcasts about 126 hours a week. Several hundred Welsh language books and periodicals are published a year and a network of some 50 local Welsh papers which are produced several times a year by volunteers. The use of the Welsh language is promoted by the Welsh Language Board, a government-funded body that was established by the 1993 Welsh Language Act, which states that Welsh and English should be treated equally in the administration of justice and in public business. Public bodies in Wales must submit schemes to the Board that describe the provision they make for the language. The aims of the Board seem to have general support: according to a recent opinion poll 67% of the people in Wales thought that more should be done to promote the language.
Periods of Welsh The periods of the development of Welsh are conventionally divided into Early Welsh (up to the end of the 8th century and represented by a few names), Old Welsh (from the 9th to the 11th centuries, represented by glosses and fragments of prose and verse), Middle Welsh (from the 12th to the 14th centuries and represented by a substantial body of prose and verse), and Modern Welsh.
Linguistic Features Alphabet
Written Welsh uses the Roman alphabet. Particular orthographic conventions include several digraphs, e.g. hthi for /y/, hddi for /ð/, hchi for /w/ and hlli for /l/; hwi and hii represent the consonants /w/ and /j/ or the vowels /u/ and /i/ respectively, and hyi represents /e/ and /i$(:)/. Phonemic Inventory
The vowels, diphthongs, and consonants of Welsh are listed in Table 1. The main dialect variations with respect to this inventory are the absence of /i$(:)/ (and diphthongs closing to /i$/) in southern Welsh, of /e/ in the extreme south-west, and of /h/ and voiceless /r/ in the south-east. Conservative northern speakers ˚ substitute /s/ for /z/, which features in some loans will
1170 Welsh Table 1 Phoneme inventory of modern Welsh Vowels i e
$i e a
u o
i: e:
i:
u: o:
a
Diphthongs Iu
Eu
eu ei, eu Oi$ ai$, au
Consonants Voiceless stops Voiced stops Voiceless fricatives Voiced fricatives Nasals Liquids Semivowels
Bilabial p b
Labiodental
f v m
Dental t d y
Alveolar
Palatoalveolar
ð
s, l, r ˚ z
S (Z)
n l
r
Palatal
Velar k g
Uvular
Glottal
w
h
N
w
j
Table 3 The consonant mutations
Table 2 Three dialect differences Feature
Example
Northern
Southern
Radical
Soft
Nasal
Spirant
Realisation of /w/ preceding /w/ Vowel length preceding /l/ Vowel length preceding /sp, st, sk, lt/
(ch)with ‘left’ call ‘sane’ gw(a)llt
wwi:y
(h)wi:y
kal gwa:lt
ka:l gwalt
/p/ /t/ /k/ /b/ /d/ /g/ /m/ /l/ /r/ ˚
/b/ /d/ /g/ /v/ /ð/ – /v/ /l/ /r/
/mh/ /nh/ /Nh/ /m/ /n/ /N/
/f/ /y/ /w/
from English. Two affricates – /tS/ and /dZ/ – feature in loanwords and in dialects. Other salient dialect differences are listed in Table 2. Consonant Mutation
In common with the other Celtic languages, some of the initial consonants of Welsh words vary according to their grammatical context, for example: /ka:y/ hcathi ‘cat’ /ve Nha:y/ hfy nghathi ‘my cat’ /i ga:y/ hei gathi ‘his cat’ /i wa:y/ hei chathi ‘her cat’
Such consonantal changes are traditionally called mutations. They may be triggered by a preceding word, such as the personal pronouns in the above examples, or by grammatical context. For example, the object of a verb will mutate but not the subject: Gwelodd ddyn. saw-PAST man ‘he/she saw a man’
Gwelodd dyn. saw-PAST man ‘a man saw’
There are three mutations, which may affect up to nine consonants (Table 3). Vocabulary
The core vocabulary of Welsh is Celtic, for example, drws ‘door’, dyn ‘man’, and haul ‘sun’. There are some 800 loanwords from Latin, mostly borrowed during the Roman occupation (43–410 A.D.); many of these refer to architectural and religious innovations, for example, eglwys ‘church’ from Latin eccle¯sia, ffenestr ‘window’ from fenestra, and pont ‘bridge’ from pontem. There are also many thousands of loans from English. A very few of these may be dated to the Old English period, but the numbers increase from the medieval period onward; examples are cwpan ‘cup’, seˆt ‘seat’, trowsus ‘trousers’. There are some dialect differences in the vocabulary, particularly between northern and southern
Welsh 1171
varieties; for example, ‘grandmother’ is nain in northern Welsh but mam-gu in southern Welsh; ‘out’ is allan in the north but maˆs in the south; and ‘with’ is efo in the north but gyda in the south. Standard Welsh may use both nain and mam-gu, but only allan and gyda. Speakers are generally tolerant of such variation. Keeping pace with developments in English vocabulary has occupied lexicographers since the 18th century. More recently, educationalists who are concerned with delivering the school curriculum through the medium of Welsh have planned the elaboration of Welsh vocabulary through coinage, borrowing, and adaptation. The standardization of subject-specific vocabularies is undertaken professionally. Syntax
Welsh is a VSO language. For example: Prynodd y ferch bought the girl ‘the girl bought a car.’
gar. car.
Welsh has a definite article but no indefinite article. Adjectives tend to follow the noun they qualify, for example: car coch car red ‘red car’
Welsh has grammatical gender. Some adjectives have feminine and plural forms, a feature that is more prominent in formal styles and northern dialects, for example: ceffyl gwyn horse white ‘white horse’ caseg wen mare white-FEMININE ‘white mare’ ceffylau gwynion horses white-PLURAL ‘white horses’
Numerals have masculine/neutral and feminine forms for 1 (un), 2 (dau, dwy), 3 (tri, tair) and 4 (pedwar, pedair). The gender of the numeral un is apparent only when nouns beginning with certain consonants follow it; cf.
ci, un ci dog-MASCULINE, one dog cath, un gath cat-FEMININE, one cat Stylistic Variation
Informal spoken varieties of Welsh show considerable variation, and may be heavily influenced by English vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and intonation, with frequent code-switching. Formal varieties tend to be more conservative and to favor native features.
Bibliography Aitchison J W & Carter H (1994). A geography of the Welsh language 1961–1991. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Aitchison J & Carter H (2000). Language, economy and society: the changing fortunes of the Welsh language in the twentieth century. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Aitchison J & Carter H (2004). Spreading the word: the Welsh language 2001. Talybont: Y Lolfa. Awbery G M (1984). ‘Welsh.’ In Trudgill P (ed.) Language in the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 259–277. Ball M J & Jones G E (eds.) (1984). Welsh phonology. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Davies J (1999). The Welsh language. Cardiff: University of Wales Press & The Western Mail. Griffiths B (ed.) (1995). The Welsh Academy English– Welsh dictionary. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Jones M & Thomas A R (1977). The Welsh language: studies in its syntax and semantics. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Parry-Williams T H (1923). The English element in Welsh. London: The Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion. Price G (1984). ‘Welsh.’ In The languages of Britain. London: Arnold. 94–133. Prys D & Jones J P M (eds.) (1998). Y termiadur ysgol, Standardized terminology for the schools of Wales. Bangor: University of Wales. Thomas A R (1973). The linguistic geography of Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Thomas A R (ed.) (2000). The Welsh dialect survey. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Thomas R J, Bevan G A & Donovan P J (eds.) (1950–2002). Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, A dictionary of the Welsh language. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Watkins T A (1993). ‘Welsh.’ In Ball M J & Fife J (eds.) The Celtic languages. London: Routledge. 289–348.
Relevant Website http://www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk/ – Welsh Language Board.
1172 West Greenlandic
West Greenlandic A Berge, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AL, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Language and Its Dialects Greenlandic, or Kalaallisut, is an Eskimo language (see Eskimo-Aleut). Greenland, or Kalaallit Nunaat, is geographically and culturally part of the North American continent; however, since 1721, it has been a territory of Denmark. In 1979 Greenland obtained autonomy over local governance, and Greenlandic was named the national language along with Danish. Today there are more than 50 000 speakers of Greenlandic, the vast majority of whom live in Greenland, although a sizable population is to be found in Denmark. There are three major dialects of Greenlandic: Polar Eskimo, spoken in the Thule region, East Greenlandic, spoken on the east coast, and West Greenlandic, spoken along most of the western coast. West Greenlandic is the dialect most widely spoken in Greenland, as well as being the standard dialect for purposes of political administration, education, church, and media. The dialect region stretches from Upernavik in the north to Kap Farvel in the south. Four subdialects are generally recognized: the subdialect spoken in Upernavik; North West Greenlandic (Uummannaq, and the Disko Bay region), Central West Greenlandic (Sisimiut to south of Nuuk); and South West Greenlandic (from north of Paamiut to south of Nanortalik), according to Dorais, 1996. The subdialects differ slightly in various aspects of their phonology and lexicon; thus, the Upernavik dialect, sharing a feature of East Greenlandic, tends to replace /u/ with /i/ under certain conditions, and Northwest Greenlandic retains a historical retroflex /S/, whereas the Central and Southwestern dialects have merged /S/ with /s/. The Greenlandic spoken in the capital city, Nuuk, tends to contain more Danish loans and syntactic features than the language spoken in other settlements, due to a relatively significant Danish population, as well as to its concentration of administrative and political activities. The Central West Greenlandic subdialect has long been the accepted spoken and written standard, and it will serve as the basis of the description given below.
Historiography of Descriptive Work Greenland has seen several waves of immigration from both Eskimo and European populations. The most recent Eskimo groups are estimated to have
arrived in Northern Greenland by the end of the 12th century and in Southern Greenland by the end of the 15th century. There is some evidence they made contact with the first European immigrants, the Norse, who had arrived in the late 10th century. There is, however, scant linguistic evidence of Norse influence on Greenlandic, and the Norse had disappeared by the 16th century. From the late Middle Ages, European whalers, traders, and explorers made their way up the coast of Greenland; the first written records of West Greenlandic are wordlists they compiled during the 16th and 17th centuries, although some of the words collected appear to represent a trade pidgin (van der Voort, 1996). The first systematic grammatical descriptions of the language date from the beginning of the Danish colonial era in the 18th century and were made by Lutheran and Moravian missionaries. The first of these was a collaborative work from 1725 between the missionary Hans Egede and his assistant Topp, with the help of Egede’s son, Poul. This served as the basis of a dictionary, published in 1750, and the first complete grammar, in 1760, by P. Egede. Later descriptions were modeled on P. Egede’s work, the most notable being O. Fabricius’ grammar (1791, rev. 1801) and dictionary (1804). In 1851 Samuel Kleinschmidt published his grammar of Greenlandic; this is the earliest thorough linguistic description of an American native language and it is widely seen as the first modern, synchronic linguistic description of a language. Kleinschmidt also created a standard, linguistically accurate orthography for Greenlandic, which was maintained until 1972, when a more modern orthography was introduced to reflect important morphophonological changes in Greenlandic. Descriptive work on West Greenlandic has continued to the present, and important scholars include Thalbitzer, one of the first to document through sound recordings, Schultz-Lorentzen, Bergsland, and Fortescue. In addition to general descriptions, more recent work has included specialized studies of phonology (e.g., Rischel, 1972), syntax (e.g., Sadock, 1991), and discourse (e.g., Berge, 1997).
Phonetics and Phonology West Greenlandic phonology is characterized by having few consonants and vowels and restrictions on vowel and consonant clusters, as well as on final consonants. Thus, only vowels and stops are found word finally; the only allowable diphthongs are /iV/, /Vi/, or /uV/; and consonant clusters are only found medially
West Greenlandic 1173 Table 1 Phoneme inventory for West Greenlandic Manner/Place
Labial
Dental
Palatal
Stops Fricatives v þv Nasals Liquids
p f v m
t s
(S ¼ [s])
Glides Vowels: a, aa, i, ii, u, uu
j
n
Velar
Uvular
k x g N
q R
l ¼ [ll] l (w)
Standard orthography is in brackets; parentheses indicate subdialect forms or questionable phonemic status.
and consist mostly of geminates, with the exception of /rC/ combinations (see Table 1). Some features of Greenlandic are common to other Eskimo languages, including traces of a fourth vowel (see Eskimo-Aleut), and a rich morphophonology. Particular to West Greenlandic is the extreme degree of consonant cluster assimilation, which has taken place in the historic period. Old Greenlandic New
paurqi-ngnig-tar-fik paaqqi-nnit-tar-fik take.care.of-ANTI-HABIT-place ‘nursing home’
Restrictions on vowel or consonant clusters and a productive morphology, with complex rules for adding morphemes, have led to more opaque word formations than in other Eskimo languages. (For more on the morphophonology, see Rischel, 1974 and Fortescue, 1984.)
Morphology/Syntax Greenlandic is an extremely polysynthetic language, with a large number of derivational affixes and complex inflection. Words consist of a root (or base), typically from zero to five suffixes known as postbases (although more than five are possible and quite normal), and an inflectional ending; with one nonproductive exception, there are no prefixes. Roots generally are subcategorized for part of speech; nominal roots will require nominal inflection, and verbal roots will require verbal inflection. The most important parts of speech are the open classes of nouns and verbs; adjectives and adverbs tend to be verbally derived. There are also a rich system of demonstratives, a limited set of particles, a limited set of fossilized adverbs and adjectives, and few but common clitics. There are several hundred derivational postbases, many of which are highly productive. These are commonly classified into four categories: those
which derive nouns from nominal bases (NN); those that derive verbs from nominal bases (NV); those that derive verbs from verbal bases (VV); and those that derive nouns from verbal bases (VN). Some also attach to other parts of speech, e.g., particles;-nnitand-tar-in the example above are both VV, and-fik is VN. NN and NV are shown in the following example: inuk-rsuaq-u-voq man-big-COP-3sing.INDIC N-NN-NV-INFL ‘he is a giant’
As this example shows, verbalizing postbases can create verbal structures that ‘incorporate’ a verbal argument; that is, a subject or object can be brought into the verbal structure. There is some theoretical debate as to whether or not Eskimo languages can be called incorporating (e.g., Baker, 1988), but within the field of Eskimo linguistics, there is a long tradition of using the term ‘incorporation’ for structures of the type exemplified above. Even inflected forms can incorporate: aappalut-toq illu-mi-iC-voq red-PART house-LOC-COP-3sing.INDIC ‘he is in the red house’
Nominal inflection includes eight cases as well as possessive and person markers, which are also inflected for case. There are two grammatical cases, absolutive and ergative (or relative), and six oblique cases, including instrumental (a default case with many functions, both grammatical and nongrammatical), locative, ablative, allative, vialis, and equalis. Verbal inflection is semifused and includes marking for dependence, mood, transitivity, person, and number. Verb moods are typically categorized as either independent or dependent. Sentences often consist of strings of subordinate clauses with dependent mood marking and a superordinate clause headed by a verb with independent mood marking. Independent moods include the indicative, interrogative, optative, and imperative moods. Dependent moods include the conditional, causative (indicating causation or action prior to that expressed by the independent clause), contemporative (indicating action contemporaneous with that expressed by the independent clause), and participial (used in object clauses, as an alternative to the indicative in narration, and in other discourse contexts). For an example of clause chaining from West Greenlandic (see Eskimo-Aleut). Ergativity and transitivity have long been topics of interest in the study of Greenlandic. Transitive
1174 West Greenlandic
Figure 1 Major Greenlandic dialects and West Greenlandic subdialects.
clauses are headed by verbs with subject and object person marking, and the arguments are marked with ergative and absolutive case. Intransitive and antipassive clauses are headed by verbs with pronominal marking of the subject and nouns take absolutive case. Objects of antipassive clauses take instrumental case. Traditionally, these are seen as related to definiteness of the object, although they may reflect topicality (Berge, 1997).
anguti-p nanuq taku-aa man-ERG.sing bear.ABS.sing see-3SG.3sing.INDIC ‘the man sees/saw the bear’ (definite, or old topic) angut nanur-mik taku-voq man.ABS.sing bear-INST.sing see-3sing.INDIC ‘the man sees/saw a bear’ (indefinite, or topic introduction)
At least one relatively major syntactic theory has been developed to account for Greenlandic morphosyntax.
West Greenlandic 1175
This is Autolexical Theory, developed by Sadock (1991, 2003) and based in part on GPSG. It allows morphology and syntax to require structures that may not always result in exact matching, as in the stranded modification of a locative phrase in the sentence ‘he is in the red house’ given above.
Lexicon Modern Greenlandic has seen an influx of new lexical items as a result of colonial experience and modernization. The earliest evidence of this is seen in early Bible translations, with the heavy use of Danish loans relating to Christianity. Some of these loans have been well integrated into the language, for example, palasi, from Danish præst ‘priest’, while others have been replaced by Greenlandic coinages. Greenlandic has actively incorporated new words in its lexicon, through relexicalization of obsolete terms (e.g., issat ‘snow goggles’ are now ‘eyeglasses’), borrowing (kaffi ‘coffee’), and coinage (Petersen, 1976, Berge and Kaplan, 2005). There is some evidence for the increased use of passive formations and nominalizations in the lexicon, perhaps as a result of the influence of journalistic style and literacy.
Semantics/Discourse/Sociolinguistics Little work has been done to date on other aspects of linguistic description, especially including semantics, discourse, and sociolinguistics, although the body of work in these areas is steadily increasing. There have been reports on child language acquisition (Fortescue, 1985), bilingualism (Jacobsen, 1997), and discourse (Berge, 1997), among others. More sociolinguistic and semantic studies have been done of neighboring dialects, such as Inuktitut.
State of the Language Today Unlike many other native languages of North America, West Greenlandic is not endangered and is, in fact, undergoing normal language development and change, although there was a period of endangerment. During the mid–20th century, increasing encroachment of the Danish language led to almost two generations of speakers who appeared to be losing their fluency in Greenlandic. In response, Greenlandic became one of the national symbols of the political campaigns for autonomy from Danish rule in the 1970s. With the establishment of Home Rule in 1979, Greenlandic was given the status of national language along with Danish. Language loss was successfully reversed, although there may have
been some lasting effects of bilingualism on the dialect spoken in Nuuk. Factors that have contributed to this reversal include a history of education and literacy in Greenlandic, a wealth of materials in the language, and political support. From earliest colonial times, education was established in West Greenlandic, and literacy was common. Today Greenlandic can be chosen as a medium of instruction throughout the years of formal schooling, and there have been efforts to include it as the language of instruction at Ilisimatusarfik, the University of Greenland. The first books in Greenlandic were published in the 1850s and the first newspaper, Atuagagdliutit, shortly thereafter. Since then, there have been several thousand books and articles published in Greenlandic, Atuagagdliutit has been in continuous print since its inception, and there are today two bilingual newspapers (in Danish and Greenlandic), local television and radio stations with Greenlandic programming, and more.
Bibliography Baker M (1988). Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berge A (1997). ‘Topic and discourses structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions.’ Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley. Berge A & Kaplan L (2005). ‘Contact-induced lexical development in Yupik and Inuit languages.’ E´tudes/Inuit/ Studies. Bergsland K (1955). ‘A grammatical outline of the Eskimo language of West Greenland.’ Oslo: Mimeo. Dorais L-J (1996). La parole Inuit: langue, culture, et socie´te´ dans l’Arctique nord-ame´ricain. Paris: Peeters. Egede P (1760). Grammatica Gro¨nlandica Danico-Latina. [Copenhagen]: Gottmann. Fabricius O (1801). Forsog af en forbredret Grønlandsk grammatica. Copenhagen: Kongelige Waysenhuses Bogtrykkerie. Fortescue M (1984). West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm. Fortescue M (1985). ‘Learning to speak Greenlandic: a case study of a two-year-old’s morphology in a polysynthetic language.’ FL 5, 101–114. Jacobsen B (1987). ‘A preliminary report on a pilot investigation of Greenlandic school children’s spelling errors.’ In Luelsdorff P A (ed.) Orthography and Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 101–130. Kleinschmidt S (1851). Grammatik der Gro¨nla¨ndischen Sprache. Berlin: G. Reimer. Petersen R (1976). ‘Nogle træk i udviklingen af det grønlandske sprog.’ Tidskriftet Grønland 6, 165–208. Rischel J (1974). Topics in West Greenlandic phonology. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Sadock J M (1991). Autolexical syntax: a theory of parallel grammatical representations for series Studies in
1176 West Papuan Languages Contemporary Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sadock J M (2003). A grammar of Kalaallisut. (West Greenlandic Inuttut). Muenchen: LINCOM. Schultz-Lorentzen C W (1945). A grammar of the West Greenlandic language, for series Meddelelser om Grønland 129,3. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels Forlag. Tersis N & Therrien M (eds.) (2000). Les langues Eskale´outes: Sibe´rie, Alaska, Canada, Groe¨nland. Paris: CNRS.
Thalbitzer W (1911). ‘Eskimo.’ In Handbook of Native American languages. Bureau of Indian Ethnology Bulletin no. 40. Washington: Government Printing Office. 967–1069. van der Voort H (1996). ‘Eskimo pidgin in West Greenland.’ In Jahr E & Broch I (eds.) Language contact in the Arctic: northern pidgins and contact languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 157–260.
West Papuan Languages G Reesink, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction In the area between Timor and the adjacent islands Alor and Pantar (126 E) and the Cenderawasih Bay of the Indonesian province Papua (136 E), roughly 50 of the more than 800 Papuan languages are spoken (see Figure 1). These West Papuan languages do not form one family, in spite of earlier attempts to establish a ‘‘large West Papuan Phylum’’ (Cowan, 1957, 1960). More recently, the West Papuan Phylum has been restricted to the languages of North Halmahera (NH) and the Bird’s Head Peninsula (Voorhoeve, 1975; Wurm, 1981, 1982), whereas the South Bird’s Head (SBH) languages and some languages on the western tip of the Bomberai peninsula are claimed to form one family with those of Timor-Alor-Pantar (TAP), forming a subgroup within the largest Papuan family proposed thus far, the Trans New Guinea (TNG) family (McElhanon and Voorhoeve, 1970; Voorhoeve, 1975; Stokhof, 1975; Wurm, 1982; Pawley, 1998; Foley, 2000; Ross, 2004). The West Papuan languages of North Halmahera and the Bird’s Head could form a distantly related family, on the basis of (i) pronominal forms for1sg as *t/d- and *n- for 2sg; (ii) the number-ablaut (sg is a, pl is i), found in TNG, is also attested in a number of West Papuan languages, and (iii) a small number of possible cognates. Some of these show some overlap with the TNG evidence, for example, reflexes of *niman ‘louse’ (Pawley, 1998; Reesink, 2004). Although a few families have been established with reasonable certainty, the evidence for linguistic relatedness between them is so meagre that no firm conclusions should be drawn at present. Rather, the West Papuan languages form an areal network of basically
unrelated families (North Halmahera, West BH, and two East BH families (Meyah-Sougb; and HatamMansim) and a number of isolates in the center of the Bird’s Head (Maybrat, Abun, Mpur) and Yawa in the Cenderawasih Bay. They share a number of typological features, not only between them but also with the Austronesian languages spoken in this same region, betraying approximately four millenia of contact since the Austronesians first arrived in the Moluccas and around the Bird’s Head (Bellwood, 1985).
Typological features Verbal Complex
As typical of Papuan languages, the constituent order of the clause is SOV in TAP, NH, SBH, and Yawa, all of which also have a verbal prefix for (animate) object, which is the normal crossreference for the recipient with a verb like ‘give.’ Less typical is the configuration that has an additional verbal prefix for subject, as found in NH and SBH languages. The region of the west Papuan languages is one of three in which Papuan languages are found that do not have a V-final order, the other two being the Torricelli languages and some of the East Papuan languages. Some of the NH and most BH languages have a rather strict SVO order, often with a subject prefix as the only verbal affixation. Tense-Aspect-Mood morphology is generally poor or completely absent, as in Abun. Some aspect or mood prefixation is found in languages of the EBH. Inanwatan has tense marked by suffixation, whereas the TAP languages mark aspect that way. In the ‘nontensed’ languages, predicative adjectives behave as verbs (see Stassen, 2003), whereas ‘tensed’ Inanwatan verbalizes adjectives by means of a copula (De Vries, to appear). All West Papuan languages, whether OV or VO, have a clause-final negative adverb, in some cases with no morphosyntactic means to delineate its
West Papuan Languages 1177
Figure 1 Map of West Papua.
scope (Reesink, 2002). They also agree in having clause-final aspectual adverbs, such as ‘already.’ Nominal Complex
The order of constituents in the Noun Phrase is in all West Papuan languages: Noun–Adjective–Numeral– Demonstrative, whereas a few NH languages have a prenominal article in addition. All of them make a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession. The latter construction consists of a possessor prefix on the possessed noun (body-part and kinship terms), which is generally identical to either the subject or object prefix, if the latter is available in the language. Numeral classifiers are widely available in the West Papuan languages, Meyah having the most complex system, whereas its relative Sougb and their (very distantly?) related neighbour Hatam only have a vestige (see Reesink, 2002). Pronominal systems A gender distinction (masculine; feminine; and, in some languages, neuter) for 3sg forms seems to be an old Papuan feature that links the West Papuan languages with most of the non-TNG languages along the north coast of New
Guinea, as far as the Solomon Islands. The TAP languages, and on the Bird’s Head, the isolate Abun and the two EBH families lack this feature. The inclusive-exclusive opposition for nonsingular first person seems to be an Austronesian feature that has found its way into all the WP languages, except three central BH isolates, Maybrat, Abun, and Mpur. Tone
Tonal contrasts are found in Mpur, with four phonemic tones (Ode´, 2002) and Abun with three (Berry and Berry, 1999), whereas Meyah (Gravelle, 2002) and Sougb (Reesink, 2002) are pitch-accent languages with two contrastive tones. Ma’ya and Matbat are AN languages of the Raja Ampat Islands that have a Papuan substrate of four contrastive tones (Remijsen, 2001).
Papuan and Austronesian Contact The SVO order with concomitant prepositions can be seen as a diffusion into many WP languages, in addition to the inclusive–exclusive opposition. There
1178 West Papuan Languages
seems to have been more diffusion in the other direction: almost all Austronesian languages in the WP sphere have a clause-final negator, a preposed possessor, and the alienable–inalienable distinction for possessive construction, albeit that the latter is expressed by possessor suffixes on the possessed noun, rather than by prefixes as in the Papuan languages. The typological contrast between western AN languages and those of this area, given by Himmelmann (to appear), focuses precisely on these ‘Papuanisms’ (see Klamer, Reesink, and Van Staden, to appear). It thus suggests a scenario of original Papuan-speaking communities that shifted to ‘imperfectly’ learned Austronesian languages. Prolonged contact between these communities allowed for further convergence to a linguistic area of AN and Papuan languages in the Moluccas and the western peninsula of New Guinea.
Bibliography Bellwood P (1985). Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian archipelago. New York: Academic Press. Berry K & Berry C (1999). A description of Abun, a West Papuan language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Cowan H J K (1957). ‘A large Papuan language phylum in West New Guinea.’ Oceania 28(2), 159–166. Cowan H J K (1960). ‘Nadere gegevens betreffende de verbreiding der West-Papoease Taalgroep.’ Bijdragen Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 116, 350–364. De Vries L (1996). ‘Notes on the morphology of the Inanwatan language.’ NUSA 40, 97–127. Foley W A (2000). ‘The languages of New Guinea.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 29, 357–404. Gravelle G (2002). ‘Morphosyntactic properties of Meyah word classes.’ In Reesink (ed.) 109–180. Himmelmann N (in press). ‘The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: typological characteristics.’ In Adelaar K A & Himmelmann N P (eds.) The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge/Curzon. Klamer M, Reesink G P & Van Staden M (to appear). ‘East Nusantara and The Bird’s Head as a linguistic area.’ In Muysken P (ed.). Volume on Linguistic areas. McElhanon K A & Voorhoeve C L (1970). The Trans-New Guinea Phylum: explorations in deep-level genetic relationships. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Miedema J, Ode´ C & Dam R A C (eds.) (1998). Perspectives on the Bird’s Head. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Ode´ C (2003). Mpur prosody: an experimental–phonetic analysis with examples from two versions of the Fentora myth. Osaka: Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim [ELPR Publication series A1–003]. Pawley A K (1998). ‘The Trans New Guinea Phylum hypothesis: a reassessment.’ In Miedema, Ode´ & Dam (eds.). 655–690. Pawley A K, Attenborough R, Golson J & Hide R (eds.) Papuan Pasts: studies in the cultural, linguistic and biological history of the Papuan-speaking peoples. Adelaide: Crawford House Australia. Reesink G P (1996). ‘Morpho-syntactic features of the Bird’s Head languages.’ NUSA 40, 1–20. Reesink G P (1998). ‘The Bird’s Head as Sprachbund.’ In Miedema, Ode´ & Dam (eds.). 603–642. Reesink G P (ed.) (2002). Languages of the eastern Bird’s Head. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Reesink G P (2002). ‘Clause-final negation: structure and interpretation.’ Functions of Language 9(2), 239–268. Reesink G P (2004). ‘Roots and development of West Papuan languages: Papuan elements in West Papuan languages.’ In Pawley, Attenborough, Golson & Hide (eds.). Remijsen B (2001). Word-prosodic systems of Raja Ampat languages. Utrecht: LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics). Ross M (2004). ‘Pronouns as markers of genetic stocks in non-Austronesian languages of New Guinea and Island Melanesia and Eastern Indonesia.’ In Pawley, Attenborough, Golson & Hide (eds.). Stassen L (1997). Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stokhof W A L (1975). Preliminary notes on the Alor and Pantar languages (East Indonesia). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Voorhoeve C L (1975). Languages of Irian Jaya: checklist, preliminary classification, language maps, wordlists. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wurm S A (ed.) (1975). New Guinea area languages and language study, vol. 1: Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wurm S A (1981). ‘Papuan language stocks, western New Guinea area.’ In Wurm S A & Hattori S (eds.) Language atlas of the Pacific area, part 1: New Guinea area, Oceania, Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wurm S A (1982). The Papuan languages of Oceania. Tu¨bingen: Gunter Narr.
Wolaitta 1179
Wolaitta A Amha, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
The Sound System
ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Consonants
Introduction The term ‘Wolaitta’ (Wolaytta) designates both the speakers and the language discussed in this article. Their administrative unit, known as the Wolaitta Zone, is part of the Southern Peoples, Nations and Nationalities Regional State of Ethiopia. The northern neighbors of the Wolaitta are the Kambatta (Kambaata) and Hadiyya (Cushitic); the southern neighbors are the Gamo and Gofa peoples (Omotic). The western and eastern parts of Wolaitta are bounded by the Omo and Bilate rivers, respectively. Most of the Wolaitta are farmers. According to the 1994 national census of Ethiopia, there are 1 210 000 Wolaitta speakers. For the names of closely related languages, see the language family tree in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Omotic family tree, based on Fleming (1976).
Table 1 lists a consonant inventory of Wolaitta. [p] and [F] are free variants in word-initial and intervocalic positions; [F] does not occur as a geminate or as a member of a consonant cluster. The labial implosive is attested both in word-initial and medial positions, as in Ka´nk’a ‘very sour’ and sˇoKKa´ ‘armpit,’ and the alveolar implosive occurs only in word medial position, as in. sˇo´FFe ‘frog.’ [zˇ] is used marginally and only in ideophonic words. Gemination is contrastive.
Vowels
Wolaitta has a five-vowel system with each vowel having a longer counterpart (Table 2). Examples are ma´ra ‘calf,’ maa´ra ‘row’ and boo´ra ‘ox,’ bo´ra ‘critic.’
1180 Wolaitta Table 1 Consonant inventory (p) b K m (F)
t d t’ F n s z l r
w
Table 3 Basic nouns c j c’
sˇ (zˇ)
k g k’
[e]-ending
bu´he mole´
[o]-ending
‘dust’ ‘fish’
ka´wo sˇooro´
[a]-ending
‘dinner’ ‘neighbor’
sˇaa´fa keetta´
‘river’ ‘house’
h Table 4 Plural marking
y
Singular
Nominative plural
Accusative plural
Gloss
sˇaa´fa sˇooro´
sˇaa´fa-t-i sˇooro-t-ı´
sˇaa´fa-t-a ‘sˇooro-t-a´’
‘river’ ‘neighbor’
Table 2 Vowel inventory i, ii e, ee
u, uu o, oo a, aa
Plural Marking
On definite nouns, plural is marked by the morpheme -t-; indefinite nouns are not marked for plurality. Singular is unmarked. Examples are in Table 4. Case, Gender, and Definiteness
Syllable Structure
CV, CVV, CVC, and CVVC syllable types are attested, as in ta´ ‘I’, ?e´e´ ‘yes,’ mal.do´ ‘sorghum,’ and keet.ta´ ‘house’ (where the period indicates the syllable break). As the syllabification of the words maldo´ and keetta´ demonstrates, geminates and consonant clusters are split between two different syllables; also, clusters and geminates consist of only two members and they occur only word-medially. Syllable nucleus may be simple or branching. Tone-Accent
Wolaitta is a tone-accent language. The language has two tones (high and low) used for making lexical distinction, as in go´da ‘lord, chief’ versus goda´ ‘wall’ (where high tone is marked with ´ and low tone is not marked). With a few exceptions (e.g., ha ‘this,’ ta ‘my’), there are no words with just low tones; instead, lexical items have at least one high tone, mainly occurring on the ultimate or penultimate vowel. There are, however, a few numerals and nouns with ante-penultimate high tone, for example, ma´sunta ‘wound’ and k’e´retta ‘split wood,’ which seem to be historically derived from complex forms.
Nouns Basic nouns in Wolaitta end in one of the following vowels: [e], [o], or [a] (Table 3). Which of these vowels a particular word may take cannot be predicted. There are no nouns ending in [i] or [u] in Wolaitta, although such nouns are attested in related languages.
Case, gender, and definiteness are designated cumulatively by portmanteau morphemes. In animate nouns, gender is determined by sex. Inanimate nouns are generally inflected like masculine nouns; but, when a diminutive meaning is intended, they may be inflected as feminine nouns. Plural nouns take the same nominative and accusative case markers as masculine singular nouns. Examples are in Table 5. The genitive case is marked by -ee in definite feminine nouns and by -u in plural nouns. In masculine nouns, the genitive and accusative cases are formally identical. The possessor noun always precedes the possessed noun. Consider the forms of sˇooro´ ‘neighbor’ and gosˇsˇa´ ‘farm’ in (1). (1a) sˇooro´ (1b) sˇoor-u´wa
gosˇsˇa gosˇsˇa
(1c) sˇoor-ee´
gosˇsˇa
(1d) sˇooro-t-u´
gosˇsˇa
‘a neighbor’s farm’ ‘the neighbor’s (MASC) farm’ ‘the neighbor’s (FEM) farm’ ‘the neighbors’ farm’
Peripheral/semantic cases such as instrumental (-ra), ablative (-ppe), dative (yo/-ssi), and so on are attached to a noun already marked with the genitive (for feminine and plural nouns) or accusative (for masculine singular nouns). Compare the examples in (1) with those in Table 6. Nominal Derivation
There are several productive derivational suffixes, for example, -ta in lagge´-ta ‘friendship’ (la´gge ‘friend’) and -te´tta in zo?o´-te´tta ‘redness’ (zo?o´ ‘red’). Suffixing -anca. to a noun may derive agent
Wolaitta 1181 Table 5 Definiteness, case, and gender inflection Basic noun
/a/ending /o/ending /e/ending
keetta´ ‘house’ na a´ ‘child’ migı´ do ‘ring’ sˇooro´ ‘neighbor’ sˇo´FFe ‘frog’ zee´re ‘orphan’
Definite masculine singular
Definite feminine singular
Definite plural
NOM
ACC
NOM
ACC
NOM
ACC
keetta´y na a´y migı´ doy sˇooro´y sˇo´FFee zee´ree
keetta´a na a´a migı´ duwa sˇooru´wa sˇo´FFiya zee´riya
keettı´ ya na ı´ ya migı´ diya sˇoorı´ ya sˇo´FFiya zee´riya
keettı´ yo na ı´ yo migı´ diyo sˇoorı´ yo sˇo´FFiyo zee´riyo
keetta-t-ı´
keetta-t-a
migı´ do-t-i sˇooro-t-ı´ zee´re-t-i
migı´ do-t-a´ sˇooro-t-a´ zee´re-t-a´
Table 6 Peripheral semantic cases ‘from a’
Singular
‘with a’
Indefinite
Definite
Indefinite
Definite
sˇooro´-ppe ‘from a neighbor (MASC/FEM)’
sˇoor-u´wa-ppe ‘from the neighbor (MASC)’ sˇoor-ee´-ppe ‘from the neighbor (FEM)’ sˇooro-t-u´-ppe ‘from the neighbors’
sˇooro´-ra ‘with a neighbor (MASC/FEM)’
sˇoor-u´wa-ra ‘with the neighbor (MASC)’
Plural
Table 7 Derivational suffixes Noun
Agent nominal
kiı´ ta ‘message’
kiit-a´nca ‘messenger’ ol-a´nca ‘fighter’
o´la‘a ‘fight/war’ doona´ ‘mouth’ wolk’a´ ‘power’
Adjective
doon-aa´ma ‘talkative’ wolk’-aa´ma ‘one with power’
nouns; whereas suffixing -aa´ma to a noun derives an adjective (Table 7).
Adjectives and Adverbs Adjectives end in one of the word-final vowels, e, o, or a. When used as modifiers, adjectives are not marked for gender, case, or number; they generally do not show agreement with the head noun. However, when the head noun is dropped, the adjective must be marked for these categories. (2a) kee´ha (2b) kee´ha sˇooro-y (2c) kee´ha-y
‘kind’ ‘the kind neighbor (NOM)’ ‘the kind one’
In the inchoative, the adjectival base is affixed with tense-aspect and mood markers, as in: (3a) keeh-iı´si (3b) keeh-aa´su (3c) keeh-ı´be´nna
‘he became kind’ ‘she became kind’ ‘he did not become kind’
sˇoor-ee´-ra ‘with the neighbor (FEM)’ sˇooro-t-uu´-ra ‘with the neighbors’
Manner adverbs are mainly derived by suffixing the locative marker -n, the instrumental -ra, or the ablative -ppe to nominals. For example: (4a) ?akee´ka-ni ?oott-a´ attention-LOC do-2.SING.IMP ‘work carefully!’ (4b) keeh-ı´-ppe harg-ee´si be_kind-ı´-ABL be_sick-3.MASC.SING.IMPERF ‘he is extremely/badly sick’ (4c) ?iss-ı´-ppe y-iite one-ı´-ABL come-2.PL.IMP ‘come together!’
Lexical time-adverbs include ha??ı´ ‘now,’ kase´ ‘earlier,’ ha´cˇcˇi ‘today,’ and wonto´ ‘tomorrow.’
Pronouns The basic pronoun paradigms of Wolaitta are possessive, nominative, and accusative. Dative, ablative, and locative pronouns are formed by adding the respective case suffixes (i.e., -ssi, -ppe and -n(i), as in the nouns) to the accusative/possessive ones (see Table 8). Note the gender syncretism between thirdperson singular pronouns in the forms in Table 8. The pronoun sets with ba(-) are used when the subject of the sentence is coreferential with an object or possessive noun in the same sentence, as shown in (5a), which contrasts with the noncoreferential form in (5b).
1182 Wolaitta Table 8 Pronouns Persona
Possessive
Nominative
Accusative
Dative
Ablative
1 SING 2 SING 3 FEM SING 3 MASC SING 1 PL 2 PL 3 PL 3 SING LOG 3 PL LOG
ta ne i a nu inte eta ba banta
ta´a´nı´ /ta´ ne´e´nı´ /ne´ a´ ı´ nu´u´nı´ /nu´ ı´ nte´ etı´ — —
ta´na´ ne´na´ o´ a´ nu´na´ ı´ ntena eta´ ba´na´ ba´ntana
taa´ssı´ nee´ssı´ ı´ ssı´ a´ssı´ nuu´ssi ı´ nte´ssı´ eta´ssi baa´ssi ba´ntassi
taa´ppe´ nee´ppe´ ı´ ppe´ a´ppe´ nuu´ppe´ ı´ nte´ppe´ eta´ppe´ baa´ppe ba´ntappe
a
LOG,
logophoric form.
(5a) ?ı´ ba 3.MASC.SING.SUBJ 3.LOG maadd-ee´si help.3.MASC.SING.IMPERF ‘hex helps hisx neighbor’
sˇoor-u´wa neighbor-MASC.ACC
(5b) ?ı´ ?a 3.MASC.SING.SUBJ 3.MASC.SING.POSS sˇoor-u´wa maadd-ee´si neighbor-MASC.ACC help-3.MASC.SINGIMPERF ‘hex helps hisy neighbor’
In the logophoric form (LOG), the gender distinction in the third-person singular form is neutralized.
Verbs
Table 9 Perfective paradigm Singular
Plural
ku´nd-aa´si ‘I fell’ ku´nd-a´dasa ‘you fell’ ku´nd-iı´ si ‘he fell’ ku´nd-aa´su ‘she fell’
ku´nd-ı´ da ‘we fell’ ku´nd-ı´ deta ‘you (PL) fell’ ku´nd-ı´ dosona ‘they fell’
Table 10 Present tense paradigm Singular
Plural
ku´nd-aı´ si ‘I fall’ ku´nd-aa´sa ‘you fall’ ku´nd-ee´si ‘he falls’ ku´nd-au´su ‘she falls’
ku´nd-oo´si ‘we fall’ ku´nd-ee´ta ‘you (PL) fall’ ku´nd-oo´sona ‘they fall’
Subject Agreement, Aspect, Negation, and Modality
In affirmative declarative sentences, a three-way temporal distinction is made, for example, be?-iı´si ‘he saw,’ be?-ee´si ‘he sees,’ be?-ana´ ‘he/she/I (etc.) will see.’ The verb shows subject agreement; object agreement is not marked on the verb (see Tables 9 and 10). Future tense/aspect is formed by suffixing an invariable -a´na to a verb root: (6) ku´nd-ana´
‘I/you/he/she/we/you (PL)/ they will see’
In negative declarative sentences, there is only two-way distinction, between perfective negative (Table 11) and imperfective negative (Table 12); the present and future forms are reduced to one paradigm: be?-e´nna ‘he does/will not see’ and be?ı´be´nna ‘he did not see.’ Interrogatives
There are the following content question words in Wolaitta: ?aı´ ‘what,’ ?ai-ge´ ‘which (MASC),’ ?ai-nna´ ‘which (FEM),’ ?aı´-ssi ‘why,’ ?a-ude´ ‘when,’ ?a´-wan ‘where,’ and ?oo´ni ‘who.’
Table 11 Perfective negative Singular
Plural
be -a´-beı´ kke ‘I did not see’ be -a´-baa´kka´ ‘you did not see’ be -ı´ -bee´nna´ ‘he did not see’ be -a´-beı´ kku´ ‘she did not see’
be -ı´ -boo´kko ‘we did not see’ be -ı´ -bee´kke´ta´ ‘you (PL) did not see’ be -ı´ -boo´kko´na´ ‘they did not see’
Table 12 Imperfective negative Singular
Plural
be -ı´ kke ‘I do/will not see’ be -a´kka ‘you do/will not see’
be -o´kko ‘we do/will not see’ be -e´kketa ‘you (PL) do/will not see’ be -o´kkona ‘they do/will not see’
be -e´nna ‘he does/will not see’ be -u´kku ‘she does/will not see’
Wolaitta 1183 Table 13 Verbal inflection in interrogative sentences
Table 14 Imperative
Interrogatives
Singular
Plural
Gloss
demm-a´ y-a´
demm-ite´ y-iite´
‘find!’ ‘come!’
Person
Perfective
Imperfective Pres/Hab.
Future
1 SING 2 SING 3 MASC
be -a´dina ‘did I see?’ be -a´di ‘did you see?’ be -ı´ de ‘did he see?’
be -aı´ na be -a´y be -ı´
be -ane´ be -uu´te be -ane´
be -a´de ‘did she see?’ be -ı´ do ‘did we see?’ be -ı´ deti ‘did you (PL) see?’ be -ı´ dona ‘did they see?’
be -a´y be -ı´ yo be -ee´ti
be -ane´ be -ane´ be uu´teti be -ane´
Table 15 Verb root extensions
SING
3 FEM SING 1 PL 2 PL 3 PL
‘be -ı´ yona’
Verb root
Causative stem
Passive/ reciprocal
Intensive/ repetitive
Gloss
k’ant’-
k’ant’is(s)bo´g-is(s)
k’ant’-e´tt-
k’ant’-erett-
‘cut’
bo´g-e´tt-
bog-erett-
‘plunder’
bo´g-
Both in content-question-word and polar-interrogative clauses, the verb inflects for subject, tense/aspect, and modality (i.e., [þquestion]). The actual subject-agreement- and tense/aspect-marking morphemes are distinct from that observed for declarative sentences. Examples are shown in Table 13. Imperative and Optative Moods
Second-person singular and plural imperatives are marked by -a´ and -(i)ite´, respectively (Table 14). The optative/hortative involves only the third-person singular and plural forms. It is marked by -o´ for thirdperson singular masculine and by -u´ for feminine. For third-person plural, it is marked by -o´na. (7a) demm-o´ (7b) demm-u´ (7c) demm-o´na
‘let him find’ ‘let her find’ ‘let them find’
The imperative and optative/hortative forms take the same negative marker, -o´pp-/u´pp-, which is formally distinct from the negation-marking morpheme in affirmative declarative sentences. (8a) demm-o´pp-a (8b) demm-o´pp-ite
‘don’t find (2.SING)!’ ‘don’t find (2.PL)!’
(9a) demm-o´pp-o´ (9b) demm-u´pp-u´ (9c) demm-o´pp-o´na´
‘let him not find!’ ‘let her not find!’ ‘let them not find’
Verb root extension in Wolaitta includes causative, passive, reciprocal, reflexive, and intensive verbs (Table 15).
Clauses Simple Declarative Clauses
The most frequently used word order is SOV. However, S may occur immediately before V when it is in contrastive focus. Also, subject and object may be omitted.
(10) ?asa-t-ı´ me´he-t-a cattle-PL-MASC.ABS person-PL-MASC.NOM baiz-ı´dosona sell-3.PL.PERF ‘the people sold the cattle’
In phrases, modifiers precede the head. Demonstratives generally precede numerals and adjectives when both modify the same noun. Example (11a) is an NP with adjectives and a demonstrative; (11b) is a sentence containing an NP with a relative clause. (11a) ha heezzu´ guu´tta naa-t-ı´ this three small child-PL-MASC.NOM ‘these three small children’ (11b) maay-u´wa meec’c’-ı´ya cloth-MASC.ACC wash-IMPERF.REL na?-iya daapur-aa´su child.FEM.NOM be_tired-3.FEM.SING.PERF ‘the girl who is washing clothes is tired’
Complex Clauses
In complex sentences, adverbial and complement clauses precede main clauses. Clausal linking is indicated by various verbal affixes attached to the dependent clause. Examples (12a) and (12b) are simultaneous, examples (12c) and (12d) are anterior and examples (12e) is conditional. Simultaneous and anterior morphemes further indicate whether the subject of the dependent clause is the same as that of the main clause. (12a) ?attu´ma ?asa-t-ı´ keettaa male person-PL-NOM house.MASC.ACC keet’t’-ı´sˇin ma´c’c’a ?asa-t-ı´ female person-PL-NOM build-DS.SIMUL puutt-u´wa su´k’k’-osona cotton-MASC.ACC spin-3.PL.IMPERF ‘when the men are building the house, the women spin cotton’
1184 Wolof (12b) ?attu´ma ?asa-t-ı´ keettaa male person-PL-NOM house.MASC.ACC keet’t’-iı´ddi /isso-y /iss-u´wa build-DS.SIMUL one-NOM one-ACC k’ir-oo´sona tease-3.PL.IMPERF ‘the men tease each other while building the house’ (12c) ?attu´ma ?asa-t-ı´ keettaa male person-PL-NOM house.MASC.ACC keet’t’-ı´n mac’c’a ?asa-t-ı´ build-DS.CNV female person-PL-NOM gidd-u´wa meesˇ-oo´sona interior-MASC.ACC smear_dung-3.PL.IMPERF ‘the men having built the house, the women smear the interior with dung’ (12d) ?asa-t-ı´ keettaa keet’t’-ı´dı´ house.MASC.ACC build-SS.CNV person-PL-NOM sˇemp-oo´sona rest-3.PL.IMPERF ‘the people rest having built the house’ (12e) ?asa-t-ı´ keettaa keet’t’-ı´kko house.MASC.ACC male person-PL-NOM ta´ ?eta-w pars-u´wa 3.PL.OBJ-DAT beer-MASC.ACC rest-3.PL.IMPERF ?ag-ana brew-FUT ‘if the men build the house, I will brew them beer’
Bibliography Adams B A (1983). A tagmemic analysis of the Wolaitta language. Ph.D. diss., University of London. Azeb A (1996). ‘Tone-accent and prosodic domains of Wolaitta.’ Studies in African Linguistics 25(2), 111–138. Azeb A (2001). ‘Ideophones and compound verbs in Wolaitta.’ In Kilian-Hatz C & Voeltz F K E (eds.) Ideophones. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 49–62. Bekale S (1989). The case system in Wolayta. M.A. thesis, Addis Ababa University. Ethiopian Language Academy (1995). Wolaitatto leemisuwa. Wolaitta proverbs with Amharic translation. Talachew G & Ammenu T (eds.) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Artistic Printers for Ethiopian Language Academy. Fleming H C (1976). ‘Cushitic and Omotic.’ In Bender M L et al. (eds.) Language in Ethiopia. London: Oxford University Press. 34–53. Lamberti M & Sottile R (1997). The Wolayta language. Ko¨ln: Ko¨ppe. Ohman W A, Fulass H, Keefer J, Keefer A, Taylor Ch V & Marcos H M (1976). ‘Welamo.’ In Bender M L et al. (eds.) Language in Ethiopia. London: Oxford University Press. 155–164. Yitbarek E (1983). The phonology of Wolaitta: generative approach. M.A. thesis, Addis Ababa University.
Wolof F Mc Laughlin, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
nobles. Today, a majority of Wolof speakers are Sufi Muslims, most having converted to Islam en masse in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Genetic Affiliation Introduction Wolof is a member of the northern branch of the Atlantic family of Niger-Congo languages, formerly known as West Atlantic, and is spoken primarily in Senegal as well as in parts of Gambia and Mauritania on the West African coast. In Senegal, Wolof serves as a lingua franca, and is spoken by upwards of 80% of the population as either a first or second language, making for a total of no fewer than 6–7 million speakers and quite possibly more. Wolof society has traditionally been hierarchically stratified (Diop, 1981) and is composed of two main social groups, n˜een˜o and ge´er. The former group consists of endogamous artisans or castes, including griots (verbal artists), blacksmiths, leatherworkers, and musicians; the latter group is composed of noncasted people and
Sapir (1971) hypothesized that Wolof, along with Serer-Sine and Pulaar or Fula, belongs to the Senegal subgroup of northern Atlantic languages. Although the three languages are clearly related, Serer-Sine and Pulaar resemble each other much more closely than either of them do Wolof. Until much more historical work is done on the northern Senegal languages, the exact relationship of Wolof to these languages, as well as to other Atlantic languages, and especially to the Cangin languages spoken around the Senegalese city of Thie`s, will remain unresolved.
Phonetics and Phonology Like most Niger-Congo languages (Clements, 2000), the consonantal inventory of Wolof, given in Table 1
Wolof 1185 Table 1 Wolof consonant articulation Consonant type
Labial
Alveolar
Palatal
Velar
Uvular
Stops Fricatives Nasals Prenasalized Liquids Glides
pb f m mb
td s n nd l,r
cj x n˜ nj
kg
q
w
N ng
Figure 1 The Wolof eight-vowel system; vowels have either a plus or minus value for the advanced tongue root (ATR).
y
Morphology and Syntax in standard Wolof orthography, distinguishes four main places of articulation: labial, alveolar, palatal, and velar. Voiced and voiceless stops, voiced prenasalized stops, voiceless fricatives, and simple nasal stops occur in the four places of articulation. Voiceless prenasalized stops no longer occur wordinitially, but historical records and some place-names, such as Mpal, provide evidence that they once did. The have now been replaced by simple voiceless stops. There is also a voiceless uvular stop in the language, as in the words sa`q ‘granary’ and be¨qe¨t ‘to be cowardly.’ There is a tap [r] and a lateral [l] in addition to two glides, the labiovelar [w], and the palatal [j]. Consonant length is distinctive in Wolof: compare dag ‘valet’ to dagg ‘to cut,’ and jaw ‘to cook for a long time’ to jaww ‘sky’; however, not all consonants have a geminate counterpart, notably the prenasalized stops, the fricatives, and the alveolar tap. Geminate forms of the latter, however, occur in ideophones, as in je´rr ‘of being hot’ and curr ‘of being red.’ Notable in the northern Atlantic context is the absence of implosive stops in Wolof. Wolof has an eight-vowel system in which vowels have either a plus or minus value for the advanced tongue root (ATR) feature. The [þATR] vowels comprise the set i, u, e´, o´, and e¨; the [ATR] vowels are e, o, and a (Figure 1). All vowels are written in standard Wolof orthography, and the character e¨ represents schwa. The [þATR] and [ATR] vowels are phonemically distinct in Wolof stems, as evidenced by the pairs reer ‘to dine’ and re´er ‘to be lost,’ and woor ‘to fast’ and wo´or ‘to be sure or trustworthy.’ Nominal and verbal stems and a substantial number of derivational suffixes harmonize for the ATR feature. Regressive height harmony also exists in the language. Vowel length is distinctive in Wolof, as in the pairs bax ‘to boil’ and baax ‘to be good’ and fit ‘to tie on’ and fiit ‘soul,’ but the mid-central vowel e¨ does not have a long counterpart. Although most NigerCongo languages are tonal, Wolof, like Serer-Sine and Pulaar, is not a tonal language. Intonational patterns are fairly flat according to Rialland and Robert (2001), and stress falls on the initial syllable of a word in Wolof.
Wolof has a noun class system comprising 10 classes, of which 8 are singular and 2 are plural, marked by a single consonant. Unusually, there is no morphological marking for class on the noun, but the classifier consonant appears on nominal determiners as in the following examples, in which the determiner follows the noun: 1. 2. 3. 4.
m-class: picc mi ‘the bird,’ picc male ‘that bird.’ y-class: picc yi ‘the birds,’ picc yale ‘those birds.’ k-class: nit ki ‘the person,’ nit kale ‘that person.’ n˜-class: nit n˜i ‘the people,’ nit n˜ale ‘those people.’
Wolof has approximately 30 verbal extensions, inflectional and derivational affixes that encode a variety of concepts such as reciprocal, applicative, causative, locative, etc. The verb gis ‘to see’ has, among others, the following derivatives: gis ‘to see,’ gisaat ‘to see again,’ gise, gisante ‘to see each other,’ gisandoo ‘to see together,’ and gisaale ‘to see (‘while you’re at it’).’ Verb-to-noun derivation may exhibit reduplication (gis ‘to see,’ gis-gis ‘opinion’; xam ‘to know,’ xamxam ‘knowledge’), suffixation (gudd ‘to be long,’ guddaay ‘length’), and consonant mutation (baax ‘to be good,’ mbaax ‘goodness’; sonn ‘to be tired,’ cono ‘fatigue’). It is arguable as to whether a distinct category of adjectives can be said to exist in Wolof, since adjectival forms can be subsumed under the category of verb (Creissels, 2000; Mc Laughlin, 2004). Although basic word order in Wolof is subject-verbobject, the information structure of Wolof is encoded in an elaborate focus system (Creissels and Robert, 1998). The minimal verb phrase consists of a bare verb plus an auxiliary that encodes person, number, and focus. Examples (1)–(4) show four different ways to say ‘Ami saw the thief,’ using neutral, subject, object, and verbal focus, respectively: (1) Ami Ami
gis see
(2) Ami Ami
moo 3S:SFOC
(3) Sa`cc Thief (4) Ami Ami
na 3S:PERF
ba DET
dafa 3S:VFOC
gis see la 3S:OFOC gis see
sa`cc thief
DET
sa`cc thief
DET
Ami Ami sa`cc thief
ba. ba. gis. see ba. DET
1186 Wolof
Urban Wolof Urban Wolof, and especially that of the capital, Dakar, exhibits heavy lexical borrowing from French, as in Examples (5) and (6) (Mc Laughlin, 2001) (French loans are in boldface): (5) Feu bi rouge na. light DET be red 3S:PERF ‘The traffic light turned red.’ (6) Dafa d-oon errer ci 3S:VFOC IMPERF-PAST wander PREP monde bi rekk. just world DET ‘He was just wandering around the world.’
Bibliography Clements G N (2000). ‘Phonology.’ In Heine B & Nurse D (eds.) African languages: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 123–160. Creissels D (2003). ‘Adjectifs et adverbes dans les langues subsahariennes.’ In Sauzet P & Zribi-Hertz A (eds.) Typologie des langues d’Afrique et universaux de la grammaire, vol. 1. Paris: L’Harmattan. 17–38. Creissels D & Robert S (1998). ‘Morphologie verbale et organization discursive de l’e´nonce´: l’exemple du tswana et du wolof.’ Faits de Langues 11–12, 161–178. Diop A-B (1981). La socie´te´ wolof: les syste`mes d’ine´galite´ et de domination. Paris: Karthala. Diouf J-L (2001). Grammaire du wolof contemporain. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Diouf J-L (2003). Dictionnaire wolof-franc¸ais et franc¸aiswolof. Paris: Karthala. Ka O (1994). Wolof phonology and morphology. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kihm A (1999). ‘Focus in Wolof: a study of what morphology may do to syntax.’ In Rebuschi G & Tuller L (eds.) The grammar of focus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 245–273. Mc Laughlin F (1997). ‘Noun classification in Wolof: when affixes are not renewed.’ Studies in African Linguistics 26, 1–28. Mc Laughlin F (2001). ‘Dakar Wolof and the configuration of an urban identity.’ Journal of African Cultural Studies 14, 153–172. Mc Laughlin F (2004). ‘Is there an adjective class in Wolof?’ In Dixon R M W & Aikhenvald A Y (eds.) Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 242–262. Njie C M (1982). Description syntaxique du wolof de Gambie. Dakar, Abidjan & Lome´: Les Nouvelles E´ditions Africaines. Pulleyblank D (1996). ‘Neutral vowels in optimality theory: a comparison of Yoruba and Wolof.’ Canadian Journal of Linguistics 24, 295–347. Rialland A & Robert S (2001). ‘The intonational system of Wolof.’ Linguistics 39, 893–939. Robert S (1991). Approche e´nonciative du syste`me verbal: le cas du wolof. Paris: E´ditions du CNRS. Sapir J D (1971). ‘West Atlantic: an inventory of the languages, their noun class systems and consonant alternation.’ In Sebeok T (ed.) Current trends in linguistics 7: linguistics in sub-Saharan Africa. The Hague: Mouton. 45–112.
X Xhosa M W Visser, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Nouns and Noun Phrases Noun Classes
ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Xhosa (or isiXhosa, with the noun class prefix) belongs, with isiZulu (Zulu) and isiNdebele (Ndebele), to the Zunda subgroup of the Nguni group of the Southeastern Zone of Bantu languages. This zone also includes the Sotho, Venda, and Tsonga language groups. In terms of Guthrie’s (1967–1971) classification, isiXhosa is identified as S41 (Doke, 1943, 1954; Piron, 1998; Gowlett, 2003; Nurse and Philippson, 2003). The Bantu family forms part of the larger Niger-Congo family of African languages of which the three other major families are Afroasiatic, NiloSaharan, and Khoisan (Greenberg, 1963; Heine and Nurse, 2000b; Williamson and Blench, 2000). Specific areas in the Eastern Cape province of South African have historically been associated with the various dialects or local forms of isiXhosa, namely isiGcaleka, isiNdlambe, isiGaika, isiThembu, isiBomvana, isiMpondomise, isiMpondo, and isiXesibe. With the establishment of a democratic South Africa in 1994, isiXhosa has obtained the status of an official language, together with eight other Bantu languages spoken in South Africa, namely isiZulu, isiNdebele, Siswati (Swati), Sesotho (Southern Sotho), Sepedi/Sesotho sa Leboa (Northern Sotho), Setswana (Tswana), Tshivenda (Venda), and Xitsonga (Tonga). The government has introduced significant legislation through the Department of Arts and Culture for promoting the status and use of these official languages in government, education, and business, in addition to the predominant use of English. Huge challenges exist for accomplishing this goal, which includes urgent work in the fields of terminology development, language in education policy, and the teaching and learning of the indigenous African languages (Webb, 2001; Visser, 2004, 2005).
The morphology and semantics of the noun class system of isiXhosa is typical of the Bantu languages (Greenberg, 1963; Welmers, 1973; Du Plessis, 1978; Poulos and Msimang 1998; Piron 1998; Williamson and Blench, 2000; Gowlet, 2003). IsiXhosa has nouns in all noun classes from class 1 to 15, excluding class 12 and 13. The locative classes 16, 17, and 18 are morphologically fossilized; thus, they all exhibit the associated locative agreement subject- and objectverb agreement morpheme ku- rather than the distinct agreement morphemes of class 16, 17, and 18. As is general to the Bantu languages for the first 10 classes, the consecutive odd and even class numbers are regular singular-plural pairs. The noun class prefixes have a VCV syllable structure, except for classes 1, 3, and 9; the postnasal vowel in classes 1 and 3 has been deleted, and class 9 has the prefix in-. Classes 1a and 2a, subclasses of classes 1 and 2, respectively, have only vowel prefixes. Table 1 shows the noun class prefixes of isiXhosa.
Table 1 Noun class prefixes of IsiXhosa Noun class
Prefix
Example noun
1 2 1a 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15
umabauooumimii(li)amaisiizii(n)i(z)i(n)uluubuuku-
umfazi ‘woman’ abafazi ‘women’ utata ‘father’ ootala ‘fathers/father and company’ umlilo ‘fire’ imililo ‘fires’ ilitye ‘stone’ amatye ‘stones’ isiqhamo ‘fruit’ iziqhamo ‘fruits’ indlu ‘house’ izindlu ‘houses’ uluthi ‘stick’ ubusika ‘winter’ ukutya ‘food’
1188 Xhosa Table 2 Nominal suffixes: feminine, augmentative, and diminutive
Table 3 Deverbal nouns Verb
-kazi FEM
-kazi AUG
–ana DIM
inkosi ‘chief’; ixhego ‘old man’; utitshala ‘teacher’; umthi ‘tree’; intaba ‘mountain’; indlu ‘house’ indoda ‘man’; incwadi ‘book’; ilitye ‘stone’;
inkosikazi ‘chieftainess’ ixhegokazi ‘old woman’ utitshalakazi ‘female teacher’ umthikazi ‘big tree’ intabakazi ‘big mountain’ indlukazi ‘big house’ indodana ‘small man’ incwadana ‘small book’ ilityana ‘small stone’
Source: Du Plessis (1978, 1997); Louw (1963).
-thenga ‘buy’ -funda ‘read, learn’ -dlala ‘play’ -hamba ‘travel’, ‘gula ‘be ill’ -thanda ‘like, love’
Deverbal noun Human
Nonhuman
umthengi ‘buyer’ (class 1) umfundi ‘learner, student’ (class 1) umdlali ‘player’ (class 1) umhambi ‘traveller’ (class 1) isigulana ‘patient’ (class 7) isithandwa ‘beloved’ (class 7)
intengo ‘buy’ (class 9) imfundo ‘education’ (class 9) umdlalo ‘game’ (class 3) uhambo ‘travel’ (class 11) ingulo ‘illness’ (class 9) uthando ‘love’ (class 11)
Nominal Suffixes
Nouns in isiXhosa can regularly take suffixes that denote the property of feminine –azi-, augmentative -azi, and reciprocal -ana, as shown in Table 2. Agreement Morphology with Nominal Modifiers
As is characteristic of the Bantu languages, isiXhosa exhibits agreement morphology of the nominal modifiers with the head noun, where the latter may be a lexical noun or a phonetically empty pronominal (Doke, 1954; Greenberg, 1963; Guthrie, 1967–1971; Welmers, 1973; Du Plessis and Visser, 1992; Gowlet 2003; Nurse and Philippson, 2003b). The nominal modifiers identified for isiXhosa include demonstratives, adjectives, nominal relatives, clausal relatives, numerals, quantifiers, possessives, and enumeratives (Louw, 1963; Du Plessis, 1978, 1983; Visser, 1984, 2002; Du Plessis and Visser, 1992). The examples that follow illustrate the agreement morphology of the adjective and possessive with pairs of lexical head nouns in classes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. . The head noun is in class 1. (1a) umntwana wam umntwana u-a-m child AGR-GEN-mine ‘my beautiful child’
omhle om-hle AGR-beautiful
(1d) amahashe am amahashe a-a-m horses AGR-GEN-mine ‘my beautiful horses’
amahle ama-hle AGR-beautiful
. The head noun is in class 7. (1e) isitya sam isitya si-a-m AGR-GEN-m dish ‘my beautiful dish’
esihle esi-hle AGR-hle
. The head noun is in class 8. (1f) izitya zam izitya zi-a-m dishes AGR-GEN-mine ‘my beautiful dishes’
ezihle ezi-hle AGR-beautiful
Derived Nouns IsiXhosa exhibits regular nominal derivation from verbs and, to a less regular degree, from other word categories such as adjectives and nominal relatives (Louw, 1963; Du Plessis, 1978). The examples in Table 3 illustrate deverbal nouns in a range of noun classes. Compound Nouns
. The head noun is in class 2. (1b) abantwana bam abantwana ba-a-m AGR-GEN-mine children ‘my beautiful children’
abahle aba-hle AGR-hle
. The head noun is in class 5. (1c) ihashe lam ihashe li-a-m AGR-GEN-mine horse ‘my beautiful horse’
. The head noun is in class 6.
elihle eli-hle AGR-beautiful
Compound nouns are common in isiXhosa, and this is especially salient in proper nouns. (2a) umninikhaya ‘home owner’ (2b) impilontle ‘good health’ (2c) indlalifa ‘person who inherits’ (2d) imalimboleko ‘loan’
< umnini-ikhaya owner-home < impilo-entle life-AGR-good < indla-ilifa eater-inheritance < imali-imboleko money-loan
Xhosa 1189 (2e) uNtombizobawo ‘girls of father’
< u-ntombi-za-ubawo AGR(cl.1)-girls-offather’ (2f) uNoxolo < u-No-uxolo ‘the one with peace’ AGR(cl.1)-Fem-peace (2g) uMzimkhulu < u-Mzi-M-khulu ‘big house’ AGR(cl.1)-houseAGR-big (2h) uNtombi zandile < u-Ntombi-zi-and-ile ‘the girls have AGR(cl.1)-girlsincreased’ AGR(cl.10)-increasePerf.
Verbs, Verb Phrases, and Clauses Transitivity and Verbal Derivation
IsiXhosa has a wide range of nonderived verbs, which are intransitive and monotransitive. A smaller number of nonderived verbs are ditransitive, as shown in the following examples. Intransitive verbs (3) include experiencer verbs, motion verbs, and weather verbs. (3a) -gula ‘be ill’ (3b) -vuya ‘be happy’ (3c) -sebenza ‘work’ (3d) -hamba ‘travel’ (3e) -phuma ‘go out, exit’ (3f) -tshona ‘sink’ (3g) -jika ‘turn’ (3h) -buya ‘return’
Verbs from a wide range of semantic classes appear as nonderived monotransitive verbs, as illustrated by the following examples. . Verbs of change. (4a) (4b) (4c) (4d) (4e)
-aphula ‘break’ -goba ‘bend’ -pheka ‘cook’ -oja ‘roast’ -vala ‘close’
. Verbs of change of possession. (5a) (5a) (5a) (5a)
-qokelela ‘collect’ -fumana ‘get, obtain’ -(i)ba ‘steal’ -kha ‘pick (fruit)’
. Verbs of communication. (6a) (6b) (6c) (6d) (6e)
-bika ‘report’ -thetha ‘speak’ -ncokola ‘converse’ -hleba ‘gossip’ -geza ‘joke’
. Verbs of contact. (7a) -beka ‘put’ (7b) -tyala ‘plant’ (7c) -xhoma ‘hang’
(7d) -sula ‘wipe’ (7e) -khupha ‘take out’ (7f) -galela ‘pour’
. Verbs of creation. (8a) (8b) (8c) (8d) (8e)
-qingqa ‘carve’ -xovula ‘knead’ -zoba ‘draw’ -akha ‘build’ -bhaka ‘bake’
. Verbs of perception. (9a) (9b) (9c) (9d) (9e)
-bona ‘see’ -(i)va ‘hear/feel/taste’ -ngcamla ‘taste’ -ngqina ‘witness’ -jonga ‘look at’
. Verbs of social interaction. (10a) -vuma ‘agree’ (10a) -qhula ‘joke’ (10a) -tyelela ‘visit’
Examples of nonderived ditransitive verbs appear in (11). (11a) -nika ‘give’ (11b) -pha ‘give (as gift)’ (11c) -boleka ‘lend’ (11d) -vimba ‘refuse’ (11e) -buza ‘ask’ (11f) -cela ‘request’
As is typical of the Bantu languages, the transitivity properties of verbs in isiXhosa can be altered by suffixation of various verbal derivational suffixes, which can appear in combination with one another (Satyo, 1986) and which can be reduplicated to achieve various semantic effects. The applicative (APPLIC) and causative suffixes are transitivizing suffixes in that they introduce a new NP argument to the verb (Du Plessis, 1978, 1980b, 1997; Du Plessis and Visser 1992, 1998). When these suffixes appear, intransitive verbs becomes monotransitive and monotransitive verb become ditransitive. The applicative suffix can introduce an NP argument bearing the semantic role of benefactive, malefactive, recipient, purpose, and cause/reason, as shown in the examples in (12) (AGRS stands for subject agreement). (12a) umfazi ufundela umfazi u-fund-el-a woman AGRS-read-APPLIC-PRES abantwana amabali abantwana amabali children stories ‘the woman reads stories for the children’
1190 Xhosa Table 4 Reduplicated applicative forms Verb
Reduplicated applicative
-bopha ‘tie’ -funa ‘search’ -sula ‘wipe’
-bophelela ‘tie thoroughly’ -funelela ‘search thoroughly’ -sulelela ‘wipe thoroughly’
(12b) inkwenkwe ibalekela indebe inkwenkwe i-balek-el-a indebe boy AGRS-run-APPLIC-PRES cup ‘the boy is running for the cup’ (12c) umfazi ulilela ilahleko umfazi u-lil-el-a ilahleko woman AGRS-cry-APPLIC-PRES loss ‘the woman cries for (her) loss’ (12d) abafazi baphekela abafazi ba-pheke-el-a women AGRS-cook-APPLIC-PRES umtshato inyama umtshato inyama wedding meat ‘The women cooks meat for the wedding’
The applicative can appear in a reduplicated form to denote an intensified action, as shown in Table 4. Causative Suffix
The causative (CAUS) suffix -is- regularly denotes three kinds of meanings, depending on the verbal semantics and the pragmatic context: coercive (‘make/force to do something’), assistive (‘help do something’), and permissive (‘let do something’). (13a) umfana umfana young.man
ulimisa utata intsimi u-lim-is-a utata intsimi AGRS-ploughfather field CAUS-PRES ‘the young man helps his father plough the field’ (13b) utitshala ubhalisa abantwana ileta utitshala u-bhal-is-a abantwana ileta teacher AGRS-writechildren letter CAUS-PRES ‘the teacher makes/helps/lets write the children a letter’ Detransitivising Verbal Affixes
The reciprocal (RECIP) suffix -ana (14) and the reflexive (REFL) verbal prefix -zi- (15) in isiXhosa are detransitivizing morphemes, as is typical of the Bantu languages. (14a) abantu bayathandana abantu ba-ya-thand-an-a people AGRS-PRES-like-RECIP-PRES ‘the people like each other’
(14b) uZola noNomsa bayathandana uZola na-uNomsa AGRS-PRES-thand-an-a Zola and-Nomsa like-RECIP-PRES ‘Zula and Nomsa like/love each other’ (14c) uZola uthandana noNomsa uZola u-thand-an-a na-uNomsa AGRS-like-RECIP-PRES with-Nomsa Zola ‘Zola and Nomsa like/love each other’ (15a) umntwana uyazibona umntwana u-ya-zi-bon-a child AGRS-PRES-REFL-see-PRES ‘the child sees himself/herself’ (15b) abantwana bayazihlamba abantwana ba-ya-zi-hlamb-a AGRS-PRES-REFL-wash-PRES children ‘the children were themselves’ Unaccusative Verbal Suffixes: Passive and Neuter-Passive
Passive (PASS) -w- (16) and neuter-passive (NEUT. PASS) stative -ele-/-akal- (17) verbal suffixes are unaccusative, in that the object of a transitive verb must either raise to become the subject of the verb or remain in the object position and receive nominative case from a phonetically empty existential subject pronominal associated with the subject agreement prefix ku- on the verb (Visser, 1986; Du Plessis and Visser, 1992b, 1998). (16a) incwadi incwadi book
iyafunwa ngumfundi i-ya-fun-w-a ng-umfundi cop-student AGRS-PRESwant-PASS-pres ‘the book is wanted/searched for by the student’
(16b) kufunwa incwadi ngumfundi ku-fun-wa incwadi ng-umfundi EXIST.AGRS-want/ book cop-student search-PASS.PRES ‘there is being wanted a book by the student’ (17a) incwadi iyafuneka kumfundi incwadi i-ya-fun-ek-a ku-umfundi book AGRS-PRES-want to-student -NEUT.PASS-PRES ‘a book is needed to (for) the student’ (17b) kufuneka incwadi kumfundi ku-fun-ek-a incwadi ku-umfundi EXIST.AGRS-want book to-student -NEUT.PASS-PRES ‘there is a book is needed to (for) the student’ (17c) intaba iyabonakala intaba i-ya-bon-akal-a mountain AGRS-PRES-see-NEUT.PASS-PRES ‘the mountain is visible’ (17d) kubonakala intaba ku-bon-akal-a intaba EXIST.AGRS-see-NEUT.PASS-PRES mountain ‘the mountain is visible’
Xhosa 1191 Table 5 Intransitive-transitive verbal pairs with the consonant -k- and -l Intransitive stative
Transitive
-guquka ‘be turned’ -aphuka ‘be broken’ -ahluka ‘be separated/parted’ -phekula ‘be turned upside’ -khawuka ‘be broken off’ -sombuluka ‘be unfolded’
-guqula ‘turn’ -aphula ‘break’ -ahlula ‘separate’ -phekula ‘turn upside’ -khawula ‘break off’ -sombulula ‘unfold’
Source: Du Plessis and Visser (1998).
The neuter-passive suffix -ek-/-akal- changes the verb into a stative verb, as shown in Table 5. Verbal Inflection
IsiXhosa exhibits the inflectional morphemes typical of the Bantu languages, namely agreement, tense, aspect, mood, and negative (Du Plessis, 1986, 1997; Du Plessis and Visser, 1992b, 1998; Gowlett, 2003). Subject and Object Agreement Prefixes The isiXhosa verb, like verbs in the Bantu languages in general, exhibits a subject agreement prefix (AGRS), which appears obligatorily, except with imperative mood verbs and certain instances of deficient verbs. The isiXhosa verb also contains an object agreement prefix (AGRO), which in general appears optionally (Du Plessis, 1978, 1997) and is often used to emphasize the verb phrase or to establish the object feature when the object argument is separated from the verb by intervening lexical or phrasal categories. In the examples in (18), the noun classes of the NP subject and object appear in brackets. (18a) umntwana umntwana [class 1] child
uyayifunda u-ya-yi-fund-a AGRS-PRES-
AGRO-read-PRES ‘the child reads a book’ (18b) abantwana bayazifunda abantwana ba-ya-zi-funda [class 2] AGRS-PRES-AGROchildren read.PRES ‘the children read the books’ (18c) amadoda ayabusela amadoda a-ya-bu-sela [class 6] men AGRS-PRESAGRO-drink ‘the men drink beer’
incwadi incwadi [class 9] book
iincwadi iincwadi [class 10] books
Aspect Morphemes The verbal inflectional morphology in isiXhosa contain a number of prefixes that denote aspectual features. These prefixes include -sa- ‘still’ (the progressive, PROG), -ka- ‘not, get’, and -yawa- ‘as usual’. The potential morpheme -ngadenotes ‘ability’, ‘possibility’, or ‘permission’ (Louw, 1963; Du Plessis, 1978, 1997). (19a) abafundi basafunda abafundi ba-sa-fund-a AGRS-PROG-learn/read-PRES students ‘the students are still reading/learning’ (19b) abafundi abakafundi abafundi a-ba-ka-fund-i NEG-AGRS-not-read-NEG students ‘the students have not read yet’ (19c) abafundi bayawafunda abafundi ba-yawa-fund-a students AGRS-as.usual-read-PRES ‘the students are studying as usual’ (19d) abafundi bangaphumelela abafundi ba-nga-phumelela AGRS-can/may-succeed student ‘the students can/may succeed’
Tense Inflection IsiXhosa has the typical tense distinctions found in the Bantu languages: present tense, perfect past tense, remote (A-) past tense, future tense, and compound (recent and remote) past tenses. The compound tenses appear as complex sentence constructions with a deficient verb taking a participial clause complement. The various past tenses are associated with specific features of (im)perfectivity (Louw, 1963; Du Plessis, 1978, 1986, 1997; Poulos and Msimang, 1998). Present Tense The present tense verb form in isiXhosa can exhibit features of habituality and emphasis, in addition to denoting a literal present tense activity (Du Plessis, 1986, 1997). (20a) iintombi ziphendula imibuzo iintombi zi-phendul-a imibuzo girls AGRS-answer-PRES questions ‘the girls answer the questions’ (20b) iintombi aziphenduli mibuzo iintombi a-zi-phendul-i mibuzo NEG-AGRS-answerquestions girls NEG
utywala utywala [class 14] beer
Sentences like these, in which the object co-occurs with an object agreement prefix, denote additional emphasis on the verb phrase.
‘the girls do not answer (any) questions’ (20c) iintombi aziyiphenduli imibuzo iintombi a-zi-yi-phendul-i imibuzo girls NEG-AGRS-AGRO questions -answer-NEG ‘the girls do not answer the (specific) questions’
The negative sentences in (20b) and (20c) illustrate the indefinite and definite negative, respectively. The
1192 Xhosa
former is characterized by the absence of the initial vowel (the preprefix) of the object NP and the related absence of the object agreement prefix in the verb morphology, whereas the latter is characterized by the presence of the preprefix of the NP object argument and the associated presence of the object agreement prefix in the verb morphology (Visser, 2002). Similar definite and indefinite negatives may appear in all the other tenses. Future Tense The future tense is characterized by the verb -za ‘come’ or -ya ‘go’ followed by the infinitive prefix on the main verb. (21a) iintombi ziza/ziya iintombi zi-za/zi-ya girls AGRS-come/AGRS-go kuphendula imibuzo ku-phendula imibuzo INF-answer questions ‘the girls will answer the questions’
The use of the deficient verb -za in the future tense denotes an immediate future, whereas the use of the deficient verb -ya denotes either a remote future or an immediate future action with a high degree of certainty. (21b) iintombi azizi/aziyi iintombi a-zi-z-i/a-zi-y-i NEG-AGRS-come-NEG/NEG-AGRS-go-NEG girls kuphendula mibuzo ku-phendula mibuzo INF-answer questions ‘the girls will answer the questions’
Perfect Past Tense The perfect past tense denotes an action in the recent past that has been completed (Louw, 1963; Du Plessis, 1978, 1997). (22a) abafana basebenzile abafana ba-sebenz-ile young.men AGRS-work-PERF ‘the young men worked’ (22b) abafana abasebenzanga abafana a-ba-sebenz-anga young.men NEG-AGRS-work-PERF.NEG ‘the young men did not work’
Remote Past Tense The remote past tense verb takes a subject agreement prefix with a long rising-falling vowel -a-. (23a) iintombi zacula iintombi zi-a-cula girls AGRS-PAST-sing ‘the girls sang songs’
iingoma iingoma songs
(23b) umfundi wabhala umfundi u-a-bhala AGRS-PAST-write student ‘the student wrote a letter’
ileta ileta letter
Compound Past Tenses The compound past tenses denote an activity or state that took place in the past but that has not been completed; hence, they exhibit the imperfective aspect. The lexical verb in these tenses are in the participial mood. Recent Compound Past Tense The recent compound past tense is characterized by a perfect tense deficient verb -be taking a participial complement clause, as shown in the following examples. (24a) iintombi zibe zicula iingoma iintombi zi-b-e zi-cula iingoma AGRS-be-PERF AGRS-sing songs girls ‘the girls were singing songs’ (24b) iintombi iintombi girls
zibe zingaculi ngoma zi-b-e zi-nga-cul-i ngoma AGRS-NEG AGRS-be songs -sing-NEG -PERF ‘the girls were not singing (any) songs’
Remote Compound Past Tense The deficient verb -ba/-ye appears in the remote compound past tense taking the morpheme -a- in its subject agreement affix and subcategorizing for a participial complement clause, as shown in the following examples. (25a) iintombi zaba zicula iingoma iintombi zi-a-ba zi-cula iingoma girls AGRS-PAST-be AGRS-sing songs ‘the girls were singing songs’ (25b) iintombi zaba zingaculi ngoma iintombi zi-a-ba zi-nga-cul-i ngoma AGRSAGRS-NEGsongs girls sing-NEG PAST-be ‘the girls did not sing (any) songs’
Negative Inflection The negative inflection of isiXhosa is realized through verbal prefixation, infixation, and suffixation, depending on the mood properties of the verb (Du Plessis, 1978, 1997). The examples of negative sentences given in the previous section demonstrate that negation in indicative mood verbs is realized by a verbal prefix that occurs before the subject agreement prefix and by a verbal suffix, whereas in participial clauses (in the compound tenses) the negative morpheme (-nga-) appears after the subject agreement prefix together with a negative verbal suffix. Further examples of negative sentences in isiXhosa appear in the subsection on mood inflection next.
Xhosa 1193
Mood Inflection Linguists differ on the number of moods that can be distinguished for isiXhosa and closely related languages such as isiZulu (Louw, 1963; Du Plessis, 1978, 1997; Poulos and Msimang, 1998). The following nine moods have been distinguished for isiXhosa. Indicative Mood The indicative mood is used in main clauses for statements and questions. Indicative mood clauses may also appear as a complement clauses of factive verbs. (26a) abafundi bahala uviwo abafundi ba-bhal-a uviwo AGRS-write-PRES examination student ‘the student is writing examination’ (26b) abafundi abafundi students
ababhali a-ba-bhal-i NEG-AGRS
viwo viwo examination
-write-NEG ‘the students are not writing (any) examination’ (26c) abafundi abafundi students
abalubhali a-ba-lu-bhal-i NEG-AGRS-AGRO-
uviwo uviwo examination
write-NEG ‘the students are not writing the (specific) examination’
The sentences in (26) can be changed into questions by using rising intonation toward the sentence-final position. The sentences in (26b) and (26c) illustrate the indefinite and definite negatives, respectively. The indefinite negative is characterized by the loss of the initial vowel of the noun class prefix of the object noun and the absence of the object agreement affix in the verbal morphology. The definite negative is characterized by the presence of the initial vowel of the object noun and the associated object agreement prefix in the verbal morphology. The indefinite-definite negative distinction also has an influence on the morphological form of several categories that function as nominal modifiers. The indicative mood exhibits the tense distinctions discussed in the previous subsection on tense inflection. Participial (Situative) Mood The participial mood is used in subordinate clauses that denote an activity or state that takes place simultaneously with the activity or state expressed by the main clause. It is clearly identifiable by its subject agreement morphology for noun classes 1, 2, and 6 and by morphemes that occur with monosyllabic and vowel verb stems in positive
sentences. In addition, the participial mood regularly occurs after certain temporal conjunctives (as in 27c) and deficient verbs (as in 27d) (Louw, 1963; Du Plessis, 1978, 1997; Du Plessis and Visser, 1992b). (27a) abafundi bathula abafundi ba-thula students AGRS-be.quiet bebhala uviwo be-bhala uviwo AGR(PART)-write examination ‘the students are quiet while they are writing examination’ (27b) abafundi babhala uviwo abafundi ba-bhala uviwo students AGRS-write examination besiva imiyalelo be-si-v-a imiyalelo AGRS(PART)-AFF(PART)-hear-PRES instructions ‘the students write examinations while hearing the instructions’ (27c) abafundi bathula xa abafundi ba-thula xa students AGRS-be.quiet when bebhala uviwo be-bhal-a uviwo AGRS(PART)-write-PRES examination ‘the students are quiet when they write examinations’ (27d) abafundi basoloko abafundi ba-soloko students AGRS-always.do bebhala uviwo be-bhal-a uviwo AGRS(PART)-write-PRES examination ‘the students always write examination’ (27e) abafundi babhala uviwo abafundi ba-bhal-a uviwo students AGRS-write-PRES examination bengafundanga kakuhle be-nga-fund-anga kakuhle AGRS(PART)-NEG-learn-NEG well ‘the students write examinations (while) they have not studied well’
The participial mood in isiXhosa can exhibit all the various tense forms discussed in the subsection on tense inflection. Relative Mood The relative mood clause occurs widely as a nominal modifier in isiXhosa. It is characterized by the coalescence of a definitizing morpheme -a-, which also occurs with various other nominal modifiers, with the subject agreement prefix of the relative clause verb. This definitizing morpheme is, however, omitted when the relative clause head is the object argument of an indefinite negative verb or when the relative clause head occurs with
1194 Xhosa
a demonstrative pronoun. The relative clause in isiXhosa typically contains a resumptive pronoun, coreferential with the relative clause head, which can be realized as an object agreement prefix in the verbal morphology, a prepositional complement, or complement of a copulative, as illustrated by the following examples: (28a) abafundi abafundi students
ababhala uviwo a-ba-bhal-a uviwo AFF(DEF)-AGRSexamination write-PRES bafunde kakuhle ba-fund-e kakuhle AGRS-learn-PERF well ‘the students who write examinations have studied well’
(28b) aba aba
bafundi bafundi students
babhala ba-bhal-a DEM AGRS-write-PRES uviwo bafunde kakuhle uviwo ba-fund-e kakuhle examinations AGRS-learn-PERF well ‘these students who write examinations have studied well’
(28c) asibizi bafundi a-si-biz-i bafundi NEG-AGRS-call-NEG students babhala uviwo ba-bhal-a uviwo AGRS-write-PRES examinations ‘we do not call (any) students who write examinations’ (28d) abafundi enibafunayo abafundi a-ni-ba-fun-a-yo AFF(DEF)-AGRS-AGRO-want-PRES-AFF(RC) students babhala uviwo ba-bhal-a uviwo AGRS-write-PRES examination ‘the students who you want, are writing examination’ (28e) abafundi endiya kubo abafundi a-ndi-y-a ku-bo AFF(RC)-I-go-PRES to-them students babhala uviwo ba-bhal-a uviwo AGRS-write-PRES examination ‘the students to whom I am going write examinations’ (28f) utitshala ubiza abafundi utitshala u-biz-a abafundi teacher AGRS-call-PRES students abangabhali viwo a-ba-nga-bhal-i viwo AFF(RC)-AGRS-NEG-write-NEG examination ‘the teacher is calling the students who are not writing (any) examination’
The relative mood can appear in all the various tenses discussed in the subsection on tense inflection. A relative mood clause can also occur after certain conjunctives (as in (29a)), often as an alternative to the participial mood clause due to the phenomenon that the distinction between the relative mood and participial mood is vacuous in some Southern Bantu languages such as Xitsonga. (29a) abafundi bathula abafundi ba-thul-a AGRS-be.quiet-PRES students xa bafundayo xa ba-fund-a-yo when AGRS-learn-PRES-AFF(RC) ‘the students are quiet when they study’ (29b) kuseloko abafundi bafundayo kuseloko abafundi ba-fund-a-yo AGRS-learn-PRES-AFF(RC) since students kakuhle baphumelela uviwo kakuhle ba-phumelel-a uviwo AGRS-pass-PRES examination well ‘since the students study well they pass the examination’
Subjunctive Mood The subjunctive mood is associated with a range of semantic contexts. It can appear in clauses denoting successive actions, necessity and obligation, purpose, wish, and prohibition, as shown in the following examples, in which these meanings are often determined by the semantic features of the verb by which it is subcategorized. The subjunctive mood is clearly identifiable by overt morphology, specifically the verbal suffix -e and the subject agreement prefix a- for class 1 nouns. Its morphology is invariable, and it does not exhibit tense distinctions. . Successive actions. (30) abantwana bavuka kusasa bahlambe abantwana ba-vuk-e ba-hlamb-e children AGRS-wake-up early ubuso batye ubuso ba-ty-e AGRS-wash-AFF(SUBJ) AGRS-eat-AFF(SUBJ) babulise abazali ba bulis-e abazali AGRS-greet-AFF(SUBJ) parents baye esikolweni ba-y-e isikolo-ini AGRS-go-AFF(SUBJ) LOC school-LOC ‘the children wake up early, wash (their) faces, eat, greet (their) parents, and go to school’
. Necessity, obligation. (31a) utitshala utitshala
uyalela u-yalel-a
ukuba ukuba
Xhosa 1195 teacher AGRS-instruct-PRES COMP abantwana bafunde iincwadi abantwana ba-fund-e incwadi children AGRS-read-AFF(SUBJ) book ‘the teacher instructs the children to read a book’ (31b) kufuneka ukuba abafundi ku-funeka ukuba abafundi EXIST-be.needed COMP students babhale uviwo ba-bhal-e uviwo AGRS-write-AFF(SUBJ) examination ‘it is necessary that the students write the examination’
. Request, wish, desire. (32a) utitshala ucela ukuba utitshala u-cel-a ukuba AGRS-request-PRES COMP teacher abantwana bafunde incwadi abantwana ba-fund-e incwadi AGRS-read-AFF(SUBJ) book children ‘the teacher requests the children to read a/the book’ (32b) abazali banqwenela ukuba abazali ba-nqwenel-a ukuba parents AGRS-wish-PRES COMP abafundi baphumelele uviwo abafundi ba-phumelel-e uviwo students AGRS-pass-AFF(SUBJ) examination ‘the parents wish that the students pass the examination’
bafumane imali ba-fuman-e imali COMP AGRS-get-AFF(SUBJ) money ‘the young men work in the shop so that they get money’
. Questions expressing potential necessity or obligation. Subjunctive mood interrogatives are allowed only with first-person subject pronominals. (34a) ndincede aba bantu? ndi-nced-e aba bantu AGRS(1.SING)-help-AFF(SUBJ) DEM people ‘must I help these people?’ (34b) singene endlwini? si-ngen-e e-indlu-ini AGRS(1.PL)-enter-AFF(SUBJ) LOC-house-LOC ‘must we enter into the house?’
. Prohibition. A subjunctive mood clause that denotes a prohibition must have a subject pronominal in the second person and must be in the negative. (35a) ungayibeki incwadi apha! u-nga-yi-bek-i incwadi apha AGRS (2.SING)-NEGbook here AGRO-put-NEG ‘don’t put the book here!’ (35b) ningalibali ukuthenga isonka! ni-nga-libal-i uku-thenga isonka INF-buy AGRS (2.PL)-negbread forget-NEG ‘don’t forget to buy bread!’
. Exhortation.
. Purpose. (33a) abafundi bafunda kakhulu ukuze abafundi ba-fund-a kakhulu ukuze students AGRS-learn-PRES much COMP baphumelele uviwo ba-phumelel-e uviwo AGRS-pass-AFF(SUBJ) examination ‘the students study hard so that they pass the examination’ (33b) abafundi bafundela ukuba abafundi ba-fund-el-a ukuba AGRS-learn-APPLIC-PRES COMP students baphumelele uviwo ba-phumelel-e uviwo AGRS-pass-AFF(SUBJ) examination ‘the students study so that they pass the examination’ (33c) abafana abafana young.men
ukuze ukuze
basebenza ba-sebenz-a AGRS-work-PRES
evenkileni e-ivenkile-ini LOC-shop-LOC
(36a) usale kamnandi u-sal-e kamnandi AGRS(1.SING)-stay(behind)nicely AFF(SUBJ) ‘you stay (behind) nicely’ (36b) uhambe kakuhle u-hamb-e kakuhle AGRS(1.SING)-travel-AFF(SUBJ) well ‘you stay (behind) well’ (36c) nilale kamnand ini-lal-e kamnandi AGRS(1.PL) nicely ‘you must sleep nicely’
. The subjunctive mood in the complement clause of deficient verbs. (37a) umfundi uphinda abhale uviwo umfundi u-phinda a-bhal-e uviwo student AGRS-do. AGRS-write- examination AFF(SUBJ) again ‘the student again writes the examination’
1196 Xhosa (37b) umfundi ukhawuleza umfundi u-khawuleza AGRS-do.quickly student abhale uviwo a-bhal-e uviwo AGRS-write-AFF(SUBJ) examination ‘the student quickly writes the examination’
Consecutive Mood The consecutive (CONS) mood occurs in clauses that denote successive actions or states, in which the first verb is in the past tense. It is an invariable form that cannot have tense distinctions. (38) umntwana uvuke wahlamba umntwana u-vuk-e u-a-hlamba child AGRS-wake-PERF AGRS-AFF(CONS)-wash ubuso watya wabulisa ubuso u-a-tya u-a-bulisa AGRS-AFF(CONS)-eat AGRS-AFF(CONS)-greet face abazali waya esikolweni abazali u-a-ya e-isikolo-ini parents AGRS-AFF(CONS)-go LOC-school-LOC ‘the child woke up, washed (his/her) face, ate, greeted (his/her) parents, and went to school’
A consecutive mood clause may occur as complement of certain deficient verbs, in which the deficient verb itself is normally in the past tense.
instance the deficient verb -kha is used. The hortative can also be used to express indirect requests or instructions. (41a) khawuphendule imibuzo kha-wu-phendul-e imibuzo questions let-AGRS(1.SING)answer-AFF(HORT) ‘please answer the questions’ (41b) khanifunde kha-ni-fund-e let-AGRS(1.PL)-read-AFF(HORT) ‘please read the books’
iincwadi iincwadi books
(41c) abafundi abafundi students
mabaphendule imibuzo ma-ba-phendul-e imibuzo AFF(HORT)-AGRSquestions answer-AFF(HORT) ‘the students must answer the questions’
(41d) umntwana umntwana child
makafunde ma-ka-fund-e AFF(HORT)-AGRS-
iincwadi iincwadi books
read-AFF(HORT) ‘the child must read the book’ (41e) abafundi abafundi students
mabangayiphenduli ma-ba-nga-yiphendul-i
imibuzo imibuzo
AFF(HORT)-AGRS-
questions
NEG-AGRO-answer-
(39a) umfundi umfundi student
uphinde u-phind-e AGRS-do. again-
wabhala wa-bhala AGRS
uviwo uviwo examination
AFF(HORT) ‘the students must not answer the questions’
The hortative does not exemplify any tense distinctions.
(CONS)-write
PERF
‘the student again wrote the examination’ (39b) umfundi umfundi student
ukhawuleze u-khawulez-e AGRS-do. quickly-
wabhala wa-bhala AGRS
uviwo uviwo examination
(CONS)-
write ‘the student quickly wrote the examination’ PERF
Imperative Mood The imperative is used for commands and instructions. If the command or instruction is directed to more than one person, the verb takes the suffix -ni. (40a) funda incwadi! read book ‘you (SING) read the book!’ (40b) fundani incwadi! funda-ni incwadi read-PL book ‘you (PL) read the book!’
Hortative Mood The hortative (HORT) mood is used in clauses that express polite direct requests, in which
Temporal Mood The temporal (TEMP) mood occurs as a subordinate clause that denotes an activity that takes place (partly) simultaneously with the activity or state denoted by the main clause. It contains the invariable verbal prefix -aku. The logical subject argument usually appears in the postverbal position. (42a) bakufunda abafundi ba-aku-funda abafundi AGRS-AFF(TEMP)-study students baxoxa incwadi ba-xox-a iincwadi AGRS-discuss-PRES books ‘when the students study, they discuss the books’ (42b) sakufika ekhaya si-aku-fika e-ikhaya LOC-home AGRS-PRES-rest-PRES siyaphumla si-ya-phuml-a AGRS-AFF(TEMP)-arrive ‘when we arrive at home, we rest’
Xhosa 1197 (42c) bakungasebenzi ba-aku-nga -sebenz-i AGRS-AFF(TEMP)
abafundi abafundi
badiniwe ba-diniwe
students
AGRS-tired
-NEG-work-NEG
‘when the students do not work, they are tired’
Infinitive Mood The infinitive mood clause is regularly subcategorized by specific (cognition) verbs, as in (43a) and (43b). It may occur in NP argument positions in a nominalized grammatical function, as in (43c) and (43d). Some verbs can allow a purposive infinitival complement only if they have an applicative suffix, as in (43e) and (43f) below (Visser, 1989). (43a) abafana bayakwazi ukunceda abazali abafana ba-ya-ku-azi uku-nceda abazali INF-help parents young.men AGRS-PRESAGRO-know ‘the young men know (how) to help (their) parents’
inherent lexical properties of transitivity. In isiXhosa, the verb -thi, which co-occurs with the ideophone to form a predicate, serves as the host element for inflection, but it can be omitted in certain instances (Du Plessis, 1978, Du Plessis and Visser, 1998). Intransitive Ideophones (44a) lo lo DEM
(44b)
(44c)
(43b) umfundi umfundi student
uyaqonda ukuphendula imibuzo u-ya-qonda uku-phendula imibuzo AGRS-PRESINF-answer questions understand ‘the student understands to answer questions’
(43c) ukubhala kwabafundi kulungile uku-bhala kwa-abafundi ku-lungile INF-write GEN-students AGRS(EXIST)-good ‘the writing of the students is good’
(44d)
(43d) ukungafundi kwabafundi uku-nga-fund-i kwa-abafundi INF-NEG-learn-NEG GEN-students kuyamangalisa ku-ya-mangalisa AGRS(EXIST)-PRES-amaze ‘the nonlearning of the students amazes (people)’ (43e) abafana abafana young.men
basebenzela ba-sebenz-el-a AGRS-work-
ukufumana uku-fumana INF-get
imali imali money
APPLIC-PRES
‘the young men work to get money’ (43f) abafundi bafundela ukuphumelela uvio abafundi ba-fund-el-a uku-phumelela uvio examination students AGRS-learn- INF-pass APPLICPRES
‘the students study to pass the examination’
Ideophones IsiXhosa is characteristic of the Bantu languages in that it is rich in ideophones. Ideophones can function as predicates, adverbs, or interjections and are often onomatopoeic. They denote the manner or sound of an activity or the color of an object. The ideophone (IDEO) that forms part of a predicate has
(44e)
mntwana mntwana child
uhleli u-hleli AGRS-sit
uthe u-th-e AGRS-do-PERF
qwa qwa ideo (upright) ‘this child sat upright’ abantu bathi nqa abantu ba-th-i nqa people AGRS-do-PRES ideo (surprise) ngale nto nga-le nto about-this thing ‘the people are surprised by this thing’ ixhego lithe chu ixhego li-th-e chu old.man AGRS-do-PERF ideo (go.slowly) waya endlini wa-ya e-indlu-ini AGRS(CONS)-go LOC-house-LOC ‘the old man walked slowly and went to the house’ abafazi bathe xha abafazi ba-th-e xha women AGRS-do-PERF ideo (wait) ‘the woman waited’ le ndoda ithe xhwenene le ndoda i-th-e xhwenene this man AGRS-do-PERF ideo (suddenly.stop) ‘this man stopped suddenly’
The ideophones in (44a)–(44e) also illustrate the various click sounds, the ingressive sounds borrowed by isiXhosa from the Khoisan languages. The consonant q represents the palatal ingressive click sound [], the consonant c represents the dental ingressive click sound [], and the consonant x or (xh) represents the alveolateral ingressive click sound []. Transitive Ideophones (45a) lo lo
mfana wathi mfana wa-th-i DEM young.man AGRS-do-PRES rhuthu intonga yakhe rhuth intonga ya-khe ideo (take.out) stick GEN-his ‘this young man took out his stick’ (45b) lo mfana uthe lo mfana u-th-e DEM young.man AGRS-do-PERF
1198 Xhosa qhiwu indebe qhiwu indebe ideo (hold.high) cup ‘this man held the cup high up’ (45c) bamthe hlasi ngengalo ba-m-the-e hlasi nga-ingalo AGRS-AGRO-do-PERF ideo (grab) by-arm ‘they grabbed him on the arm’ (45d) bamthe nqaku lo mfana ba-m-th-e nqaku lo mfana AGRS-AGRO ideo (grab) DEM young.man -do-PERF ‘they grabbed this young man’
Bibliography Doke C M (1943). Communication no. 12: Outline grammar of Bantu. Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University. Doke C M (1954). The southern Bantu languages. London: Oxford University Press for the International African Institute. Du Plessis J A (1978). IsiXhosa 4. Parow: Oudiovista. Du Plessis J A (1980a). ‘Sentential infinitives and nominal infinitives.’ South African Journal of African Languages 2, 50–86. Du Plessis J A (1980b). Stellenbosch Studies in African Languages 2: Transitivity in Sesotho and Xhosa. Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University. Du Plessis J A (1983). ‘The quantifier onke in Xhosa.’ South African Journal of African Languages 3, 79–114. Du Plessis J A (1986). ‘Present tense in Xhosa: what does it mean?’ South African Journal of African Languages 6, 70–73. Du Plessis J A (1989). ‘Distribution of the complementiser ukuba in the Xhosa sentence.’ South African Journal of African Languages 9, 43–51. Du Plessis J A (1997). Stellenbosch Communications in African Languages 6: Imofoloji yeelwimi zaseAfrika. [Morphology of the African languages]. Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University. Du Plessis J A & Visser M W (1992a). ‘Coordination and the subjunctive in Xhosa.’ South African Journal of African Languages 13, 74–81. Du Plessis J A & Visser M W (1992b). Xhosa syntax. Pretoria, South Africa: Via Afrika. Du Plessis J A & Visser M W (1998). Stellenbosch Communications in African Languages 7: Isintaksi yesiXhosa [Xhosa syntax]. Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University. Gowlet D (2003). ‘Zone S.’ In Nurse D & Philippson G (eds.) The Bantu languages. London: Routledge. 609–638. Greenberg J (1963). Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics publication 25: The languages of Africa. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics.
Guthrie M (1967–1971). Comparative Bantu: an introduction to the comparative linguistics and prehistory of the Bantu languages (4 vols). Farnborough, UK: Gregg Press. Guthrie M (1971). Comparative Bantu (vol. 2). Farnborough, UK: Gregg Press. Heine B & Nurse D (eds.) (2000a). African languages: an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heine B & Nurse D (2000b). ‘Introduction.’ In Heine B & Nurse D (eds.) African languages: an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1–10. Louw J A (1963). Handboek van Xhosa. Johannesburg, South Africa: Bona Publishers. Nurse D & Philippson G (eds.) (2003a). The Bantu languages. London: Routledge. Nurse D & Philippson G (2003b). ‘Introduction’ In Nurse D & Philippson G (eds.) The Bantu languages. London: Routledge. 1–12. Piron P (1998). ‘Internal classification of the Bantoid language group, with special focus on the relations between Bantu, Southern Bantoid and Norhtern Bantoid languages.’ In Maddieson I & Hinnebusch T (eds.) Language history and linguistic description in Africa. Trenton, NJ: African World Press. 65–74. Poulos G & Msimang C T (1998). A linguistic analysis of Zulu. Pretoria, South Africa: Via Afrika. Satyo S C (1986). ‘Topics in Xhosa verbal extensions.’ Ph.D. diss., University of South Africa. Visser M W (1984). ‘Aspects of empty categories in Xhosa within the theory of Government and Binding.’ South African Journal of African Languages 5, 24–33. Visser M W (1986). ‘Cliticization and case theory in Xhosa.’ South African Journal of African Languages 6, 129–137. Visser M W (1989). ‘The syntax of the infinitive in Xhosa.’ South African Journal of African Languages 9, 154–185. Visser M W (1997). ‘The thematic structure of event nominals in Xhosa.’ South African Journal of African Languages 17, 65–74. Visser M W (2002). ‘The category DP in Xhosa and northern Sotho.’ South African Journal of African Languages 22, 280–293. Visser M W (2004). ‘Theory-based features of task-based course design: IsiXhosa for specific purposes in local government.’ Alternation 11(2), 216–246. Visser M W (2005). ‘Genre analysis and task-based course design for isiXhosa second language teaching in local government contexts.’ Per Linguam 20(1), 36–37. Webb V (2001). Language in South Africa: the role of language in national transformation, reconstruction and development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Welmers W E (1973). African language structures. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Williamson K & Blench R (2000). ‘Niger-Congo.’ In Heine B & Nurse D (eds.) African languages: an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 11–42.
Y Yakut L Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Location and Speakers Yakut (saxa tı¨la) belongs to the Northeastern or Siberian branch of Turkic languages. It has about 380 000 native speakers living in northeastern Siberia, mainly in the Yakut Autonomous Republic (Saxa Avtonomnay Respublikata) within the Russian Federation. The republic, whose capital is Yakutsk, has around one million inhabitants, of whom one-third are Yakuts. The Yakut language occupies the easternmost and, together with Dolgan, the northernmost Turkicspeaking area. The huge Yakut territory has its center in the lowlands on the middle and lower reaches of Lena and its tributaries Aldan and Vilyuy; most Yakuts live in this region. In the northwest, the Yakut territory extends up to the Arctic Ocean, comprising the Khatanga river system. In the extreme northwest, speakers of Yakut live on the Taimyr peninsula, particularly on the southern slopes of the Byrranga mountain range. In the northeast, the territory extends to the lowlands of the Yana and Indigirka river systems, up to the New Siberian Islands, and even beyond the Kolyma river. Small groups of Yakut speakers live outside the republic, e.g., in the Magadan, Irkutsk, Chita, Amur, and Khabarovsk areas. In spite of the strong dominance of Russian, which is the language of higher education, Yakut has a relatively strong status in the republic, also being used as a second language by many speakers of Evenki, Even, and Yukagir.
Origin and History After their emigration to northeastern Siberia, the ancestors of the Yakuts lost their contact with other Turkic-speaking groups. Since their language has been geographically isolated from other Turkic varieties for many centuries, it exhibits features that sharply distinguish it from them and makes it unintelligible
to speakers of other Turkic languages. Numerous archaic features show that the contact with the rest of the Turkic world was lost very early. On the other hand, a great number of deviations are the results of innovative developments. The ancestors of the Yakuts seem to have belonged to the ‘tree Kurikan tribes’ (u¨cˇ qurı¨qan) mentioned in the East Old Turkic stone inscriptions found in the Orkhon river valley. It is obvious that they lived for a relatively long time in the area surrounding Lake Baikal before they migrated northward. This is also indicated by the Yakut word bayagal ‘sea.’ Various Turkic-speaking groups have settled in the Baikal region, also the ancestors of the Tuvans and old Uyghur groups. The Yakut language itself contains indications of an early habitat in the south, e.g., names of months that do not fit the climate of Yakutia and words for animals such as tebien ‘camel.’ Yakut oral traditions also tell us about a migration from the south to the north. Early Yakut tribes left their southern habitat, probably pushed by Buryat groups, and migrated northward along the Lena river. This exodus did not occur before the 13th century, since the memory of Chinggis and the Mongol campaigns is still alive in Yakut traditions. The ancestors of the Yakuts had been subject to a certain Mongolian admixture prior to the migration. When proceeding northward along the Lena river, the Turkic-speaking immigrants mixed with and absorbed indigenous Evenkis, Evens, and Yukagirs. At the same time, they also pushed local Tungusic-speaking groups northwestward and northeastward. Yukagirs and Paleoasiatic groups were forced out to still more peripheral regions. For centuries, however, the Yakuts lived south of their present-day territory. It was only under the pressure of the Russian expansion in Siberia that they migrated to more arctic regions. Yakutia was incorporated in the Russian Empire in the 1620s. While the Yakuts have preserved many features of the southern culture of cattle and horse breeders, they have also taken over elements of northern nomadism from their new neighbors, traditionally reindeer herders and hunter-gatherers. In spite of Christianization and Russification, their ethnic structure has remained relatively intact.
1200 Yakut
Related Languages and Language Contacts Yakut is most closely related to its geographically nearest Turkic neighbors, Tuvan and Khakas of southern Siberia. The old Yakut self-designation Ura:nxay points to early connections with the territory of Tuva, which has also been referred to as Uryankhay. Some scholars have assumed that Yakut was originally a Kipchak Turkic language (see Turkic Languages). Yakut has been in long and close contact with other languages. It shows strong traces of Mongolic influence. The period in which the ancestors of the Yakut settled on the shore of Lake Baikal led to close interaction with Buryat. An early impact on Yakut may also have been exerted by Yeniseian, a formerly widespread Paleoasiatic language. After the emigration to northern Siberia, the Turkic language of the Yakuts underwent strong substrate influence from Tungusic dialects. The next neighbors of Yakut are the North Tungusic languages Evenki and Even (Lamut), both of which appear to have Paleoasiatic substrates. The speakers of Evenki live in the northern and northwestern parts of Yakutia, whereas the Evens live in the northeastern parts, in particular in the basins of the rivers Indigirka, Yana, and Kolyma. The contacts with the isolated language Yukagir have also been important. The complex problems of language contact and language shift in the area are still unsolved.
The Written Language No old Yakut literary documents are known. According to a tradition in Yakut folklore, however, the Yakuts once possessed written documents, which they lost on their way to the north. There is a rich Yakut oral literature comprising legends, epics, songs, etc. A modern literature began to develop at the beginning of the 20th century. A Cyrillic alphabet was created for Yakut by the German scholar Otto Bo¨htlingk in the mid-19th century. A new script, based on the International Phonetic Alphabet and designed by the Yakut linguist S. A. Novgorodov, was introduced in 1922. It was later replaced by a new Roman-based script, which was in use until a Cyrillic alphabet was introduced in 1939. The orthographic rules of the modern Yakut language have often been changed. They have, however, basically followed phonetic principles, mirroring the actual pronunciation with its numerous assimilations.
example, a suffixing morphology, sound harmony, and a head-final constituent order. In the following, only a few distinctive features will be dealt with. In the notation of suffixes, capital letters indicate phonetic variation. Hyphens are used here to indicate morpheme boundaries.
Phonology Yakut holds an exceptional position among the Turkic languages because of certain phonetic developments. Similar phenomena are sometimes found in contact languages such as Buryat and Evenki. Like Turkmen and Khalaj in the southwestern part of the Turkic-speaking world, Yakut has preserved Proto-Turkic long vowels, e.g., a:t ‘name’ and u¨:t ‘milk.’ Yakut has eight short vowels and eight long vowels including four diphthongs. The nonhigh long vowels are realized as diphthongs, e.g., ku¨o¨l ‘lake’ < ko¨:l. Yakut t corresponds to the East Old Turkic intervocalic and word-final dental d, e.g., atax ‘leg,’ tot- ‘to become satiated.’ Initial s- corresponds to y- in most other Turkic languages, e.g., suol ‘way,’ sı¨t- ‘to lie’ (Turkish yol, yat-). The consonants z, sˇ, and cˇ have developed into s in Yakut, e.g., seri: ‘army’ < cˇerig. Initial s- has been deleted, e.g., u: ‘water,’ o¨s ‘word’; cf. Turkish su, so¨z. Intervocalic -s-, however, has developed into -h-, e.g., kuh-a [duck-POSS.3.SG] ‘his/her duck’ (of kus ‘duck’), uhun ‘long’; cf. Turkish kus¸ ‘bird,’ uzun ‘long.’ Yakut applies, like other Turkic languages, a frontback sound harmony, according to which native words contain either front or back sounds. The rounded-unrounded harmony is also well developed. The vowels o and o¨ may occur as suffix vowels, e.g., ko¨to¨r-o¨ [bird-POSS.3.SG] ‘his/her bird’ (ko¨to¨r ‘bird’). Due to sound changes, progressive and regressive consonant assimilations, unstable vowels, etc., Yakut word forms often deviate from the typical Turkic agglutinative structure, e.g., at ‘horse’ vs. ap-pı¨t [horse-POSS.1.PL] ‘our horse,’ tagı¨s-‘to go out’ vs. taxs-ar [go out-PRES.3.SG] ‘goes out,’ kı¨:s ‘daughter’ vs. kı¨:h-ı¨m [daughter-POSS.1.SG] ‘my daughter.’ Some pronouns have special oblique stems, e.g., mi:gi- vs. min ‘I,’ man- vs. bu ‘this.’ The third-person imperative form consists of the verbal stem, e.g., as ‘open,’ whereas the corresponding negative form exhibits a vowel element in front of the negation marker, e.g., ah-ı¨-ma [open-ı¨-NEG.IMP] ‘don’t open’; cf. Turkish ac¸ [open.IMP], ac¸ma [open-NEG.IMP].
Distinctive Features
Grammar
Yakut exhibits many linguistic features typical of the Turkic family (see Turkic Languages). It has, for
Yakut displays some unique grammatical features, innovations partly due to Mongolic and/or Tungusic
Yakut 1201
influence. Striking features in the case system are the lack of a genitive and the fusion of dative and locative. The nominative is used instead of a genitive in constructions such as kihi bı¨hag-a [man knife-POSS] ‘the man’s knife.’ The old locative-ablative has lost its spatial functions, assuming a partitive function with imperatives and necessitatives, e.g., u:-ta agal [water-PART bring-IMP.2.SG] ‘bring [some] water.’ Its locative function has been taken over by the dative-locative in -GA, which expresses both location and goal, e.g., guorak-ka [town-DAT.LOC] ‘in/to the town.’ Special case suffixes occur with possessive markers. For instance, while ak-ka [horse-DAT.LOC] ‘to the horse’ is the dative-locative form of at ‘horse,’ ap-p-ar [horse-POSS.1.SG-DAT.LOC] ‘to my horse’ is the corresponding form of at-ı¨m ‘my horse.’ New cases have emerged in Yakut, an instrumental, a comparative, a comitative, and an adverbial case. An example of the latter is kihi-li [human being-ADV] ‘in a human way’ (kihi ‘human being’). The Yakut yes-no question marker is duo or du:, whereas almost all other Turkic languages use markers of the type mI. An enclitic question particle -iy is added to interrogative pronouns and adverbs, e.g., bu kimiy? [this who-INTERROG] ‘who is this?’ Possession may be expressed by means of the adjective suffix -la:x, e.g., Min ie-le:x-pin [I housePROVIDED.WITH-1P.SG.] ‘I have a house.’ The adjective suox ‘nonexisting’ (cf. Turkish yok) is used instead of the common Turkic privative suffix -siz ‘without,’ e.g., u:-ta suox [water-POSS nonexisting] ‘without water’; cf. Turkish su-suz [water-PRIV]. Adjectives may be negated with a third-person possessive suffix plus suox, e.g., kuhagana suox [badPOSS.3.SG nonexisting] ‘not bad’. The cardinals numbers from 11 to 19 are formed with uon ‘ten’ plus a digit, e.g., uon tu¨o¨rt [ten four] ‘fourteen.’ The tens from 40 to 90 are formed with a digit plus uon ‘ten,’ e.g., tu¨o¨rt uon [four ten] ‘forty’; cf. Turkish kirk. An archaic feature is the retention of the verbal suffix -BIt, which is otherwise only found in the southwestern branch of Turkic, e.g., kel-bit [come-PART] ‘having come’; cf. Turkish gel-mis¸ [come-PART]. As a finite form it has evidential (indirective) meaning, e.g., kel-bit [come-EV.PAST.3.SG] ‘has evidently come’; cf. Turkish gel-mis¸ [come-EV.PAST.3.SG] ‘has evidently come.’
Lexicon The basic lexicon of Yakut is of Turkic origin. Most words of foreign origin are Mongolic loans. There is an old Buryat layer from the early period of settlement on the shore of Lake Baikal. Even the
pronoun beye ‘self’ has been copied from Mongolic. Loanwords from Tungusic often belong to the domain of husbandry and everyday life. A large portion of the Yakut lexicon is of unknown origin, probably due to contact with Paleoasiatic languages. The Russian impact on the lexicon has been considerable. Loanwords are in general assimilated to the Yakut word structure, e.g., sı¨laba:r ‘samovar,’ bı¨ragra:mma ‘programme.’
Dialects The differences between the Yakut dialects are comparatively small. There is a central group consisting of the Aldan, eastern and western Lena dialects, a northeastern group, influenced by Even, and a northwestern group, influenced by Evenki. Another dialect is Dolgan, spoken by about 6500 persons, mainly on the Taimyr peninsula. It differs from the northwestern dialects and has its origin in Tungusic groups who shifted to Yakut at an early stage. They left their settlements on the Vilyuy at the end of the 16th century or later, migrated northward and absorbed parts of the population of the Taimyr peninsula, primarily Nganasans, i.e., speakers of Tavgi Samoyedic, and also further groups. Dolgan thus has both an Evenki and a Nganasan substrate. It still functions as the lingua franca of Taimyr. The present-day Dolgans (self-designation haka, corresponding to saxa) distinguish themselves from Yakuts and consider their variety a language in its own right. Dolgan differs somewhat from other Yakut varieties in lexical respect, and it also displays a few differences in terms of phonology and grammar. An archaic feature is the absence of the change of initial and final q to x, e.g., katun ‘woman’ (Yakut xotun), kol ‘shoulder’ (Yakut xol ‘arm’), atak ‘foot’ (Yakut atax), huok ‘nonexisting’ (Yakut suox). An innovative feature is the development of secondary s- into h-, e.g., haka ‘Yakut’ (Yakut saxa), hı¨l ‘year’ (Yakut sı¨l), heri: ‘war’ (Yakut seri:).
Bibliography ¨ ber die Sprache der Jakuten. Bo¨htlingk O (1851). U St. Petersburg. Buder A (1989). Aspekto-temporale Kategorien im Jakutischen. Turcologica 9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kałuz. yn´ski S (1961). Mongolische Elemente in der jakutischen Sprache. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Krueger J R (1962). Uralic and Altaic Studies 21: Yakut manual. Indiana University Publications. The Hague: Mouton. Pekarskij E˙ K (1907–1930). Slovar’ jakutskogo jazyka. St Petersburg/Leningrad: Akademija Nauk.
1202 Yanito Poppe N (1959). ‘Das Jakutische.’ In Deny J et al. (eds.) Philologiae turcicae fundamenta 1. Wiesbaden: Steiner. 671–684. Stachowski M (1993). Dolganischer Wortschatz. Krako´w: Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski.
Stachowski M & Menz A (1998). ‘Yakut.’ In Johanson L & Csato´ E´ A´ (eds.) The Turkic languages. London/New York: Routledge. 417–433. Ubrjatova E I (ed.) (1982). Grammatika sovremennogo jakutskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka.
Yanito D Levey, Universidad de Ca´diz, Ca´diz, Spain ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Yanito (or Llanito) is the name commonly used to refer to the people of Gibraltar as well as their local vernacular. Although various theories exist, it seems likely that it has its etymological origins either in the English name ‘Johnny’ or alternatively, reflecting the traditional Genoese presence in the British colony, it may be derived from ‘Gianni,’ the diminutive of the Italian boys’ name ‘Giovanni.’ Yanito is not an autonomous language as such, and it is seldom found in written form. It is fundamentally a spoken Spanish-dominant variant, which incorporates English lexical and syntactic constituents as well as some unique local lexical items. Although the Spanish/English content ratio may vary from speaker to speaker, most Gibraltarians will, consciously or unconsciously, alternate between English and Andalusian Spanish in everyday situations. Code-switching may take place inter-sentencially or intra-sentencially. Yanito What? Pero . . . I told you, no? No puedo ir shopping porque I have to work late. Sorry, no puedo hablar ahora. Anyway, te llamo esta noche OK? English What? But . . . I told you, didn’t I? I can’t go shopping because I have to work late. Sorry, I can’t speak now. Anyway I’ll phone you tonight, OK?
Although L1 interference and unnatural direct translations may sometimes be present resulting in what is popularly known as ‘Spanglish,’ the syntactic rules of both languages tend to be respected. Individual English lexical items, particularly nouns, are commonly introduced in otherwise Spanish utterances. This is often because no direct equivalent exists or its cultural or social nuance cannot be easily or succinctly conveyed. Although British English pronunciation norms tend to be followed, some older borrowings and derivations have been Hispanicized, usually reflecting the local Andalusian pronunciation. Interestingly, several of these words have also found
their way across the border and are used in the neighboring Spanish towns of La Linea and San Roque. . . . .
chinga ¼ chewing gum liqueriba´ ¼ liquorice bar mebli ¼ marbles el tishe/la tisha ¼ teacher
Other English borrowings have taken on a different meaning within the local context. Pish-pine (from the English ‘pitch pine’), for example, is used locally as an adjective or an adverb to mean ‘perfect.’ Al final todo salio´ pish-pine. In the end everything turned out just fine.
While Spanish and English form the basis of the local lexicon, several borrowings from other languages are also present, reflecting the multicultural makeup of the British colony. These come mainly from Italian (e.g., pompa ¼ pump), Arabic (e.g., flush ¼ money), and Hebrew (e.g., ha ham ¼ boss). Although Yanito does not hold prestige status, it is not overtly stigmatized either. It is regarded with a certain degree of affection and used by many Gibraltarians as an expression of local identity. However, although the use of Yanito is widespread and considered by many to be a defining characteristic of the local speech community, Gibraltar can not be described as a diglossic speech community. Both English and Andalusian Spanish are very much alive, and speakers may adopt either of the three language forms depending on context, domain, and the interlocutor.
Bibliography Ballantine S (2000). ‘English and Spanish in Gibraltar: development and characteristics of two languages in a bilingual community.’ Gibraltar Heritage Journal 7, 115–124. Cavilla Manuel (1990). Diccionario Yanito. Gibraltar: MedSUN. Ferna´ndez Martı´n C (2003). Valoracio´n de las actitudes lingu¨ı´sticas en Gibraltar. Madrid: Umi-ProQuest information on Learning. Garcı´a Martı´n J M (1996). Materiales para el estudio del espan˜ol de Gibraltar. Aproximacio´n sociolingu¨ı´stica al
Yiddish 1203 le´xico espan˜ol de los estudiantes de ensen˜anza secundaria. Ca´diz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Ca´diz. Garcı´a Martı´n J M (1997). ‘El espan˜ol en Gibraltar. Panorama general.’ Demo´filo. Revista de cultura tradicional de Andalucı´a 22, 141–154. Garcı´a Martı´n J M (2000). ‘Los conceptos de bilingu¨ismo y diglosia y la situacio´n lingu¨ı´stica de Gibraltar.’ Actas del XII Congreso de la Asociacio´n Internacional de Hispanistas, Madrid 3, 483–489. Kellermann A (2001). A new new English: language, politics and identity in Gibraltar. Heidelberg: Herstellung. Kramer J (1986). English and Spanish in Gibraltar. Hamburg: Helmet Buske Verlag. Kramer J (1998). ‘Die Sprache Gibraltars. Le Yanito.’ In Holtus G, Metzeltin M & Schmitt C (eds.) Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Kontakt, Migration und Kuntsprachen. Kontrastivita¨t, Klassifikation und Typologie III. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. 310–316.
Levey D (2004). English pronunciation and production tendencies in Gibraltar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ca´diz. Martens J (1986). Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians: the social construction of ethnic and gender identities in Gibraltar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies. Moyer M (1993). Analysis of code-switching in Gibraltar. Bellaterra: Publicacions de la Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona. Moyer M (1998a). ‘Bilingual conversation strategies in Gibraltar.’ In Auer P (ed.) Codeswitching in conversation, language and identity. London: Routledge. 215–234. Moyer M (1998b). Entre dos lenguas: contacto de ingles y espan˜ol en Gibraltar. In Muysken P (ed.) Sociolingu¨ı´stica, lenguas en contacto, Foro Hispa´nico, 13. Amsterdam/ Atlanta, GA: Editions Rodopi B. V. 9–26. Vallejo T (2001). The Yanito Dictionary. Gibraltar: Panorama Publishing.
Yiddish
Yiddish, a Germanic language spoken by the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe (Ashkenazim) and in the Ashkenazic diaspora around the world, includes significant Semitic and Slavic components as well as its Germanic base. It is one of a number of Jewish languages created on the basis of the coterritorial non-Jewish language (cf. Judaeo-Arabic, JudaeoPersian, Judezmo [Ladino], etc.). Of all such languages, it achieved the widest range of functions, the most highly developed network of institutions and the largest number of speakers.
largely on Northeastern Yiddish) as well as by speakers of dialects, which most strongly differ from the standard and one another in their realization of the vowels. In the Soviet Union, the official orthography for Yiddish ‘naturalized’ the Semitic component, eliminating the traditional Hebrew and Aramaic spellings in favor of the kind of phonetic representations used elsewhere for the non-Semitic component. Soviet orthography also mandated standardized representations for elements that show dialectal variation, e.g., orthographic oyf was spelled af as a preposition and uf as a prefix. (The standard scholarly transcription for Yiddish is the system developed by the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research [originally in pre-1939 Wilno, Poland, now in New York].)
Orthography
Phonology
Like all Jewish languages, Yiddish is written in the Hebrew alphabet. Unlike Hebrew, which except for special purposes is normally written without vowel symbols, Yiddish has adapted certain Hebrew letters (sometimes in combination with Hebrew subscript or superscript vowel symbols) to represent vowels. Words and morphemes of Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) origin are for the most part spelled as they are in the source languages, while words of Germanic, Slavic, and other origins are spelled in a broadly phonetic manner. The orthography is superdialectal, which permits its use by speakers of the standard language (the phonetics of which is based
The phonemic inventory of standard Yiddish consists of eight vocalic segments (five oral vowels and three diphthongs) and twenty-nine consonantal segments (some of which play only a marginal role). The oral vowels are i, e, a, o, and u, realized phonetically as [i], [E], [!], [O], and [u]; the diphthongs are ey, ay, and oy. The basic consonantal inventory contains voiced and voiceless bilabial, dental, and velar stops; bilabial, dental, and palatal nasals; voiced and voiceless labiodental, dental, and alveolar fricatives; a voiceless velar fricative and a voiced laryngeal fricative; voiceless dental and alveolar affricates; a dental and a palatal lateral; a palatal glide; and an /r/ that can
R A Rothstein, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1204 Yiddish
be pronounced as a uvular (most speakers) or dental trill. Voiced dental and alveolar affricates, and – regionally – palatal (or palatalized) versions of /t/, /d/, /s/, and /z/ play a somewhat marginal role in the phonological system. The resonants /l/ and /n/ can be syllabic, as can the positional variants of /n/, [m] (in word-final position after /b/ or /p/) and [N] (in word-final position after /k/ or /g/). As in Slavic, Yiddish obstruents assimilate (generally regressively) with respect to voice, but /v/ does not cause voicing in a preceding voiceless obstruent. Word-final obstruents do not (as in Slavic or German) lose voicing before pause. There is, however, evidence of such devoicing being operative in an earlier stage of the language, e.g., hunt ‘dog’ vs. briv ‘letter’ (cf. German Hund with final [t] and Brief with final [f]). Word stress tends toward the penultimate, but words of Germanic origin are often stressed on the initial root syllable, and words of Slavic origin often retain the stress of the source language. Posttonic vowels are generally reduced.
Morphology Three noun genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) are distinguished in the singular by agreeing forms of the definite article and attributive adjectives, as well as by pronominal reference. Northeastern Yiddish, however, like the neighboring Lithuanian language, has lost the neuter gender. There are no gender distinctions in the plural. Nouns are pluralized by means of several endings, mostly independent of gender: -n or its variant -en, -er, zero (Germanic in origin); -s (Romance in origin); -im, -es (Hebrew in origin). The Germanic and Hebrew suffixes may be accompanied by vowel changes in the stem; the same changes take place in suffixal derivation, e.g., in diminutive formation (cf. barg ‘mountain,’ berg ‘mountains,’ bergl ‘hill’; hoyz ‘house,’ hayzer ‘houses,’ hayzl ‘little house’). The definite article, attributive adjectives, and personal pronouns distinguish nominative, accusative, and dative case forms (with extensive syncretism) in the singular (pronouns also in the plural); personal names and a few common nouns can add -(e)n to indicate the accusative or dative singular and -(e)s to mark a possessive form. Agreeing elements have the same form for dative and possessive. Predicate adjectives occur either as a bare stem or with the indefinite article and a gender ending: zi iz yung ‘she is young’ vs. zi iz a yunge ‘she is a young one,’ parallel to Russian constructions with short- and long-form adjectives (ona moloda vs. ona molodaia). Adverbs have the same form as the stem of the corresponding adjective.
Yiddish verbs have synthetic forms for the present tense and analytic forms for the past and future tenses. The future is formed by combining the conjugated auxiliary veln with the infinitive; the past is formed by combining the auxiliaries hobn ‘have’ or zayn ‘be’ with the past participle. Conditional and subjunctive moods are also formed with auxiliaries: voltn (with the past participle) for the former and zoln ‘should’ (with the infinitive) for the latter. The auxiliary flegn ‘used to’ combines with infinitives to express iterativity in the past. A large number of periphrastic verbs combine one of several auxiliaries with an invariable element, often a Hebrew verbal form (e.g., mekane zayn ‘be envious’; moyre hobn ‘be afraid, fear’; vey ton ‘hurt’; geboyrn vern ‘be born’). Yiddish verbs may be combined with a variety of stressed adverbial complements that are prefixed to the infinitive and participles, but follow the inflected verb as a separate word in the present tense and the imperative (e.g., avekgeyn ‘to go away,’ ikh bin avekgegangen ‘I went away’ vs. ikh gey avek ‘I’m going away,’ gey avek! ‘go away!’). Under the influence of Slavic verbal systems, some of these inherited Germanic verbal complements are used to express aspectual or Aktionsart meanings, in ways that differ both from the Germanic and Slavic systems. Yiddish also makes broad use of the so-called stem construction, which combines an auxiliary (usually gebn ‘give’ or ton ‘do’) with the indefinite article and an invariant verbal stem to create a semelfactive meaning: gebn a kuk ‘take a look,’ a trakht ton ‘give a bit of thought.’
Syntax Yiddish is a verb-second language, with the inflected verb serving as the second clause constituent. In a complex sentence, however, an initial clause can occupy the first constituent position and the verb will therefore occupy the first position in the second clause: cf. er vet farshteyn ‘he will understand’ vs. az er vet zayn elter, vet er farshteyn ‘when he is [will be] older, he will understand.’ The verb can also occupy the first position in a clause or sentence that follows as an implied consequence of a preceding clause or sentence, e.g., der tate iz geshtorbn, bin ikh geblibn aleyn ‘my [the] father died, [so] I was left all alone.’ Interrogative elements (the particle tsi that introduces yes-no questions, pronouns, adverbs) count as the first constituent in a direct question but not in an indirect question: cf. vos hot zi geshribn? ‘what has she written?’ vs. ikh veys nit, vos zi hot geshribn ‘I don’t know what she has written.’
Yiddish 1205
Aside from the verb-second requirement, word order is relatively free and is available to express such discourse functions as emphasis, contrast, topic vs. comment. In order to move a subject to a more emphatic position without violating the verb-second principle, the neuter pronoun es (or its variants in this function se, s) serves as a dummy occupying the first constituent position, e.g., es iz tsu mir gekumen a kuzine ‘a cousin came to me.’ Like its Slavic counterparts (but unlike the situation in Germanic), the reflexive pronoun zikh serves for all persons and numbers. It also serves both as the full accusative/genitive and dative of the reflexive/ reciprocal pronoun (cf. Polish siebie/sobie) and as the enclitic form that occurs with verbs in a variety of functions (cf. Polish sie). Verbs with zikh can express, among other things, a kind of middle voice (e.g., vashn zikh ‘wash/wash up/get washed’) and also an intransitive verb with an unaccusative subject (e.g., der vinter heybt zikh on ‘winter is beginning’). Following Slavic models, prefixed (or complemented) verbs with zikh express various Aktionsart meanings (e.g., tselakhn zikh ‘burst out laughing’; cf. Russian rassmeiat’sia). Yiddish does not drop subject pronouns, although some contracted forms are used in speech (kh for ikh ‘I,’ r for er ‘he’). Second-person plural pronouns and verb forms are used in nonfamiliar address.
Lexicon Although the basic stock of Yiddish vocabulary is Germanic in origin, there is also a large Semitic component (from Hebrew and Aramaic, known collectively in Yiddish as loshn-koydesh ‘the language of holiness’), which may reach as much as 15% or more depending on style and register. The significant Slavic component comes primarily from Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, and there are traces of old Romance influences. Many Greek- and Latin-based internationalisms entered the language in the 19th and 20th centuries, often via one Slavic language or another. The Germanic, Semitic, Slavic, and other elements were phonologically and morphologically integrated into the Yiddish linguistic system, often being creatively reworked. The verb balebatevn ‘keep house; manage; bully,’ for example, contains two Hebrew roots (meaning ‘master of the house’), a Slavic suffix used to derived verbs from foreign roots (cf. Polishowa-), and a Germanic infinitival ending. Calques were created both on the word level (see the above examples of verbal prefixation) and on the phrase level. A colloquial phrase meaning ‘put in jail,’ araynzetsn in koze, borrows the Polish slang term
for ‘jail,’ koza, literally, ‘goat’ and uses Germanic elements (verbal complement arayn, root zets-, infinitive ending -n, preposition in) to calque the entire Polish phrase wsadzic´ do kozy. A more elaborate version replaces the Germanic verbal root with a Semitic one, and the Polish slang term with the Aramaic-origin phrase khad-gadye ‘a single kid,’ giving araynyashvenen in khad-gadye. Although many words from the Semitic component are related to Jewish religious life, many are not (e.g., khaver ‘friend; [political] comrade’; balebos ‘master of the house; boss’), and there is no neat correspondence between the origins of words and their sphere of application. So, for example, the verb meaning ‘say a blessing’ is bentshn, which is of Romance origin (ultimately related to Latin benedicere), while the word got ‘God’ is from the Germanic component (and has an affective form with a Slavic suffix, gotenyu). Most kinship terms are of Germanic origin, but zeyde ‘grandfather’ and bobe ‘grandmother’ come from the Slavic component.
History Yiddish is generally assumed to have begun to develop as a distinct linguistic variety around the year 1000 C.E. The long-dominant theory of origins (connected with the work of Max Weinreich) attributes this development to the migration of Jewish speakers of Old French and/or Old Italian, who were literate in Hebrew/Aramaic, into the Rhine Valley, where they encountered Germanic speakers. In recent years, scholars have questioned parts of this theory, suggesting Northern Italy or Bavaria as the point of initial contact, arguing that Yiddish developed as a relexification with Germanic materials of a kind of Judaeo-Slavic (Paul Wexler) or proposing that Yiddish began with contacts between Aramaicspeaking Jews from the Middle East and Germanic speakers (Dovid Katz). As Jews moved eastward, they settled among speakers of Slavic languages (first Czech, then Polish, later Ukrainian and Belarusian). From around 1500 and until World War II, the majority of Yiddish speakers inhabited the largely Slavic-speaking lands of Central and Eastern Europe. In addition to the Yiddish-speaking religious institutions (educational, social, etc.) that functioned throughout that territory, there existed during the 1920s and 1930s in Poland and (until the mid-1930s) in the Soviet Union a wide array of educational, cultural, social, and political institutions with Yiddish as their language of instruction, publication, daily business, etc. The Nazi annihilation of European Jewry, together with
1206 Yiddish
assimilation (voluntary or forced) to the dominant cultures in the Soviet Union and the overseas lands of the Eastern European Jewish diaspora, has led to a great diminution in the number of speakers of Yiddish. Yiddish is alive today among a decreasing number of elderly Jews of East European origin and in certain traditionalist (mostly Hasidic) communities in North America, England, and Israel, where it serves as the principal vernacular. It is also cultivated by an unknown number of relatively young, largely secular, Jews (and some non-Jews), who are devoted to keeping the language and culture alive. The oldest dated Yiddish text (1272) is a sentence written in a prayer book in Worms, Germany. The first printed text is a Yiddish translation of a Hebrew prayer included in a 1526 Prague haggadah, and the first Yiddish book is a Hebrew–Yiddish Bible concordance published in Cracow in 1534 or 1535.
Dialectology The dialect map of Yiddish is divided into Western and Eastern Yiddish, with the latter subdivided into Central (Polish), Northeastern (Lithuanian), and Southeastern (Ukrainian) Yiddish. Western Yiddish is defined roughly as Yiddish spoken west of the 1939 Polish-German border; it is the descendent of the earliest Yiddish, and even by 1939 had largely been replaced by German, although some speakers continued to use it in such areas as Alsace, Switzerland, and Slovakia. Linguistically, the Yiddish dialect continuum is divided on the basis of the development of certain proto-Yiddish vowels. In particular, the phrase ‘to buy meat’ (koyfn fleysh in Standard Yiddish) would be ka:fn fla:sh (with long vowels) in WY, koyfn flaysh in CY, keyfn fleysh in NEY and koyfn fleysh in SEY. Standard Yiddish (which is, strictly speaking, Standard Eastern Yiddish) is largely based on NEY as far as its vocalism is concerned, although in the case of the diphthong of ‘to buy,’ the standardizers chose the variant common to CY and SEY (oy) rather than the NEY variant (ey). The more usual choice of vowel for the standard is reflected in a phrase like ‘one day’: Standard and NEY eyn tog, CY ayn tug, SEY eyn tug.
Standard Yiddish, like NEY, but unlike CY and SEY, does not distinguish vowel length. It does, however, distinguish dental and alveolar fricatives and affricates, like CY and SEY, but unlike NEY. NEY also has no neuter gender, unlike the other Yiddish dialects (and the standard language). A detailed account of Yiddish dialect phenomena is presented in the multivolume Language and culture atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry, three volumes of which have been published as of 2004.
Bibliography Birnbaum S A (1979). Yiddish: a survey and a grammar. Toronto/Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Estraikh G (1999). Soviet Yiddish: language planning and linguistic development. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press. Estraikh G & Krutikov M (eds.) (1999). Yiddish in the contemporary world. Oxford: European Humanities Research Center/Oxford University. Herzog M I et al. (eds.) (1992). The language and culture atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry. 1: Historical and theoretical foundations. Tu¨bingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Jacobs N G (2005). Yiddish: a linguistic introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. Katz D (ed.) (1987). Origins of the Yiddish language. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press. Katz D (ed.) (1988). Dialects of the Yiddish language. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press. Katz D (2004). Words on fire: the unfinished story of Yiddish. New York: Basic Books. Ro¨ll W & Neuberg S (eds.) (1999). Jiddische Philologie: Festschrift fu¨r Erika Timm. Tu¨bingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Weinreich U (ed.) (1954). The field of Yiddish: studies in Yiddish language, folklore, and literature. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. [Subsequent volumes, various editors and publishers, 1965, 1969, 1980, 1993.] Weinreich M (1980). History of the Yiddish language. Shlomo Noble & Joshua A Fishman (trans.). Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press. Wexler P (ed.) (1990). Studies in Yiddish linguistics. Tu¨bingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Wexler P (1993). The Ashkenazic Jews: a Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Jewish identity. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
Yoruba 1207
Yoruba K Owolabi, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
is around the southwest area of the confluence of the Niger and Benue rivers in Nigeria (see Akinkugbe, 1978; Williamson, 1989: 270).
Location and Number of Speakers Yoruba is spoken as a first language in Nigeria in ` gu`n, virtually all areas in the states of E`kı`tı`, Lagos, O `. yo´. , and in most of the areas in ` n`do´, O `. s. un, and O O Kwara and Kogi states; Yoruba is a second language in some areas of the Delta and Edo states as well as in the non-Yoruba-speaking areas of the Kwara and Kogi states (see Figure 1). Outside Nigeria, there are Yoruba-speaking communities in the republics of Togo and Benin, where, in the southern part, Yoruba, Aja, and Fon are the three dominant indigenous languages (see Adeniran, 2004: 437). Based on the 1991 census, the number of speakers of Yoruba as a first or second language in Nigeria alone is about 19 000 000.
Genetic Relationship and History Yoruba is a member of the Defoid language group within the Benue-Congo subgroup of the NigerCongo family (see Williamson, 1989: 20, 26; Capo, 1989: 275–290). Although the origin of the term ‘Yoruba’ is still shrouded in mystery, some late 20thcentury (historical/comparative) linguists have suggested that the dispersal center for the Yoruba people
Earliest Written Record The Yoruba writing system uses the Roman alphabet, augmented by letters with diacritics. The earliest written records include the vocabularies compiled by Thomas Bowdich in 1819 (including words for the numerals 1–10), by Hannah Kilham (1828), and by Wilhelm Koelle (1854). The teaching booklets of John Raban (1830–1832) and the vocabularies and grammars of Samuel Crowther (1843, 1852) contributed further to the written record. Publication of Crowther’s school primer (1849; written wholly in Yoruba) was followed by the various translation works in the Old and the New Testaments by Crowther (1950–1956) and by Thomas King (1957– 1961). The first vernacular periodical, the newspaper I`we´ I`ro`hı`n, was printed at Abe. okuta from 1859 to 1867 (see, in particular, Hair (1967)).
Individual Characteristics Yoruba has a number of characteristics that appear unique to Yoruba or are not widespread among its genetic relatives.
Figure 1 Nigerian states in which Yoruba is spoken as a first or second language. Key to states: 1, E`kı` tı` ; 2, Lagos; 3, O`gu`n; 4, O`n`do´; 5, O`. s. un; 6, O`. yo.´ ; 7, Kogi; 8, Kwara; 9, Delta; 10, Edo.
1208 Yoruba Syntactic Characteristics
Noun Classes, Gender System, and Number Yoruba has no noun class or grammatical gender. There are no separate noun forms to distinguish singular from plural. However, when necessary, plurality can be marked by using some (pro)nominal forms before nouns, or by using certain demonstratives, as well as by reduplicating adjectives after nouns. Possessive Noun–Noun Constructions In a sentence, the second noun in a possessive noun–noun construction can be focused by front shifting it, with its original position being occupied by the appropriate pronoun qualifier. After certain verbs, it is also possible to permute the constituent nouns with the particle nı´ obligatorily intervening (see Owolabi, 1976: 40–43). Past and Present Actions Action verbs generally convey past action, whereas stative verbs convey past or present action. Verbal Constructions There are verbal constructions in which subject and object nouns can switch positions with little or no difference in meaning, and verbal constructions in which the verbs are repeated after their objects; in addition, some verbal constructions contain verbs that are used for asking questions, verbs that are negative in meaning, or verbs that obligatorily select the particle nı´ (see Awobuluyi, 1978: 53–62). Morphological Characteristics
In order to form morphologically complex nouns, certain prefixes (for example, a`-, e`-, o-, i-, and a`i-) that are usually attached to roots that are verbs or verb phrases, and sometimes to ideophonic adjectives, cannot be combined. However, the prefixes onı´- and oni-, which are attached to nouns or noun phrases, can be combined and can also combine with the former class of prefixes, resulting in nouns that denote emphasis (see Owolabi, 1995: 93–102). Phonetic/Phonological Characteristics
Vowel Co-occurrence Restrictions and Vowel Elision Yoruba operates a partial system of vowel harmony in which the set /e, o/ mutually excludes the set /E O/ in polysyllabic underived words. Also, in words with a vowel1-consonant-vowel2 (V1-C-V2) pattern, neither the nasalized vowels nor /u/ can occur as V1. Vowel elision, resulting in contractions, is quite erratic apart from the relatively predictable elision of the vowel /i/,
Figure 2 Phonetic groupings of Yoruba consonants and vowels. Tones are indicated by diacritical marks: high ( ´), mid ( ), and low ( `).
the initial vowel of the second noun of noun–noun combinations, or the vowels of the standard forms of words in combination with the dialectal forms (see Bamgbos. e, 1989). Figure 2 shows the phonetic groupings of Yoruba consonants and vowels; tones are indicated by diacritical marks: high (´), mid (¯), and low (`). The Assimilated Low Tone In addition to the high, mid, and low tones in Yoruba, a tonal feature referred to as ‘the assimilated low tone’ occurs when a low tone disappears in certain contracted expressions or in some single polysyllabic words, but its influence is still felt on the following syllable (see Bamgbos. e, 1966). Restriction on the Occurrence of the High Tone The high tone never occurs on V1 in words of V1-C-V2 pattern. Tones of Pronouns With the exception of the second-person plural pronoun object, the lexical tones of the verbs determine the tones of all pronoun objects. Similarly, the tones of some subject pronouns vary before the verbal particle n´. Other Characteristics
Various semantic effects (e.g., emphasis, anger, and anxiety) can be achieved by employing the devices of reduplication, prefixation, and vowel lengthening, or by using ‘intensifiers.’ Focusing whole sentences
Yoruba 1209
apart from sentence constituents is also common. The following sentence provides an example of the Yoruba language: Ala´ka`a´ ni ile´ e`. wo´, tı´ ole` sı` ko´ mi nı´ e. ru`, s. u`gbo´. n o´ du´n mı´ pe´ Olu´ jo´, jo´, jo´ ni le´. yı`n `ıs. e`. le`. wo`. nyı´, e`yı´ to´ mu´ kı´ a`wo. n o. lo´. mo`. we´ o`. re´. Olu´ ro` pe´ ko` fe´. e`mi a`ti Ala`ka`a´ fe´. o. ro`. , a`mo´. la´ı`pe´. , Ala´ka`a´ yo´o` rale´. tuntun, yo´o` sı` ro. ko`. pe`. lu´. It was Ala´ka`a´’s house that fell while thieves stole my property, but it pained me that what Olu´ did was to really dance after these incidents, which made Olu´’s educated friends think that he isn’t happy to see Ala´ka`a´ and me prosper, however, Ala´ka`a´ will soon purchase a new house and a vehicle as well.
Note that e.` occupies the original position of the frontshifted noun Ala´ka`a´, and that mi nı´ e. ru` is a possessive construction resulting from permutation. In Ala´ka`a´ (from ‘onı´ a`ka´’), the influence of the assimilated low tone is felt; mi has a high tone after the low-tone verb du`n, but a mid tone after the high-tone verb ko´. For emphasis, jo´ is reduplicated and Ala´ka`a´ and the phrase beginning with .su`gbo´. n are focused by placing the focus marker ni after them. Plurality is indicated by wo`. nyı´ and a`wo. n, o. lo´. mo`. we´ comprises the verb phrase mo`. we´ and the prefixes o`. - and onı´-, and fe.´ is repeated after e`mi a`ti Ala´ka`a´. The ‘a’ of ra` is retained in the verb–noun contraction rale.´ (from ra ile´ ‘purchase a house’) but is elided in ro. ko`. (from ra o. ko`. ‘purchase a vehicle’). A phonemic transcription of the sentence is as follows: a¯la´’ka´ lı¯˜ ı¯le´ EA wo´, tı´ o¯le` si ko´ mı¯˜ l EE ru`, Su`gbOD´ o´ d m kpe´ o¯lu´ jo´ jo´ jo´ lı¯˜ lEBj`ı˜ ı`SEAlEA w jı´, e`jı´ to´ m kı´ a`wOD¯ OE lOA m we´ OA rEB o¯lu´ ro` kpe´ ko` fEB e`mı˜¯ a`tı¯ a¯la´’ka´ fEB OE rOA , a`mOD´ la´ı`kpEB, a¯la´’ka´ jo´o` ra¯le´ tu˜¯tu˜¯, jo´o` sı` rOE kOA kpEAlu´.
taught as a subject at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. At least eight universities in Nigeria offer first degree and/or higher degree courses in Yoruba. Literature in the language is also very extensive. According to government policy, in the states in which Hausa, Igbo, or Yoruba is not a mother tongue, one of these three languages is a compulsory subject at secondary school level. The three languages are also to be used in the National Assembly in addition to English, and one of the state assemblies in the Yoruba-speaking states is currently using Yoruba in the same way. Similarly, the Nigerian federal government has embarked on the translation of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria into Yoruba and the other two major Nigerian languages (Hausa and Igbo), in order to facilitate the usage of these languages in the domain of legislation. A Yoruba metalanguage (available in two volumes) has facilitated the use of Yoruba for writing textbooks and as a medium for teaching the language at all levels of education, whereas the Six-year Primary Project at the O. bafe. mi Awolo. wo. University (formerly `. s. un State, aims the University of Ife. ), in Ile-Ife. , O at demonstrating that all subjects can be taught in Yoruba at the primary level. In the neighboring Republic of Benin, the Yoruba, Aja, and Fon languages are studied at the university level; Yoruba was adopted (along with Aja, Fon, Bariba, Bendi, and Waama) as an official language of the National Assembly in 1983 (see Adeniran, 2004: 437, 442).
Bibliography Other Points of Relevance The Yoruba language comprises about 20 dialects. There is also a form of Yoruba popularly referred to as Standard Yoruba. In all of the Nigerian states in which Yoruba is spoken natively, the Standard Yoruba and the Yoruba dialects are spoken. However, a diglossic situation exists where the Standard Yoruba is the high variety and the dialects are the low variety, although the use of some of the dialects in publications, broadcasts, and native courts (in particular) is increasing. The variety of Yoruba described in this article is Standard Yoruba. Yoruba vocabularies occur in poetic recitations associated with rituals and cults in Brazil as well as in Sierra Leone, where the influence of Yoruba is also felt in Krio loanwords and personal names. Yoruba is one of the three major languages in Nigeria (the other two are Hausa and Igbo). It is
Adeniran W (2004). ‘Language attitudes in a francophone city: the case of the Yoruba of Porto-Novo.’ In Owolabi K & Dasylva A (eds.). 437–460. Akinkugbe O O (1978). ‘A comparative phonology of Yoruba dialects, Isekiri, and Igala.’ Ph.D. thesis, Ibadan: University of Ibadan. Awobuluyi O (1978). Essentials of Yoruba grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bamgbos. e A (1966). ‘The assimilated low tone in Yoruba.’ Lingua 16(1), 1–13. Bamgbos. e A (1989). When rules fail: the pragmatic of vowel elision in Yoruba. Paper presented at the Linguistic Association of Nigeria conference, University of Jos. Bendor-Samuel J (ed.) (1989). The Niger-Congo languages. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Capo H B C (1989). ‘Defoid.’ In Bendor-Samuel J (ed.). 275–290. Hair P E H (1967). The early study of Nigerian languages. West African language monographs 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1210 Yukaghir Owolabi D K O (1976). ‘Noun–noun constructions in Yoruba: a syntactic and semantic analysis.’ Ph.D. thesis, Ibadan: University of Ibadan. Owolabi D K O (1993). ‘Yoruba.’ In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 1st edn. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. 5074–5076. Owolabi K (1995a). ‘More on Yoruba prefixing morphology.’ In Owolabi K (ed.). 92–112. Owolabi K (ed.) (1995b). Language in Nigeria: essays in honour of Ayo. Bamgbos. e. Ibadan: Group Publisher.
Owolabi K (2004). ‘On the translation of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria into selected Nigerian languages.’ In Owolabi K & Dasylva A (eds.). 523–537. Owolabi K & Dasylva A (eds.) (2004). Forms and functions of English and indigenous languages in Nigeria: a festschrift in honour of Ayo. Banjo. . Ibadan: Group Publishers. Williamson K (1989). ‘Benue-Congo overview.’ In BendorSamuel J (ed.). 3–46.
Yukaghir G D S Anderson, Max Planck Institute, Leipzig, Germany and University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Yukaghir is not a single language, but is actually a small language family consisting of two nearly extinct languages of northeastern Siberia, i.e., Tundra (Northern Yukaghir) and Kolyma (Southern Yukaghir). The speakers of these languages and the languages themselves are known by the selfdesignations of Wadul (Tundra) and Odul (Kolyma). Fewer than 200 total speakers, possibly as few as 40, live in northeastern Siberia. Conventionally labeled as language isolates, some consider Tundra and Kolyma to be distant relatives of the Uralic languages. The Yukaghiric family probably originally included two now extinct languages, Chuvan and Omok. Yukaghiric-speaking peoples were once dominant over a vast area in northeastern Siberia, practicing reindeer husbandry and subsistence hunting and fishing. Yukaghiric-speaking peoples at first assimilated Tungusic-speaking peoples culturally, but eventually the Even (Tungusic) people assimilated the Yukaghiric people linguistically, and now include a discernible Yukaghiric substrate. The Tundra Yukaghir language is spoken in two villages, Andryushkino and Kolymskoe. Kolyma Yukaghir is found predominantly in the village of Nelemnoe. Both Yukaghir languages are moribund, spoken now only by a few elders. The Yukaghir people have shifted mainly to speaking Russian, but in Andryushkino village they are mostly shifting to Yakut (Sakha), a locally dominant Turkic language. Yukaghir possesses a range of contrastively palatalized segments in the consonant system, a pattern commonly found throughout the Siberian area. Unlike most northern and Siberian languages, Yukaghir is like Yakut in not permitting n-in word-initial
position. However, the common four-way place contrast for nasals (m/n/n˜/n) seen across the languages of Siberia is an old and stable feature in Yukaghir, going back at least to the Proto-Yukaghir(ic) stage (Anderson 2003). Example (1) shows word forms in Tundra, Kolyma, and Proto-Yukaghir (from Krejnovich, 1958, 1982: 13–14): (1) Tundra nonol amun n˜aRa aNa-N
Kolyma nonol amun n˜aRa aNa
Proto-Yukaghir *nonol *amun *n˜aRa *aNa
Gloss ‘loop, noose’ ‘bone’ ‘together’ ‘mouth’
Like most other Siberian languages, Yukaghir makes use of a range of case forms of nouns. This includes both areally common and typologically unusual formations. To the areally common group of features belong the opposition of instrumental (INSTR) case forms (Example (2a); Krejnovich, 1982: 49–50)) and comitative (COM) case forms (Examples (2b) and (2c); Krejnovich 1982: 45, 46)): (2a) Tundra Yukaghir -lek, -leN -lek pajduk ‘hit with a stick’
Kolyma Yukaghir -le, -lek c˘oXoye-le ‘with a knife’
In Examples (2b) and (2c), comitative denotes possession as well, and conjoins two nouns (PV, preverb): (2b) Kolyma Yukaghir nu´me-n˜ej dwelling-COMIT ‘with a dwelling,’ ‘he has a dwelling’ (2c) Tundra Yukaghir ile-n˜ej ila:me me-qaldej-Ni reindeer-COMIT dog PV-run.off-3PL ‘the dog ran off with the reindeer,’ ‘the dog and the reindeer ran off’
To the unusual group of case features belongs the characteristically Yukaghir but typologically unusual system of ‘focus’ marking. Simplifying matters
Yukaghir 1211
somewhat, this system is as follows: there is (1) an unmarked form that encodes speech act participants and lexical nouns in agent-focus and agent/subjecttopic functions; (2) a marked ‘neutral’ case used with nonlocutor agent/subject topics, object-topics with locutor agents, and forms that lack the focus case (nonlocutor personal pronouns, proper names, etc.); and (3) the ‘focus’ case that encodes subject or object focus. Noun phrases (NPs) marked with focus frequently reference indefinite NPs, and focus-case marking often serves to introduce participants into the discourse (see Maslova (2003a: 51ff) for further details). In terms of the clausal syntax of simple and complex sentences, Yukaghir is similar to many other indigenous Siberian languages. The language shows dominant subject-object-verb constituent order and uses a wide range of adverbial ‘converb’ forms in subordinate clause formation, as well as the characteristic system of case-marked nominalized verbs to mark a wide range of functional subtypes of subordinate clauses, as shown in Example (3a) (the first two words are from Krejnovich (1958: 198) and Fortescue (1988: 41), respectively; the original source for the third word is unknown) and Example (3b) (from Maslova (2003b: 372)) (abbreviations: NOM, nominal; LOC, locative; POSS, possessive; PL, plural; NF, nonfinite; NEG, negation; PROHIB, prohibitive; ACC, accusative; DESID, desiderative; INTRANS, intransitive): (3a) Yukaghir u:r-eN u:-l-rane u:-l-lek go-ACTION. go-ACTION. go:ACTION. NOM-LOC NOM-LOC.II NOM-INS ‘when (I) went’ when he went’ ‘after going’ (3b) Kolyma Yukaghir qa:qa:-pe-gi ajli-de-ge forbid-3.NF-LOC grandfather-PL-POSS ‘‘elþqon-Ni-lek’’ mon-de-ge NEG-go-PL-PROHIB say-3.NF-LOC tamun-gele uørpe-p-ki that-ACC child-PL-POSS elþmed-o:l-Ni NEG-listen-DESID3pl.intrans ‘Their grandfather forbids (it), saying ‘‘don’t go’’ but the children do not obey’.
Bibliography Anderson G D S (2001). ‘Deaffrication in the (Central) Siberian Area.’ In Aronson H I (ed.) Non-Slavic languages 9: linguistic studies. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1–17. Anderson G D S (2003). ‘Towards a phonological typology of Native Siberia.’ In Holisky D A & Tuite K (eds.) Current trends in Caucasian, East European and
Inner Asian linguistics. Papers in honor of Howard I. Aronson. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–22. Angere J (1956). Die uralo-jukagirische Frage. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der sprachlichen Urverwandtschaft. Uppsala-Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Angere J (1957). Jukagirisch-Deutsches Wo¨rterbuch. Wiesbaden: Almqvist and Wiksell. Bouda K (1941). ‘Die finnisch-ugrisch-samojedische Schicht des Jukagirischen.’ Ungarische Jahrbu¨cher 17, 80–101. Collinder B (1940). ‘Jukagirsch und Uralisch.’ Uppsala Universitets A˚rsskrift 8, 1–143. Comrie B (1992). ‘Focus in Yukagir (Tundra dialect).’ In Aronson H I (ed.) The non-Slavic languages of the USSR. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 55–70. Fortescue M (1988). ‘The Eskimo-Aleut-Yukagir relationship: an alternative to the genetic/contact dichotomy.’ Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 21(1), 21–50. Fortescue M (1996). ‘Grammaticalized focus in Yukaghir. is it really grammaticalized and is it really focus?’ In Engberg-Pedersen E et al. (eds.) Content, expression and structure. Studies in Danish functional grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 17–38. Jochelson W (1900). Materialy po izua˜eniju jukagirskogo jazyka i fol’klora. Sankt-Peterburg: Academija Nauk. Joxel’son V I (1934). ‘Odul’skij (jukagirskij) jazyk.’ In Krejnovich E A (ed.) Jazyki i pis’mennost’ Sibiri III. Moscow: Gosudarstennoe uchebno-pedagogicheskoe izdatel’stvo. 149–180. Krejnovich E A (1955). ‘Sistema morfologicheskogo vyrazhenija logicheskogo udarenija v jukagirskom jazyke.’ Institut Jazykoznanija. Doklady i Soobshchenija 7, 99–115. Krejnovich E A (1958). Yukagirskij jazyk. Moscow/ Leningrad: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Krejnovich E A (1982). Issledovanija i materialy po jukagirskomu jazyku. Leningrad: Nauka. Kurilov G N (1991). Yukagir-Russian dictionary. Yakutsk: Jakutskoe Knizhnoe izdatel’stvo. Maslova E (1989). ‘Retsiprok v jukagirskom jazyke.’ Sowjetische Finnisch-Ugrische Sprachwissenschaft XXV(2), 120–127. Maslova E (1993). ‘The causative in Yukagir.’ In Comrie B & Polinsky M (ed.) Causatives and transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 271–285. Maslova E (1997). ‘Yukagir focus system in a typological perspective.’ Journal of Pragmatics 27, 457–475. Maslova E (ed.) (2001). Yukaghir texts. Tunguso-Sibirica series (vol. 7). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Maslova E (2003a). Tundra Yukaghir. Languages of the world/materials 372. Munich: Lincom. Maslova E (2003b). A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nikolaeva I A (1988). ‘O sootvetsvijax uralskix affrikat i sibilantov v jukagirskom jazyke.’ Sovetskoe FinnoUgrovedenie 2, 81–85. Nikolaeva I (ed.) (1989). Fol’klor Jukagirov verxnej Kolymy (vols. 1–2). Yakutsk: Yakutskij Gosudartsvennyj Universitet.
1212 Yukaghir Nikolaeva I (ed.) (1997). Yukaghir texts. Specimina Sibirica 13. Szombathely: Savariae. Nikolaeva I (2000). Chresthomatia Yukagirica. Budapest: ELTE BTK, Finnugor Tansze´k. Nikolaeva I A & Xelimskij E (1997). ‘Jukagirksij jazyk.’ In Jazyki narodov mira. Paleoaziatskie jazyki. Moscow: Indrik. 155–168. Ostrowski M (1983). Zur Nomen:Verb Relationierung im Wogulischen, Jurakischen und Yukagirischen. Ko¨ln: Arbeiten des Ko¨lner Universalien-Projekts. Spiridonov V (1997). Russian-Yukagir dictionary. Zyrianka: Jakutskoe Knizhnoe izdatel’stvo.
Tailleur O G (1959). ‘Les unique donnes sur l’omok, langue e´teinte de la famille youkaghire.’ Orbis VIII, 78–108. Tailleur O G (1962). ‘Le dialecte tchouvane du Youkaghir.’ Ural-Altaische Jahrbu¨cher XXIV, 55–99. Tailleur O G (1965). ‘La flexion personnelle en Youkaghir.’ E´tudes Finno-Ougriennes 2, 67–88. Vakhtin N (1992). The Yukagir language in sociolinguistic perspective. Monograph series 2. 1991. Steszew: International Institute of Ethnolinguistic and Oriental Studies. Veenker W (1989). Tundrajukagirisches Wo¨rterverzeichnis. Hamburg: Helmust Buske.
Z Zapotecan G A Broadwell, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Zapotecan languages belong to the Otomanguean family and are spoken across a large portion of Oaxaca, Mexico. Zapotecan is divided into two branches – Chatino and Zapotec proper. The number of languages in each group is controversial, but the Summer Institute of Linguistics recognizes 6 Chatino languages and 58 Zapotec languages. Zapotec languages are spoken by over 200 000 people located over much of the eastern half of Oaxaca. Varieties of Zapotec divide broadly into three groups. The Valley-Isthmus group includes most varieties spoken in the valley of Oaxaca, extending to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The Northern group is spoken in the mountains to the north of the Valley of Oaxaca, and the Southern group is spoken in the mountains to the south. All three groups are quite diverse and contain many distinct languages. Chatino languages are spoken in a smaller mountainous area in southwestern Oaxaca by perhaps 30 000 people. The earliest documentation of Zapotecan languages comes from grammars, dictionaries, and religious material from the Spanish colonial period. Archaeological sites associated with the Zapotec state of ca. 100 B.C. to ca. 900 A.D. also contain Zapotec hieroglyphic writing. Efforts to decipher Zapotec hieroglyphics are still ongoing.
Phonological Characteristics In Zapotec languages, most consonants are divisible into two morphophonologically defined groups called ‘fortis’ and ‘lenis.’ For stops and fricatives, fortis is largely equivalent to voiceless and lenis to voiced. However, the fortis/lenis distinction is also found in the nasals and sonorants, where the phonetic realization of fortis is not voicelessness, but some other characteristic that generally includes longer duration.
The morphological examples in (2) below from Mitla Zapotec show that long sonorants and voiceless obstruents seem to form a natural class. Many analyses of Zapotec historical phonology also analyze fortis consonants as having originated from geminates and consonant clusters. Many Zapotec languages, especially those in Valley group, show contrastive phonation type differences. San Dionicio Ocotepec Zapotec, for example, shows a distinction between modal, breathy, creaky, and checked vowels. Consider the following minimal and near-minimal pairs: (1) San Dionicio Ocotepec Zapotec ‘flame’ (breathy) [b l] ‘meat’ (creaky) [b l] [ba´:ld] ‘how many’ (modal) [b l] ‘bullet’ (breathy) ‘fish’ (breathy) [b ld] (checked) [bEˆ ld] ‘snake’
All Zapotecan languages are tonal. The number of reported tones varies from two tonal levels to four, with a variety of contour tones. The largest number of tonal contrasts in the family appears to be Zoogocho Zapotec, which is reported to have four tone levels and seven contours, for a total of 11 tonal contrasts.
Morphological Characteristics Zapotec languages do not have a passive, but generally show morphological relationships between pairs of verbs that differ in valence. In one typical pattern, an intransitive stative verb begins with a lenis consonant, while the corresponding transitive active verb begins with the corresponding fortis consonant. Consider the following examples from Mitla Zapotec: (2) Mitla Zapotec [zæb] ‘to sink (intr.)’ [de..b] ‘to be wrapped’ ‘to be lost’ [ni..t] [lib] ‘to be tied’
[sæb] [te..b] [nni..t] [llib]
‘to sink (tr.)’ ‘to wrap’ ‘to lose’ ‘to tie’
There are generally also other such pairs that show less regular correspondences.
1214 Zapotecan
Zapotec verbs are inflected with aspectual prefixes. The number of aspects varies from language to language. In Zoogocho Zapotec, for example, there are continuative, stative, completive, potential, and dubitative aspects. San Lucas Quiavinı´ Zapotec has progressive, habitual, perfective, irrealis, subjunctive, neutral, and definite (future) aspects. Zapotec verbs do not show agreement, though pronominal subjects (and some pronominal objects) cliticize to the verb. Consider the following examples from San Dionicio Ocotepec Zapotec: (3) San Dionicio Ocotepec Zapotec ` -da`w (3a) U re´e´ ¼ bı´´ıny COM-eat PLUR ¼ person ‘The people ate beans.’
bzya`a´. bean
(3b) U`-da`w ¼ rEBby COM-eat ¼ 3.HUMAN.PLUR ‘They ate beans.’
bzya`a´. bean
(3c) U`-da`w ¼ rEBby ¼ rEAny COM-eat ¼ 3.HUMAN.PLUR ¼ 3.INAM.PLUR ‘They ate them.’
Zapotec languages often show a large number of third-person pronominal categories. For example, San Lucas Quiavinı´ Zapotec distinguishes between proximal (near) and distal (far) third persons, as well as between animal, respectful, formal, and reverential third-person categories. These categories are not morphologically marked on nouns themselves, but on independent or clitic pronouns that are coreferential with the nouns. Pronominal category is also not completely fixed, but may vary somewhat according to a speaker’s point of view and according to the structure of the narrative.
of the verb. These frequently include special positions for topical, focal, negative, and interrogative phrases. The following examples from Quiegolani Zapotec illustrate several of these positions: (6) Quiegolani Zapotec [T§u]Interrog [men]Neg who nothing ‘Who saw nothing?’
wii-t? saw-NEG
(7) Quiegolani Zapotec [Laad §-unaa dolf]Focus de FOC POSS-wife Rodolfo already z-u nga. PROG-stand there ‘Rodolfo’s wife was already standing there.’
All the Zapotecan languages also appear to show the phenomenon known as ‘pied-piping with inversion.’ When a subpart of NP or PP (and sometimes other constituents) is questioned, the entire phrase moves to the clause-initial interrogative position, but shows an inverted order, in which the interrogative precedes the head of the phrase: (8) San Dionicio Ocotepec Zapotec [Tu´u´ lo`o`]Interrog u`-dEAEAdy Gu`sta´a`b who to COM-give Gustavo ‘Who did Gustavo give the pot to?’
gEAEAs? pot
In broad syntactic terms, Zapotecan languages generally conform to the areal features of other Mesoamerican language families such as Mayan, Mixe-Zoquean, and Totonacan. Zapotecan languages differ from these other groups in lacking agreement and voice morphology and having a more rigid word order.
Conclusion Syntactic Characteristics Zapotecan languages show head-inital order in phrases. Clauses are VSO, noun phrases are N-initial, and the language is prepositional. The following examples from San Dionicio Ocotepec Zapotec and Yaitepec Chatino show these properties: (4) San Dionicio Ocotepec Zapotec ` a`rı´ı` lo`o` Mo´o`ny U`-dEAEAdy Gu`sta´a`b S-kEAEAs M COM-give Gustavo POSS-pot Maria to Ramo´n ‘Gustavo gave Maria’s pot to Ramo´n.’ (5) Yaitepec Chatino (Pride, 1965: 82) yka3 lo?o1 ta?a23 lo?o1 NSi?yu32 ne?3 cutting he wood with brother with siyera4 ka3 sı˜2 bra3ko˜?2. saw yesterday evening then ‘He was cutting wood with his brother with a saw yesterday evening then.’
Though the languages are verb-initial, there is generally an elaborated hierarchy of positions to the left
All Zapotecan languages are endangered, and in some communities, only a few elders speak the language. In other communities, the language is spoken by a much larger proportion of the population, but there are still economic pressures that favor language shift to Spanish or emigration to the United States and other parts of Mexico. These factors make language preservation and documentation work an urgent priority.
Bibliography Black C (2000). Quiegolani Zapotec syntax. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Briggs E (1961). Mitla Zapotec grammar. Mexico City: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Broadwell G A (2001). ‘Optimal order and pied-piping in San Dionicio Zapotec.’ In Sells P (ed.) Formal and empirical issues in optimality theoretic syntax. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications. 197–123.
Zulu 1215 Long R & Cruz S (1999). Diccionario zapoteco de San Bartolome´ Zoogocho, Oaxaca. Coyoaca´n, Mexico: Instituto Lingu¨ı´stico de Verano. Munro P & Lopez F (1999). Di’csyoonarry X:te`e’n Dı`i’zh Sah Sann Lu’uc: San Lucas Quiavinı´ Zapotec Dictionary.
Los Angeles: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center Publications. Pride K (1965). Chatino syntax. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Oklahoma.
Zulu A van der Spuy, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Zulu, also known as isiZulu, is a Southern Bantu language, and is one of the 11 official languages of South Africa. With over nine million speakers, it is one of the country’s major languages, and is used in broadcasting, journalism, and the national and provincial parliaments. Famous as the language of the Zulu empire of the 19th century, it has a growing literature, and there are efforts to develop a technical vocabulary for use in the teaching of mathematics and other sciences. The language has been the subject of a considerable number of grammatical and linguistic studies, dating back to works of 19th-century pioneers such as Grout (1859). Zulu is closely allied to Xhosa, Swati, and Ndebele, and there is a high degree of mutual intelligibility between these languages, to the extent that it could be argued that they are all varieties of one language, Nguni. The findings of linguistic studies of the other Nguni languages are very frequently applicable to Zulu as well.
Morphology Zulu displays the typical Bantu morphological features: it is highly agglutinative, and its nouns are divided into various classes, which command distinctive agreement morphology (see ‘Syntax’ below). Most of the noun classes occur in singular/plural pairs, for example, a noun such as inja ‘dog’ (class 9) will have a plural in class 10, izinja ‘dogs.’ Older studies classified the noun classes according to this pairing (e.g., Doke, 1927), but Canonici (1990) has proposed a classification according to agreement characteristics. From this point of view there are 12 noun classes. There is an elaborate tense and aspect system, and verbs may take valency-changing suffixes (known as ‘extensions,’ e.g., causative -isin fund-is-a ‘cause to learn, teach’; passive -w- in
fund-w-a ‘be learnt’; reciprocal -an- in fund-is-an-a, ‘teach each other’). The morphology of the language and the semantics of the various grammatical forms have been the focus of linguistic research into Zulu for the past 80 years. Dominating most studies has been Doke’s model (1927), which sought to describe Bantu languages in terms appropriate to that family, rather than according to established Latin, Greek, or English terminology. Subsequent accounts have largely been refinements of the Dokean model, e.g., Cope (1984) and Poulos and Msimang (1998).
Phonology Zulu phonology has been described in a number of works, most notably and comprehensively in Khumalo (1987). Like many Bantu languages, it has an (N)CV syllable structure. There are 40 phonologically distinct consonants, and five vowels. Vowel length is usually predictable, but occasionally distinctive (for example, between the remote past tense and the past consecutive tense: wa:hamba ‘he/she walked,’ wahamba ‘and then he/she walked’). There is a stricture on the occurrence of two vowels in juxtaposition at surface level, which leads to rules of vowel merging; for example, possessive a- prefixed to inja ‘dog’ yields enja ‘of the dog.’ Other processes that have been frequently studied include palatalization and so-called nasal strengthening, where nasals in N þ C clusters change the nature of the following C. For example, an aspirated consonant in this position will lose its aspiration, so that the root phil‘live’ becomes -pil- in the class 9 noun impilo ‘life.’ The language has a high/low tone contrast, and a (derived) high-low tonal cluster may occur on bimoric vowels.
Syntax Zulu has a basic SVO word order. Relative clauses and possessive phrases follow the head noun, and auxiliaries precede the verb. There is considerable agreement marking, as in the following example,
1216 Zulu
where the affixes glossed as AGR all agree with the class 9 noun moto ‘car.’ (‘REL’ stands for ‘relative marker’.) Le-y-o DEM-AGR-that
moto car
e-n-tsha REL-AGR-new
o-yi-theng-ile i-fik-ile. REL.PERS2-AGR-buy-PERF AGR-arrive-PERF ‘that new car you bought has arrived’
Formal linguistic studies of syntactic phenomena in the Southern Bantu languages have frequently been cast in terms of the Chomskyan Principles and Parameters framework. Much of this work has concentrated on Xhosa rather than Zulu, e.g., Du Plessis and Visser (1992). Little or no work has been done in other frameworks such as Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar or Lexical Functional Grammar, although the latter has proved useful in descriptions of other Bantu languages such as Chew ˆ a (Nyanja).
Historical and Comparative Linguistics Like other languages in the east of the Bantu area, Zulu shows fricativization of stops before the ‘extra high’ vowels of proto-Bantu, which subsequently merged with the high vowels. There is no synchronic operation of Meinhof’s law or Dahl’s law, and the verbal suffixes (extensions) show no vowel harmony. The noun classes found in the language are (to use the numbering system by which they are known in Bantu studies) 1–7, 9–11, 14, and 15 (the last being used for the infinitive). Only fossilized versions of locative classes remain as adverbs, such as phansi ‘below.’ Unusually for a Bantu language, Zulu has noun suffixes, e.g., the feminine marker -kazi. Several of the original Bantu verbal suffixes survive only in unproductive forms (e.g., -ul- in words such as khumbula ‘remember’). The language is well known for its extensive borrowing of Khoi and San words and sounds, noticeably the click consonants in words such as iqhwa ‘snow.’ It has also incorporated many words from Afrikaans and English.
Sociolinguistics Zulu has certain marked speech forms which are of interest to sociolinguists. An example is hlonipha, the speech form traditionally used by married women,
who have to avoid words that sound like the names of any of their close male in-laws, and therefore acquire a radically altered vocabulary (see Herbert, 1990). Another example is isicamtho, a groupmarking variety used by young urban men, which has borrowed many words from English, often with radical change of meaning. There are several distinctive dialects of Zulu, and in some urban varieties the boundaries between Nguni languages have become less marked. In urban areas there is also much code switching between Zulu and the Sotho languages, and between Zulu and Afrikaans or English.
Current Research Directions Zulu has long been one of the most studied Bantu languages, and it remains a focus of much research in the areas discussed above, and also in new directions including child language acquisition (Suzman, 1996) and computational linguistics (Bosch and Pretorius, 2002).
Bibliography Bosch S E & Pretorius L (2002). ‘The significance of computational morphological analysis for Zulu lexicography.’ South African Journal of African Languages 22, 11–20. Canonici N (1990). ‘Noun classes and subclasses.’ South African Journal of African Languages 10, 52–58. Cope A T (1984). ‘An outline of Zulu grammar.’ African Studies 43, 83–104. Doke C M (1927). Textbook of Zulu grammar. Johannesburg: Longman. Du Plessis J A & Visser M W (1992). Xhosa syntax. Pretoria: Via Afrika. Grout L (1859). The isiZulu: a grammar of the Zulu language. Pietermaritzburg: May and Davis. Herbert R K (1990). ‘Hlonipha and the ambiguous woman.’ Anthropos 85, 455–473. Khumalo J S M (1987). An autosegmental account of Zulu phonology. Ph.D. thesis, University of the Witwatersrand. Poulos G & Msimang C T (1998). A linguistic analysis of Zulu. Cape Town: Via Afrika. Suzman S M (1996). ‘Acquisition of noun class systems in related Bantu languages.’ In Johnson C & Gilbert J H (eds.) Children’s language 9. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 87–104.
INDEX NOTES Cross-reference terms in italics are general cross-references, or refer to subentry terms within the main entry (the main entry is not repeated to save space). Readers are also advised to refer to the end of each article for additional cross-references - not all of these cross-references have been included in the index cross-references. The index is arranged in set-out style with a maximum of three levels of heading. Major discussion of a subject is indicated by bold page numbers. Page numbers suffixed by T and F refer to Tables and Figures respectively. vs. indicates a comparison. Subentries (or subsubentries) to a specific index entry having the same page number, have been included to indicate the breadth of the discussion (as opposed to just the location), as additional assistance to the reader. This index is in letter-by -letter order, whereby hyphens and spaces within index headings are ignored in the alphabetization. Prefixes and terms in parentheses are excluded from the initial alphabetization.
A Aasen, Ivar Andreas, Norwegian 785 Abbey 631 see also Kwa languages Abe´ 631 see also Kwa languages Abhidhamma Pitaka 831–832 Abidji 631 see also Kwa languages Abkhaz 1–2 case markers 1–2 classification 251 grammar 1 history 1 influence from other languages 2 orthography 1 phonemes 1 potential/involuntary constructions 2 preverbal grade systems 2 relative strategy 2 Stative-Dynamic opposition 2 use of 1 verbal complexity 2 see also Caucasian languages; Georgian; North Caucasian languages Abkhazia Armenian 68 Caucasian languages 192 Abnaki classification 24 see also Algonquin languages Abnormalities, North American native language variation 756 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages language relationships 80 linguistic characteristics 80 use of, Australia 79 Aboriginal English 82 Aboriginal languages use of 79 see also Australian languages; Native American languages Absolutive Afroasiatic languages 13 Arrente 74 Australian languages 81 Caucasian languages 195 South Asia 62–63 Abun classification 1176 nominal complex, genders 1177 tone 1177 verbal complex, Tense-Mood-Aspect 1176 see also West Papuan languages Abure 631 see also Tano languages Acehnese use of 99 see also Austronesian languages
Achagua stress 60 see also Arawak languages Achi’ 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Achuan languages 504 classification 505 see also Hokan languages Acrolect 868 Actionality (Aktionsart), Russian verbs 907 Active, Old Irish 453 Active participles, in introflecting language 51, 51t Acute, French orthography 428 Adam, L, Cariban language classification 183 Adamawa-Ubangi languages 771 classification 768–769 grammar 3 noun classes 3 phonetics/phonology 3 study of 2 SVO 3 syntax 3 use of 771 Nigeria 771 speaker numbers 2 verbs 3 workers in 2 see also Benue-Congo languages; Dogon; Gur (Voltaic) languages; Kordofanian languages; Niger-Congo languages Adele 631 see also Togo Mountain languages Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages 322 dwindling domains 323–324 language vitality assessment 324–325 Adi 968–969 see also Tani languages Adjectives Arabic 51 Arike´m 1106 Balkan linguistic area 126, 127t Bantu languages 140 Bengali 149 Brahui 163 Cubeo 1099 Czech 277 Danish 280 Desano 1098, 1099 Domari 296 Dravidian languages 298 English, Modern 330–331 Finnish (Suomi) 414 French 429 Gondi 456 Greek, Ancient 463 Hebrew, Israeli 487 Hokan languages 508 introflecting language 51 Kapampangan 579
Kinyarwanda 608 Kurukh 627 Latin 642 Luxembourgish 659–660 Macuna 1098 Monde´ 1106 Ossetic 815 Persian, Old 853 Portuguese 884 Punjabi 887–888 Ramara´ma 1106 Retuara/Tanimuca 1099 Romani 899 Secoya 1099 Siona 1099 Siriano 1099 Slovak 978–979 Slovene 983 Somali 988 Tariana 1051 Telugu 1057 Tiwi 1066–1067 Tucano 1099 Tucanoan languages 1098, 1099, 1099t Tungusic languages 1104 Tupian languages 1106 Tuyuca 1099, 1099t Wambaya 1162–1163 Wolaitta 1181 Adjukru 631 see also Kwa languages Admiralties languages 99 see also Austronesian languages Adpositionals, Oto-Mangean languages 822 Adstratum relationship see Linguistic areas Afar (Qafar) number of speakers 272–273 verb person marking 274–275, 275f see also Cushitic languages Affixation in introflecting language 52 types circumfix 287 infix 287 prefix see Prefixes suffix see Suffix(es) see also Affixes; Clitic(s) Affixes diachronicity 287 in isolating language 221 nominal forms 290 roots vs., agglutinating vs. fusional languages 554 verbs language types 288 position determination 290 Afghanistan languages Balochi 134, 538 Brahui 162–163 Dardic languages 282 Indo-Iranian languages 531 Iranian languages 537
1218 Index Afghanistan (continued) Kazakh 588 Modern Persian 538, 850 Uzbek 1145 official languages, Pashto 538, 845 Africa Islam see Islam languages see African languages as linguistic area 3–7 consonants 4–5 early work 4 isopleth mapping 6, 6f logophoric marking 5 ‘Pan-African properties,’ 4, 5t phonology 4 quantitative evidence 5 types 5t long-range comparisons 652–653 see also Areal Linguistics; Balkan linguistic area; Bantu languages; Chadic languages; Ethiopia; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Europe, as Linguistic Area; Hausa; Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages African-American English (AAE) 334 USA 1125 see also African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) 334–339 aspectual markers 336 auxiliary system 335–336 discourse 335 uncensored speech 335 future 335–336 habitual 336 history/development 334–335, 337 ‘Anglicist’ theory 337 Creole theory 337 influence from other languages 337 variation theory 337 lexicon 335 misrepresentation 335 negative concord 336 negative inversion 336 phonology 336 initial voiced stop deletion 336 plurals 336 possessives 336 pronouns 336 resultative 336 Southern White Vernacular English (SWVE) 335 stigma 335 syntax 335 use of 334–335 see also African-American English (AAE); Creoles; English; Gullah; Pidgins African languages lexicostatistics 248–249 SVO 5 see also specific languages Afrihili 76 Afrikaans 7–12 apartheid 8 classification 251–252 concord 9 formal features 8 Dutch vs. 8, 9 history 7 Bible translation 7–8 influence from other languages 9, 11 Bantu 11 Creole Portuguese 9, 11 Dutch 7–8, 310 English 8 Khoekhoe 7–8, 9, 11 Malay 8, 9, 11 influence on other languages, Fanagalo 411 morphology 8–9 as official language, South Africa 7 script, Arabic 10 SVO 9 Taalmonument 9, 9f use of 7 Namibia 7
varieties 8 Kaape Afrikaans 8, 9f Oosgrens Afrikaans 8, 9f Oranjeriver Afrikaans 8, 9f word order asymmetry 9 see also Dutch; Germanic languages; IndoEuropean languages; Krio; Zulu Afroasiatic languages 12–15, 206, 929 absolutive 13 classification 12, 250 ergative 14 geographical origin 12 grammar nominal forms 13 plural formation 13 pronouns 13 subject agreement 14 investigational history 12 Hamitic theory 12 racial prejudice 12 Nilo-Saharan languages vs. 773–774 Nostratic theory 653–654, 786 phonetics 14 shared features 13 use of 12 see also Akkadian; Amharic; Arabic; Berber languages; Chadic languages; Coptic; Cushitic languages; Eblaite; Egyptian; Ethiopian Semitic languages; Ge’ez; Hausa; Hebrew; Hebrew, Israeli; Hebrew, Pre-Modern; Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages; Maltese; Nilo-Saharan languages; Omotic languages; Oromo; Semitic languages; Somali; Tigrinya; Wolaitta Agar see Dinka Agariya 736 see also Munda languages Agaw use of 272–273 see also Cushitic languages Agglutinating languages 291, 731, 732 Balinese 117–118 Cupen˜o 270 Finnish 415–420 fusional languages vs. see Fusional languages Georgian, Old 291 Hurrian 516 index of fusion 291 index of synthesis 291 Luganda 657–658 Manambu 693 Nenets (Yurak) 762 other types vs. 733t Quechua languages 892 Ahanta 631 see also Tano languages Ahmaogak, Roy, Inupiaq writing 535–536 Aht see Nuuchahnulth Ainu 15–17 adverbs 16–17 applicative extension 17 classification 249 genetic affiliations 15–16 nouns 16 oral literature 15 phonology 16 assimilatory/dissimilatory processes 16 consonants 16 pitch accent system 16 vowels 16 plural verbs 16 possession 16 postpositions 17 related languages, Japanese 557 SOV 15–16 subordinating conjugations 17 suffixes 16 use of, Japan 15 verbs 16 word order 17 Aizi 624 see also Kru languages
Aja (Aja-gbe) 631–632 see also Gbe languages Aka speaker numbers 772–773 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Akan 17–20 consonants 18 dialects 17 Asante 17 Fante 17 dictionaries 17–18 ethnography 18 grammars (books) 17–18 history/development 17 influence on other languages 18 morphology 19 nouns 19, 632 orthography 18 phonology 18 possessives 19 postpositions 19 serial constructions 19 sociolinguistics 18 SVO 19 syntax 19 tone 19, 632 use of Ghana 17 speaker numbers 18 verbs 19 vowel harmony 19 vowels 19 word order 19 workers in 17–18 see also Kwa languages Akateko 705–706 official recognition 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Akita 517 Akkadian 20–22, 930 dialects 20 see also Assyrian; Babylonian dictionaries 21 grammars (books) 21 use of 20 VSO 21 see also Afroasiatic languages; Assyrian; Babylonian; Eblaite; Persian, Old; Semitic languages; Sumerian Akkala Saami speaker numbers 911 see also Saami Aktionsart (actionality), Russian verbs 907 Akuntsu classification 1106t see also Tupian languages Akupem dialect 17 Akuriyo use of 185f see also Cariban languages Akyem dialect 17 Alabama 738–739 agreement type 741 vowel length 740 Alabama-Koasati 749 see also Muskogean languages Alacaluf 41 see also Andean languages Albania, Republic of Albanian 22 Macedonian 663 Romanian 901 Albanian 22–24 classification 251 codification 23 dialects 23 Arbe¨resh 23 Arvanitika 23 Gheg 23 Tosk 23 geographic spread 22 as official language 22 origins/development 22
Index 1219 phonemes 22 scripts 23 use of 22 emigration effects 23 Italy 545 linguistic pockets 23 vocabulary 22 see also Balkan linguistic area; Indo-European languages Alesea-Siuslaw 750 Aleut 373 agreement system 373 classification 251 consonants 373 dialects 373 history 371 influences from other languages, Russian 373 labial stops 373 pronouns 373 use of 373 see also Eskimo-Aleut languages Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst 308 Algeria Berber 152 Songai languages 990–991 Algic classification 25 see also Algonquin languages Algonquin languages 24–30, 748 circumfixes 287–288 classification 24, 252 ‘Central’ languages 24 Eastern Algonquin 24 Great Plains 25 Illinois 25 Indiana 25 Michigan 25 classifiers 28 conjunct order 27 demography 26 derivational morphology 27 dialects 754 dictionaries 29 documentation 28 grammars (books) 29 imperative order 27 influences from other languages, English 24 intransitive verbs 27 mixed languages 28 pidgins 28 morphology 27 nominals 27 noun phrases 28 nouns 27 philology 28 phonology 26 possession 27 syntax 28 verb inflections 27 vocatives 27 word order 27, 28 see also Abnaki; Algic; Arapaho; Central Siberian Yupik; Cree; Michif; Mobilian Jargon (Mobilian); Native American languages; Polysynthetic languages; Ritwan languages Algonquin-Ritwan hypothesis 651 Algonquin-Wakashan languages 747–748 Alienability Europe 394–395 Somali 988 Alladian 631 see also Kwa languages Allomorphs, in agglutinating languages 417, 419 Alphabets, Italian 547 Alsea-Siuslaw see Penutian languages Altaic languages 30–33 classification 250 Nostratic theory 249 influence on other languages Japanese 557 Sino-Tibetan languages 970 as ‘Micro-Altaic,’ 30 Nostratic theory 653–654, 786
Turkic-Mongol-Tungusic relationship 30 as ‘Ural-Altaic,’ 30 workers in Castre´n, M A 30 Polivanov, E D 31–32 Ramstedt, Gustaf John 31 see also Azerbaijanian; Chuvash; Evenki; Japanese; Kazakh; Kirghiz; Korean; Mongolia; Mongol languages; Ryukyuan; Tungusic languages; Turkic languages; Turkish; Tu¨rkmen; Uralic languages; Uyghur; Uzbek; Yakut Alternation, in agglutinating languages 418–419 Alutor classification 239 speaker numbers 239–240 see also Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages Alyawarra (Alyawarr) pronouns 90–91 see also Australian languages Alyutor see Alutor American English African-American Vernacular see AfricanAmerican Vernacular English British English vs. lexis 330 morphology/syntax 332 orthography 328 phonology 329 concord 336 development 344 use of 1123 American languages, native see North American native languages American Sign Language (ASL) 956 use of 1127 Amerindian languages, long-range comparisons 649, 652, 653 Amharic 33–36 accent 34 case system 34–35 consonants 34, 34t converbs 35 earliest records 33 influence from other languages, Cushitic languages 33 IPA vs. 34 morphology 34 negation 35 phonology 34 plurals 34–35 pronoun object markers 35 SOV 36 syllable structure 34 syntax 36 TMA marking 35 use of 33, 382–383, 929 Ethiopia 33 as first language 33 as L2 33 verbs 35 vowels 34 word order 36 writing 33–34 see also Afroasiatic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Ethiopian Semitic languages; Ge’ez; Semitic languages Amis classification 421 dialects 421 research history 423 speaker numbers 421 see also Formosan languages Ammonite, Phoenician vs. 854 Amto-Musian languages, geographical distribution 840–841 Amuesha 41 predicate structure 60 see also Andean languages Amusgo classification 819–821 syllable onsets 821–822 see also Oto-Mangean languages
Amuzgoan languages 751 see also Oto-Mangean languages Amwi 595 Anal classification 968–969 see also Kuki-Chin languages Analytic case relations, Balkan linguistic area 125 Analytic gradations, adjectives, Balkan linguistic area 126, 127t Analytic subjunctives, Balkan linguistic area 127, 128t Anatolian languages 36–38 classification, genetic classification 246 dialects 37 noun morphology 37 historical aspects 36 iterative 37 lexicon 37 morphology 37 nouns 37 origins 38 particles 37 phonology 36 vowel system 36–37 reconstruction 246 verbs 37 see also Indo-European languages Ancestral languages, genetic classification 246 Ancient Egyptian see Egyptian Ancient Greek see Greek, Ancient Andaqui, long-range comparison 653 Andean languages 40–42 classification 40 definition 40 ergative 40 extinct varieties 41 types 40 use of Argentina 41 Bolivia 41 Chile 41 Colombia 40 Ecuador 41 Panama 40 Patagonia 41 Peru 41 Venezuela 40 see also Alacaluf; Amuesha; Arawak languages; Aymara; Cariban languages; Chibchan languages; Quechua languages Andersen, Torben, Dinka 293 Andi vowels 193, 193t see also Caucasian languages Andorra, Catalan 188, 191 Anem geographical distribution 841 see also West New Britain languages Angal Enen see Mendi (Angal Enen) Angan languages classification 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Angkuic languages 727 see also Palaung-Wa languages ‘Anglicist’ theory, African-American Vernacular English development 337 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 357 Angola, Portuguese 883 Angry register, Bikol 160 Anhui classification 969 see also Hui languages Animere 631 see also Togo Mountain languages Anticausative-prominence, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Antilles 307 Antonyms/antonymy see Negation Anufo 631 see also Tano languages Anyi 631 see also Tano languages Apalachee 739
1220 Index Apalai phonology 183–184 reduplication 184 Apartheid, Afrikaans 8 Apatani classification 968–969 see also Tani languages Apinaje´ as ergative language 668 word order 667–668 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages a posteriori languages, artificial languages 77 a priori languages, artificial languages 77 Arabic 42–50 accusative 46 adjectives 48 agreement 48 Classical see Arabic, Classical classification 250 derivational morphology 45 dialects 43, 54 agreement 49 auxiliary verbs (aspect neutralizers) 49 Bedouin 54 case system 47 ‘genitive exponents,’ 49 modern Arabic dialect groups 54 morphology 47 phonology 45 pronouns 47 Sedentary 54 syntax 49 types 43–44 verbs 47 word order 49 diminutives 52 equational sentences 48 genders 46 genitive 46 history of 42 oral traditions 42–43 imperfective 47 imperfect tense 46–47 inflectional morphology 52 affixations 52 dual 52 pronominal subject markers 52, 52t sound plural 52 influence on other languages 43 Bengali 148 Berber 153 Domari 295, 296 French 429 Hindi 495–496 Kashmiri 582–583 Malayalam 680–681 New Iranian languages 538 Punjabi 889 Spanish 1020 Yanito 1202 as introflecting language 50–53 language spread 318 Middle 932 modern see Modern Standard Arabic Modern Southern 931 morphology 45 negation 48 neologisms 45 nominal annexations 48 nominative 46 North see Arabic, North; below nouns 51 adjectives 51 broken plurals 52 ‘broken’ plurals 52 comparatives 52 diminutives 52 elatives 52 finite verb stems 51, 51t noun inflexion 46 singular nouns 51 ‘sound’ plurals 52 superlatives 52
number system 46 cardinal numbers 48 as official language 42 Israel 42, 485 Mauritania 42 Oman 42 Old Southern 931 OVS 49 perfect 46, 51 phonology 44 consonants 44, 44t religious use 44 syllabic structure 44 vowels 44 pronouns 46, 47t relative clauses 48 root and pattern 45–46, 50, 50f consonantal roots 50 noun stems 50 verb stems 50 Southern see below subordination 48 SVO 47 syntax 47 tense and aspect 47 tenses 45, 46t see also specific tenses use of 42, 929 Chad 42 Iran 42 Islam 42 Nigeria 42 Turkey 42 variation see Arabic, variation verbs 50, 51t active participles 51, 51t passive participles 51, 51t verb inflexion 46 vocalic melody 51 VSO 47 word order 47 see also Afroasiatic languages; Arabic; Arabic, as introflecting language; Arabic, variation; Aramaic; Central Siberian Yupik; Modern Standard Arabic (MSA); Morphological Types; Persian, Modern; Polysynthetic languages; Punjabi; Semitic languages; Syriac; Turkic languages; Turkish; Urdu Arabic, Classical 43, 932 influence on other languages 43 see also Islam; Semitic languages Arabic, Middle 932 see also Semitic languages Arabic, North 931 Hasaitic 931–932 Hismaic 932 Oasis dialects 932 Safaitic 932 Thamudic 932 see also Semitic languages Arabic, Southern Modern 931 Old 931 see also Semitic languages Arabic, variation 53–56 Arab world countries 53 common variations 54 dialect contact 55–56 education 55 gender 55 social class 55 historical aspects 53 British and French influence 53–54 Ottoman Turkish Empire 53–54 Standard Arabic 54 see also Arabic; Berber languages Arabic Persian, influence on other languages, Azerbaijanian 112 Arabic script Afrikaans 10 Azerbaijanian 111 Fulfulde 430 Kazakh 589
Kirghiz 611 Malagasy 674–675 Modern Persian 850 Pashto 846 Turkmen 1117 Uyghur 1143 Uzbek 1146 Aramaic 56–59, 932, 934 classification 250 dialects 57, 929 spoken dialects 58 Syriac see Syriac influence from other languages, Judeo-Arabic 568 influence on other languages 57 Jewish languages 566 Yiddish 567, 1205 Late 934 literary dialects 56 Middle 57–58, 934 Modern (Neo-Aramaic) 934 use of 934 see also Semitic languages Official (Imperial) 57, 934 see also Semitic languages Old 57, 934 writings 57–58 see also Semitic languages origin/expansion 56 religious communities 57 use of 929 Azerbaijan 58 biblical texts 483 East Syrian Christians 58 Egypt 56 geographical distribution 56 Iran 56 Judaic commentaries 58 Kurdistan 58 Syrian Orthodox Church 58 in Talmud 483 Turkey 58 see also Afroasiatic languages; Arabic; Hebrew; Iranian languages; Modern Standard Arabic (MSA); Persian, Modern; Semitic Languages; Sogdian; Syriac Aranama 751 see also Native American languages Arapaho speaker numbers 26 stress 26 see also Algonquin languages Arapesh (Bukiyip: Muhiang) class systems 1078 see also Torricelli languages Arara use of 185f see also Cariban languages Araucanian 752 see also Native American languages Arawakan 750 see also Native American languages Arawak languages 40 affiliations, Mapudungan languages 701 classification 252–253 classifiers 60, 61 as endangered languages 59 genders 61 genetic unity 59–60 influence on other languages 59 lexicon 61 negation 61 nouns 61 plurals 61 predicate structure 60 prefixes 60 pronominal suffix loss 60 stress 60 suffixes 60 tones 60 use of 59 verbs 60 workers in 60 see also Achagua; Andean languages; Guarequena (Warekena)
Index 1221 Arbe¨resh 23 Archeology, Indo-European language classification 530 Archi phonetics 193, 193t see also Caucasian languages Ardabil classification 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian Areal linguistics 62–68 definition 62 genetic relationships 66 language subgroupings 65, 65t linguistic reconstruction 65 Native American languages 746 see also Africa; Africa, as linguistic area; Balkan linguistic area; Ethiopia; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Kashmiri; Linguistic areas; Southeast Asian languages; Wakashan languages Arem 728–729 see also Chut languages Argentina Andean languages 41 Guaranı´ 467 Inga´in 666–667 Italian 545 Macro-Jeˆ languages 666–667 Mapudungan languages 701 Quechua 891 Argobba use of 382–383 see also Ethiopian Semitic languages Argumentatives see Diminutives Ari 805 long-range comparisons 652–653 see also Omotic languages Arikara 749 see also Caddoan languages Arike´m adjectives 1106 classification 1106t tone system 1106 see also Tupian languages Armenia 68 Armenian languages 68–72 alphabet 70t classification 251 genetic classification 246 development 69–70 examples 70 Greek vs. 68–69 Hu¨bschmann, Heinrich 68–69 Indo-Iranian vs. 68–69 nouns 69 phonology 69 pronouns 69 reconstruction 246 sound correspondences 650–651 subordinate clauses 69 use of 68 verbal conjugations 69 vocabulary 69 written records 69 see also Indo-European languages; Romani Aromanian 901 Arrernte 72–75 absolutive 74 Bible translation 73 changes 73–74 classification 72–73 consonants 73, 73t ergative 74 history 72–73 kinship interactions 74 monosyllabic words 74 morphology 74 pronouns 74 study of 73 syllables 73–74 use of 72–73 geographical distribution 72–73, 72f
vowels 73–74 see also Australian languages; Kaytetye; Morrobalama; Warlpiri Ars Magna (Raymundus Lullus) 76 Arte de la Lengua Bisaya de la Provincia de Leite 915 Articles, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Artificial languages a posteriori languages 77 a priori languages 77 auxiliary languages 75–76, 77 classification systems 77 constructors 75 definition 75 grammar 77 hypothesis testing 76 idioms 77 International Auxiliary Language Association 77 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis 76 semantics 77 vocabulary 77 workers in Brown, James Cooke 76 de Wahl, Edgar 77 Hildegarde of Bingen, Saint 76 Llull, Ramo´n 76 Peano, Guiseppe 77 Schleyer, Johan Martin 76 Sudre, Francois 76 Wilkins, John 76 see also Esperanto Aru´a classification 1106t see also Tupian languages Aruba, Dutch 307 Arvanitika, Albanian dialects 23 Asante dialect, Akan 17 Ashkun 787 dialects 787 see also Nuristani languages Asho Chin 968–969 see also Kuki-Chin languages Asia South see South Asian languages Southeast see Southeast Asian languages Aslian languages 94–95 Malaysia 94–95 Thailand 94–95 see also Austroasiatic languages Asmat-Kamoro languages classification 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Asoka origins/development 523 see also Indo-Aryan languages Aspectual character 907 Aspectual class 907 Aspectual marking, sign language morphology 952 Aspirated voiceless stops, nonnative English 360 Aspiration Dardic languages 283 Scots Gaelic 927 Assamese 78–79 Bangladesh 78 Bengali vs. 78 classification 522 converbs 995 dialects 78 Hindi vs. 78 morphology 78 number of speakers 523 Oriya vs. 78 phonetics 78 phonology 525–526 vowels 526–527 pidgin 78 syntax 78 written 78 see also Indo-Aryan languages Assibilations, in agglutinating languages 418–419 Assyrian 20 influence from other languages, Phoenician 854
‘Assyrians,’ 1033 Astori classification 282 see also Astor languages Astor languages classification 282 see also Astori; Shina languages Asuri 736 see also Munda languages Ata use of 841 see also West New Britain languages Atacamen˜o 41 Atakapa 749 see also Muskogean languages Atayalic languages classification 421 see also Formosan languages dialects 421 dictionaries 423 research history 422–423 Athabaskan–Eyak–Tlingit (AEC) 743–745 classification 252 see also Na-Dene languages Atlantic Congo languages 770 classification 768–769 subgroups 770 use of 770 see also Niger-Congo languages Attie´ 631 see also Kwa languages Augmentative Bantu languages 140 Creek 264 Crow 269 French 428–429 North American native languages 757 Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) 789 Tupian languages 1106 Xhosa 1188 Australia 79–84 languages see Australian languages; specific languages Australian English 79, 82 loanwords 82 regional variation 82 social variation 82 use of 79, 82 Australian languages 84–92 Aboriginal 79 Aboriginal English 82 absolutive 81 avoidance language 91 classification 84, 250 Blake 84 Capell 84 O’Grady 84 community languages 81 consonants 86f Dutch 307 ergative 81, 87, 88–89 Fijian 412 Finnish 413 geographical distribution 84, 85f Gujarati 468 Italian 545 Kala Lagaw Ya 79 lexical roots 84 Meryam Mer 79 Modern Greek 464 morphology 87 Morrobalama 735 non-Pama-Nyungan languages 89 noun classes 89 noun phrases 89 phonology 86 pidgins and Creoles 81 pronominal forms 90–91, 91t pronouns 89–90, 90–91 secret languages 91 ‘mother-in-law’ languages 91 semantics 90 sign languages 91 SOV 90
1222 Index Australian languages (continued) stop sounds 86 syllables 86 syntax 87 Torres Strait Islander 79 vowels 86 word order 90 workers in Blake 84 Capell 84 Dixon, R M W 250 O’Grady 84 see also Aboriginal languages; Alyawarra (Alyawarr); Arrernte; Austronesian languages; Dien (Diyari); Gamilaraay; Guugu Yimithirr; Hungarian; Jiwarli; Kalkutungu; Kayardild; Kaytetye; Morrobalama; Pitjantjatjara; Tiwi; Wambaya; Warlpiri Australian Sign Language (Auslan) 82 Austria German 444 Hungarian 514 Slovene 981 Austric hypothesis 92–94 morphology 92 Nicobarese languages 92 phonology 92 Schmidt, Wilhelm 92 syntax 92 see also Austroasiatic languages; Austronesian languages; Mon-Khmer languages; SinoTibetan languages Austroasiatic languages 94–96 classification 250 development see Austric hypothesis influence on other languages, Sino-Tibetan languages 970 morphology 95 see also Aslian languages; Austric hypothesis; Austronesian languages; Burushaski; Khasi languages; Mon; Mon-Khmer languages; Munda languages; Santali; Sino-Tibetan languages; Southeast Asian languages; Wa Austronesian languages 96–105 classification 250, 685, 685f clause structure 100–101 comparative reconstruction 99 consonants 100 development 687 see also Austric hypothesis external genetic relationships 102 geographical spread 97, 103f Samoa 102 Tonga 102 historical interpretation 102 population movements 102 historical studies 98 internal genetic relationships 98 Japanese development 557 morphology 100 number of speakers 96–97 phonology 100 possessive forms 101 possessives 101 religious influences 97 structural diversity 98 subgroups 99 Admiralties subgroup 99 Central and Eastern Oceanic subgroup 99–100 Oceanic subgroup 99 Western subgroup 99 Tai-Kadai relation see Austro-Tai hypothesis use of 96, 97 Brunei 97 Indonesia 97, 99 Madagascar 97 Malaysia 97, 99 Philippines 97, 99 Singapore 97 Sulawesi 99 Sumbawa 99 Taiwan 97, 105
workers in Codrington, R H 98 Dempwolff, Otto 98 Dyren, Isidore 98 Panduro, Lorenzo Hervas 98 Reland, Hadrian 98 von der Gabeltenz, H C 98 see also Acehnese; Admiralties languages; Australian languages; Austroasiatic languages; Austro-Tai hypothesis; Ayatalic languages; Benue-Congo languages; Bikol; Cebuano; Creoles; Fijian; Flores languages; Formosan languages; Hiligaynon; Ilocano; Japanese; Javanese; Madurese; Malagasy; Malay; Malayo-Polynesian languages; Malukan languages; North Philippine languages; Papuan languages; Pidgins; Riau Indonesian; Samar-Leyte; South Asian languages; Tagalog; Tamambo; Trans New Guinea languages; Vure¨s; West Papuan languages Austro-Tai hypothesis 105–107 Benedict, P K 105 Ostapirat, W 105 Sagart, L 106 see also Austronesian languages; Tai Languages Austro-Tai languages, Benedict, Paul 249 Autolexical theory, West Greenlandic 1173–1175 Auvergnat see Occitan Auxiliary languages, artificial languages 75–76, 77 Avar morphology 194, 194t phonetics, vowels 193, 193t see also Caucasian languages Avestan 107–108, 537 classification 251–252 inflectional morphology 108 lexicon 108 manuscripts 107–108 nominal systems 539 nouns 533 Old Persian divergence 107 Old vs. Younger 107 oral tradition 107 origin/development 107 pronominal systems 539 Sanskrit vs. 918–919 texts 107 verbs 108, 539 word order 534 Zoroastrianism 107 see also Indo-European languages; Indo-Iranian languages; Iranian languages; Pashto; Persian, Modern; Persian, Old; Sanskrit; Sogdian Avikam 631 see also Kwa languages Awa´ classification 224 use of 224 Awakateko 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Awetı´ classification 1106t morphology, ideophones 1106–1107 see also Tupian languages Awutu 631 see also Guang languages Awyu-Dumut languages classification 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Ayapa Zorque see Mixe-Zoquean languages Ayatalic languages classification 250–251 see also Austronesian languages; Formosan languages Aymara 752 agglutinating structure 109 Cauqui languages vs. 108 dialects 109 dictionaries 109 evidentiality 109
grammar 109 history 109 Jaqaru languages vs. 108 lexicon 108–109 morphology 109 nominalization 109–110 nouns 109 Quecha languages vs. 108–109 suffixes 109 use of 108 velar nasal consonants 109 verbs 109 vowels 109 workers in, Bertonio, Ludovico 109 see also Andean languages; Native American languages; Quechua languages Aymaran languages 41 Quechua vs. 891 use of 41 Ayrum classification 112 see also Azerbaijanian Ayuru´ classification 1106t see also Tupian languages Azerbaijan Aramaic 58 Armenian 68 Azerbaijanian 110, 1112 Caucasian languages 192 Georgian 442 Azerbaijanian 110–113, 1109, 1112 as agglutinative language 111 dative forms 112 dialects 112 grammar 112 influence from other languages Arabic-Persian 112 Persian 112 Russian 110–111 Turkish 110–111 language contacts 110 lexicon 112 origin/history 110 perfect 112 perfect markers 112 phonology 111 present-tense maker 112 related languages 110 sound harmony 111 use of 110 Azerbaijan 110, 1112 Iran 112–113, 1112 speaker numbers 110 vowel harmony 111 vowels 111 written language 111 see also Altaic languages; Ardabil; Ayrum; Turkic languages; Turkish; Tu¨rkmen Aztec see Nahuatl Aztecan classification 1139 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Aztec-Tanoan languages, historical aspects 747–748
B Babylonian 20, 930 influence from other languages, Phoenician 854 see also Akkadian; Semitic languages; Sumerian Baby talk North American native language variation 757 vocabulary, Hopi 513–514 Bactrian 115–116, 538 classification 251–252 declensions 540 definite articles 540 ergative 115 future 116 genders 115, 540 Greek script 115 history 115
Index 1223 past tenses 541 perfect 115 pronouns 541 verbs 115 see also Iranian languages Badaga, Malayalam vs. 682 Bahnar speaker numbers 726 see also Bahnaric languages Bahnaric languages 724 classification 725–726 dialects 726 morphology, verbs 725 use of 725–726 speaker numbers 726 see also Laven (Boloven); Mon-Khmer languages Bai languages classification 969 morphology 970 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Baining languages geographical distribution 841 see also Papuan languages Bakairi geographical distribution 185f morphemes 184–185 phonology 183–184 see also Cariban languages Balangaw (Balango) phonology 784 see also North Philippine languages Balango see Balangaw (Balango) Balanta 770 see also Atlantic Congo languages Bali 116 Balinese 116–119 as agglutinating language 117–118 consonants 117 dialects 117 dictionaries 118 grammars (books) 118 history 116 literary tradition 116–117 influence from other languages, Javanese 116–117 morphosyntax 117 orthography 117 lontar writing 117 Old Javanese script 117 Roman script 117 phonology 117 sociolinguistics 116 status importance 116–117 syllable structure 117 use of 99, 116 vowels 117 word order 118 see also Austronesian languages; Javanese; Malayo-Polynesian languages Balkan linguistic area 62, 119–134 adjectives 126, 127t analytic case relations 125 analytic subjunctives 127, 128t causation 132 concord 125 consonants 122 derivational morphology 131 evidentiality 130–131 future 129, 129t negated future tense 129t in past as conditional 129, 129t will/have future tense 128, 129t genitive-dative merging 125 grammaticalized definiteness 123 have perfect tense 129 lexicon 131 morphosyntax 123 numeral formation 127, 127t perfect 130t phonology 122 possessives 124 postpositions 122 pronominal object doubling 124
prosody 123 reduplication 124 replication 124 resultative 126 resumptive clitic compounds 124 semantics 131 sociolinguistics 132 language prestige 132, 132f stressed schwa 122 SVO 131 vowel raising 122 vowel reduction 122 word order 130 clitic ordering 130 constituent order 131 see also Africa; Africa, as linguistic area; Albanian; Areal linguistics; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Europe, as linguistic area; Greek, ancient; Greek, modern; Latin; Macedonian; Old Church Slavonic; Romani; Romanian; Sanskrit; South Asian languages; Southeast Asian languages; Turkish Balkans definition 119 languages of 119, 120 linguistic history 121 see also Balkan linguistic area; Europe, as Linguistic Area Balkan Sprachbund, Romanian 902 Balochi 134–135 case system 134 consonants 134 dialects 134 lexicon 135 morphology, declensions 540 oral tradition 134 use of 134, 538 verbs 134–135 see also Iranian languages; Pashto Baltic languages classification 251–252 see also Indo-European languages Balto-Slavic languages 135–136 Brugmann, K 135 definition 135 Endzelin, J 135–136 Meillet, A 135–136 phonology 135 possessives 136 see also Belorussian; Bulgarian; Church Slavonic; Czech; Latvian; Lithuanian; Macedonian; Old Church Slavonic; Polish; Russian; Slavic languages; Slovene; Sorbian Baluchi classification 251–252 see also Iranian languages Banda languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Bangladesh Assamese 78 Bengali 148 Burmese 170 Indo-Aryan languages 522 Khasi 595 Munda languages 736 Sino-Tibetan languages 968 Urdu 522–523, 1133 Baniata see Touo (Baniata) Baniwa classifiers 61 verbs 60 see also Arawak languages Bantu languages 136–143 adjectives 140 augmentative 140 classification 771–772 clicks 1017–1018 concord 140 consonants 139 Dahl’s law 139 demography 136 diminutives 1018–1019 downstep 139
Efik vs. 314–315 endangered types 137 future 141 genders 140 influence on other languages Afrikaans 11 Luo 659 Katupha’s law 139 Meinhof’s law 139 morphemes 140–141 morphology 140 multilingual communities 136–137 nouns 140 classes 140 phrases 141–142 obligatory contour principle (OCP) 139–140 origin/history 137 phonology 138 pronouns 140 relative markers 141 spirantization 139 SVO 141–142 syntax 141 tenses 141 tonality 139 tone spreading 139–140 types 138 verbs 140 vowels 138–139 length 139 word order 141–142 see also Africa; Africa, as linguistic area; Bantu languages, Southern; Benue-Congo languages; Fanagalo; Kinyarwanda; Luganda; Mambila; Niger-Congo languages; Nyanja; Shona languages; Swahili; Xhosa; Zulu Bantu languages, Southern 1017–1020 classification 1017 click consonants 1018 concord 1018 definition 1017 morphology 1018–1019 noun class 1018 perfect 1017 phonology 1018 prefixes 1018–1019 special characteristics 1018–1019 SVO 1019 syntax 1019 use of 1017 vowel systems 1018 word order 1019 see also Bantu languages; Shona languages; Xhosa; Zulu Bara´ see Waimaja/Bara´ Barasano/Taiwano morphemes 1096 nasalization 1095–1096 speaker numbers 1092t verbs 1099–1100 vowels 1092–1093 word order 1096 see also Tucanoan languages Barbacoan languages 40–41 see also Andean languages Bare pronominal suffix loss 60 see also Arawak languages Barı´ see Chibchan languages Barrett, Samuel A, Pomo language classification 878 Baru/Lave´ speaker numbers 726 see also Bahnaric languages Barupu (Warupu) 974 see also Skou languages Basay-Tobiawan classification 421 see also Formosan languages Bashkarik vowels 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages
1224 Index Bashkir 143–144 consonants 143–144 dialects 144 origin/history 143 phonology 143 related languages 143 SOV 143 vowel harmony 143–144 vowels 143 written language 143 see also Kazakh; Tatar; Turkic languages ‘Basic words, lexicostatistics 248 Basilect 867 Basque 144–147 and Amerind 655 articles 146 classification 249 consonants 145 demonstratives 146 dialects 145 ergative 145–146 grammar 145–146 morphology 145 noun phrases 146 phonetics 145 relation to other languages 144 use of France 144–145 historical areas 145 Spain 144–145 verbs 145–146 vowels 145 word order 146 SOV 146 SVO 146 see also Spanish Bassa languages 770 Liberia 624 speaker numbers 623 see also Kru languages Baule 631 see also Tano languages Bazaar Hindustani 499 Bazaar Malay, Riau Indonesian vs. 895–896 Bedawiye see Beja (Bedwari: Bedawiye) Bedouin dialect 54 Beifang classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Mandarin Beijing Mandarin classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Mandarin Beja (Bedwari: Bedawiye) use of 272–273 see also Cushitic languages Beke, C T 13 Belgium Dutch 307, 310 French 427 German 444 Belize, Arawak languages 59 Bella Coola 749 see also Salishan languages Belorussian 147–148 classification 251–252, 974–975 Cyrillic alphabet 147 declensions 976–977 influence on other languages, Yiddish 1205 lexicon 147 morphology 147 nouns 147 origin/development 147 orthography 147 phonology 147 Russian vs. 147 Ukranian vs. 147, 1122–1123 use of 147 verbs 147 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Polish; Russian; Slavic languages; Ukranian Benedict, Paul 105, 249
Bengali 148–150 adjectives 149 aspirated vs. unaspirated sounds 148 Assamese vs. 78 classification 251–252, 522 correlative 148 dental vs. palatal sounds 148 dialects 148 habitual 149 impersonal structures 149–150 influence from other languages 148 locative ending 149 morphology 148 Nepali vs. 764 nouns 148 genitive nouns 148–149 number of speakers 523 object case 149 as official language 148 onomatopoeia 150 orthography 148 Devanagari script 148 passives 150 perfect 149 phonology 148, 525–526 postpositions 149 pronouns 149 special features 150 syntax 148 tonal system 525–526, 526–527 verbs compound verbs 996 conjugation 149 intransitive verbs 150 nonfinite verb forms 149 vowels 526–527 word order 148 SOV 148 writing systems, Nagari 524 see also Hindi; Indo-Aryan languages; IndoEuropean languages; Indo-Iranian languages; Persian, Modern; Persian, Old; Sanskrit; South Asian languages Benin Gur 770 Gur languages 472 Kwa 771 Kwa languages 630 Mande 769–770 Yoruba 1207 Benue-Congo languages 771 classification of 771f changes 151 concord 151 Greenberg, Joseph H 150 morphology 151 noun classes 151 phonology 151–152 subgroups 151 use of 771 geographical locations 151 Nigeria 771 verbs 151 word order 151 SVO 151 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages; Austronesian languages; Efik; NigerCongo languages Ben Yehuda, Eliezer, Israeli Hebrew development 485 Beothuk 751 classification 26 see also Algonquin languages; Native American languages Berber languages 12, 152–158 adjectival schemes 153–154, 154t aspect 156, 156t aspectual infections (Taqbaylit) 154, 154t case 154, 155t classification 250 Nostratic theory 249 clitics 155 consonants 153 constituent order 154
dialects 154 diminutives 154 genders 154 head marking 155 imperfective 156 influence from other languages, Arabic 153 morphology 153 negation 156–157, 157t negative form 156, 157t nominal schemes 153–154, 154t noun phrases 154 perfect 157t personal affixes 155 phonetics/phonology 153 plurals 154, 155t predicate nominals 155 attributive predication 156, 156t possession 156 progressive 156t relative clauses 155, 155t resources 157 resultative 156 stem composition 153–154 use of 152 Algeria 152 Egypt 152–153 geographical distribution 153f Libya 152–153 Mali 152 Morocco 152 Niger 152 Tuaregs 152 Tunisia 152–153 verbal derivational 154, 154t word order 155, 155t VSO 154 see also Afroasiatic languages; Arabic, variation Berbice Dutch Creole, classification 249t Bernola´k, Anton 980 Berta 775f Bertonio, Ludovico 109 Bete languages use of 623–624 speaker numbers 623 see also Kru languages Betoi 41 see also Andean languages Bhadrawahi vowels 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Bharatesvarabahubalirasa 468 Bhattani Punjabi classification 886 see also Punjabi Bhili phonology 525–526 see also Indo-Aryan languages Bhoi 596 Bhumij (Mudari) 736 see also Munda languages Bhutan Indo-Aryan languages 522 Nepali 764 Biaspectual verbs, Slovak 979 The Bible Aramaic 483 Hebrew 482 translations see The Bible, translations see also Aramaic; Syriac The Bible, translations Afrikaans 7–8 Arrernte 73 Dutch 308 Formosan languages 422 Gamilaraay 438 German 445 Krio 618 missionary movements see SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) Wa 1155 West Greenlandic 1175 Yoruba 1207 Bickerton, Derek, Creoles 861 Bikat Kahani 498
Index 1225 Bikol 158–161 angry register 160 case markers 159t demonstratives 159t dialect 158 dictionary 158–159 diminutives 160 distribution 158 Focus-Mood-Aspect morphology 159t future 159t grammar 158–159, 160 historic research 158 phonology 160 progressive 159t pronouns 159t use of 99, 158 written tradition 159–160 see also Austronesian languages; Hiligaynon; Malayo-Polynesian languages; North Philippine languages; Samar-Leyte; South Philippine languages Bilen Eritrea 272–273 see also Cushitic languages Bilingualism Franglais development 425 language endangerment and 325 language shift 326 trends 323–324 Biloxi 749 see also Siouan languages Bilua 841 classification 204 gender 205 use of 204 see also Central Solomons languages Binandere languages grammars (books) 1085–1086 see also Trans New Guinea languages Bioprogramming, Creole development 861 Birale classification 773 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Birhor 736 see also Munda languages Biseni 517 Bislama 161–162 aspect 162 classification 249t future 162 grammar 162 influence from other languages 162 lexicon 162 mood 162 origin/development 161 reduplication 162 tense 162 use of 161 word order 162 see also Creoles; Pidgins Bisorio see Iniai (Bisorio) Bisu classification 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Black English see African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) Blackfoot origin/development 28 speaker numbers 26 see also Algonquin languages Black Tai (Tai Dam) classification 1039 see also Tai languages Blake, B J 84 Bleek, Dorothea Frances Khoisan language 600–601 Niger-Congo languages 768 Blissymbolic 76 Bloomfield, Leonard, Proto-Algonquin reconstruction 26 Blust, Robert, Malayo-Polynesian languages 684 Bo 728–729 see also Muong languages Boas, Franz, Oneida 808
Bobo phonology 697–698 see also Mande languages Bodish languages classification 968–969 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Bodo classification 968–969 see also Bodo-Koch languages Bodo-Koch languages classification 968–969 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Body parts, Fulfulde taboos 432 Bokma˚l, Norwegian 785 Bolivia Andean languages 41 Arawak languages 59 Aymara 41, 108 Boro´ro (Otu´ke) 666–667 Chiquitano 666–667 Guaranı´ 467 Macro-Jeˆ languages 666–667 Panoan languages 833 Quechua 41 Boloven (Laven) 726 see also Bahnaric languages Bontok phonology 784 see also North Philippine languages Bopp, Franz, Malayo-Polynesian languages 684 Bor see Dinka Borneo, Malay 678–679 Bornu see Kanuri Boro´ro (Otu´ke) classification 665, 666, 666t use of 667 Bolivia 666–667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Borrowing linguistic areas vs. 67 long-range comparisons 651 nonnative English 360 Spanish 651–652, 653 Tunebo 651–652 see also Loanword(s) Bosnian 935 Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian Linguistic complex see Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian Linguistic Complex Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian Linguistic complex see Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian Linguistic Complex Botocudo see Krena´k (Botocudo) Botswana Shona 1017 Southern Bantu languages 1017 Tswana 1017–1018 Bouyei (Pu-yi) classification 1039 see also Tai languages Bowdich, Thomas 1207 Brahmi script 524 Brahui 162–166 adjectives 163 adverbs 163, 164 agreement 164, 164t classification 251 consonants 163, 164t dialects 163 gender 164 interjections 163 nouns 163, 164 accusative 301–302 case suffixes 164, 165t numerals 165 plural suffix 164, 165t post positions 164 number 164 particles 163, 164 phonology 163 pronouns 165 sentences without copular verb 164 syntax 163 use of 162–163
Afghanistan 162–163 Iran 162–163 Pakistan 162–163 verbs 165 finite verbs 165 future 164t, 165 nonfinite verbs 166 nonpast negative 164t, 165 past tense 165 perfect 165 present indicative 164t, 165 verb bases 165 voiceless stops 163 vowels 163, 163t word classes 163 word order 164 see also Dardic languages; Dravidian languages; Telugu Brain, structure and function, sign language 945 Brazil Arawak 59 Cariban languages 184f Chiquitano 666–667 Guaranı´ 467 Italian 545 Macro-Jeˆ languages 666–667 Panoan languages 833 Portuguese 883, 884 Tucanoan languages 1091 Breton 166–168 classification 200, 251–252 consonants 167 dictionaries 167 Gaulish vs. 166 grammars (books) 167 lexicon 167 mutation 167 origin/development 166 progressive 167 stress 167 survival measures 167 use of France 166 number of speakers 167 vowels 167 written forms 167 see also Brythonic Celtic; Celtic; Cornish; Welsh Brinton, Daniel G Native American languages 747 Uto-Aztecan languages 1140 British areal type 392–393 British English 361 American English vs. see American English British Sign Language (BSL) 956 ‘Broken’ plurals, in introflecting language 52 Brokskat classification 282 speaker numbers 283 see also Gilgit languages Brong dialect, Akan 17 Brown, James Cooke 76 Bru speaker numbers 726–727 see also Katuic languages Brugmann, Karl Balto-Slavic languages 135 Proto-Indo-European (PIE) 529 Brunei, Austronesian languages 97 Brythonic Celtic classification 200, 251–252 see also Celtic; Celtic, Insular Bua languages see Adamawa-Ubangi languages Buddhism Indo-Iranian languages 531–532 languages/texts Khmer (Cambodian) 600 Pa¯li see Pa¯li Sinhala 964 Tocharian 1069 Bugan 729 see also Mon-Khmer languages Bugis use of 99 see also Austronesian languages
1226 Index Buin 841 see also South Bougainville languages Bukharan see Judeo-Persian Bulgaria Gagauz 1112 Macedonian 663 Romani 898 Romanian 901 Turkish 1112 Bulgarian 168–170 classification 251–252, 974–975 dialects 168 imperfective 168 influence on other languages, Macedonian 663 morphology, declensions 976–977 perfect 169 phonology 168 related languages 168 resultative 169 tenses 168 future 169 renarrative construction 169 word order 169–170 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Church Slavonic; Macedonian; Old Church Slavonic; Slavic languages; Slovene Bunjwali classification 282 see also Kashmiri languages Bunun classification 421 dialects 421 research history 423 see also Formosan languages Burak languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Burji noun morphology 491t phonology 490–491, 490t use of 488–489, 488t see also Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages Burkina Faso Gur 770 Gur languages 472 Mande 769–770 Songai languages 990–991 Burma/Myanmar Burmese 170 Hindi 495 Karen languages 581 Khmuic languages 727 Mon 718, 727 Mon-Khmer languages 725 Palaung-Wa languages 727 Pa¯li 830 Sino-Tibetan languages 968 Tai-Kadai languages 105 Tai languages 1039 Tibetan 1060–1061 Wa 1155 Waic languages 728 Burmese 170–175 classification 968–969 compounding 173 consonants 171–172 derivational morphology 173 forms of address 173 glottal stops 172 history 170 influence on other languages, Wa 1156 literacy 173 morphemes 172–173 morphology 173 noun case markers 173 phonetics/phonology 171 postpositions 173 pronouns 173 script 170 affricates 171 alphabet 170 consonants 171 development 171 initial consonant clusters 171
Pa¯li influences 171 voiceless sonorants 171 vowels 171 as tone language 172 use of 170 verbal complex 173 voiceless nasals 171–172 vowels 172 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Buru speaker numbers 690 see also Malukan languages Burundi Kinyarwanda 604 Swahili 1026 Burushaski 175–180 case forms 176–177 classification 249 consonants 176 diminutives 176 double argument indexing 178 Hunza dialect 175 speaker numbers 175 influence from other languages 179 intransitive verbs 178 Nagar dialect 175 speaker numbers 175 noun classes 176 numerals 177 plurals 176 retroflexion 176 subordinate clauses 178–179 use of 175 bilingualism 175–176 speaker numbers 175 verbs 177–178 vowels 176 word order 178 SOV 178 Yasin dialect 175 speaker numbers 175 syntax 178 see also Austroasiatic languages; Dardic languages; South Asian languages Buryat 722 use of 723 see also Mongol languages Buschmann, Johann Carl 1140 Butam 841 see also East New Britain languages Buxinhua 729 see also Mon-Khmer languages Byzantine Greek, Romani influences 898–899
C Cabecar 653 Cacaopera classification 711 see also Misumalpan languages Caddo 749 see also Caddoan languages Caddoan languages 749 classification 252 grammars (books) 181 history 181 nouns 181 phonemes 181 scholarship 181 sentence structure 181 structure 181 verbs 181 see also Arikara; Wichita Cadorine classification 894 see also Ladin Cahuapanan languages 41 see also Andean languages Cambodia Bahnaric languages 725–726 Katuic languages 726–727 Khmer (Cambodian) 597 Mon-Khmer languages 725
Pa¯li 830 Pearic languages 728 Cambodian see Khmer (Cambodian) Cambridge History of the English Language 355 Camden, William, Pictish 856 Cameroons Adamawa-Ubangi languages 771 Fulfulde 430 Kanuri 578 Mambila 691 Camling, compound verbs 996–997 Campa languages predicate structure 60 use of 59 see also Arawak languages Campbell, L, Nostratic 653–654 Canaanite 932, 933 see also Semitic languages Canada Cree 261 Dutch 307 Estonian 377 Fijian 412 Finnish 413 French 427 Italian 545 Michif 709 Nuuchahnulth 788 Candoshi languages 41 see also Andean languages Canonical forms, sign language morphology 942f Cantiga da Ribeirinha 883 Cantiga de Garvaia 883 Cantiga d’Esca´rnio 883 Capell, A 84 Cape Verdean Creole 182–183 classification 249t history 182 influence from other languages 182 lexicon 182 reduplication 182 use of 182 see also Creoles; Pidgins Cape Verde Islands, Portuguese 883 Carapana accent/tone 1096 case markers 1096 consonants 1094t speaker numbers 1092t verbs 1099–1100 word order 1096 see also Tucanoan languages Caretaker language, North American native languages 757 Cariban languages 750 adverbs 186 class-changing 186 classification 183, 185–186 comparative studies 183 gender 184–185 lexicon 187 morphemes 184–185 morphology 184 negation 186 person-marking prefixes 185–186 phonology 183 possessives 184–185, 186 postpositions 186 reduplication 184 semantics 187 stops 183–184 subordinate clauses 186–187 suffixes 184 syntax 186 use of 40, 184f vowels 183–184 weight-sensitive stress 183–184 word order 186 OVS 186 workers in 183 see also Akuriyo; Andean languages; Arara Carib languages classification 252–253 Mapudungan language affiliations 701
Index 1227 Carochi, Horacio 745 Case in agglutinating languages 416 European linguistic area 398, 398f Case markers Abkhaz 1–2 Bikol 159t Burmese 173 Carapana 1096 Desano 1096, 1097 Guaranı´ 468 Macuna 1097 Pisamira 1097 Retuara/Tanimuca 1096 Samar-Leyte 916, 916t Siona 1097 Siriano 1096 Sumerian 1023, 1024t Tatuyo 1096, 1097 Tucanoan languages 1096 Tuyuca 1097 Casiguran Dumagat Agta phonology 784 see also North Philippine languages Castre´n, Matthias Alexander Altaic languages 30 Mongol languages 723 Catalan 188–192 demography 188, 190t dialects 189f, 190 genetic relationship 188 geography 188 history 190 Latin 190 literature 190–191 post-World War II 191 Occitan vs. 799 as official language 191 phonology 188–190 sociolinguistics 191 typological features 188 use of 188, 190t Andorra 188 France 188 Italy 188, 545 number of speakers 188 Spain 188 vocabulary 190 see also Indo-European languages; Portuguese; Romance languages; Spanish Catawban languages, Siouan languages vs. 972 Categoricals, nonobligatory, Southeast Asian languages 1011t Categories, neutrality, inflection see Inflection Caucasian languages 192–197 classification 251 consonants 193, 193t influence on other languages, Ossetic 814 kinships 196 morphology 194 nominative/absolutives 195 phonemes 193 phonetics 193 phonology 193 stress 194 postposition 195 Svan dialects 193, 193t syntax 195 use of 192 verbs 195 vowels 193, 193t, 194t word order 195 see also Abkhaz; Andi; Archi; Avar; Georgian; Lak Caucasian Sprachbund 392–393 Caudmont, Jean 226 Cauqui see Aymaran Causatives see Inflection Cayapa see Barbacoan languages Cayuga languages laryngeal features 543 stress 543 use of 543 see also Iroquoian languages
Cayuse 750 see also Penutian languages Cebuano 197–199 affixes 198, 199 consonants 197–198 deictics 198 demonstrative pronouns 198 dictionaries 197 glottal stops 197–198 grammars (books) 197 history 197 phonology 197–198 Tagalog vs. 197 use of 197 verbs 198 vowels 197–198 see also Austronesian languages; Samar-Leyte; Tagalog Cedilla, French orthography 428 Celtiberian classification 199–200 see also Celtic, Continental Celtic 199–201 classification 199–200, 251–252 genetic classification 246 Continental 199–200 history 199 influence on other languages, Old English 358 Insular 200 reconstruction 246 Tocharian 1070 Welsh vocabulary 1170 see also Breton; Cornish; Goidelic languages; Scots Gaelic; Welsh Central African Republic languages Adamawa-Ubangi languages 771 Fulfulde 430 official languages French 917 Sango 917 Central and Eastern Oceanic languages 99–100 Central German 445 Central Luwian 37–38 Central Malayo-Polynesian (CMP) 685 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages Central Semitic languages 931 imperfective 931 see also Semitic languages Central Siberian Yupik 201–204 enclitics 203 Greenlandic vs. 202 nouns 203 postbases 201–202 concatenative 203 in derivational morphology 202, 203t lexical category changing 203 productivity 202–203 recursion 203 syntax interaction 202, 203 variable order 202, 203 verb derivation 202 verb 203 see also Algonquin languages; Arabic; Arabic, as introflecting language; Caddoan languages; Crow; Eskimo-Aleut languages; Lakota; Morphological Types; Nahuatl; Ngan’gi; Ritwan languages; Tiwi Central Solomons languages 841 classification 204 gender 205 numbers 205 pronouns 205 reduplication 205 serial verb constructions 205 word order 205 see also Papuan languages Central Sudanic classification 773 use of 775f see also Nilo-Saharan languages
Central West Greenlandic 1172 see also West Greenlandic Centrol Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı´genes (CCELA) 230–231 Ceremonial speech, Pitjantjatjara 871 Chacha 41 Chachi see Barbacoan languages Chad Adamawa-Ubangi languages 771 Arabic 42 Kanuri 578 Nilo-Saharan 774 Chadic languages 12, 206–208 classification 250 dictionaries 206 downstep 206 grammars (books) 206 ideophones 207 morphology 206 negation 207 noun-phrase syntax 207 noun pluralization 206 phonology 206 pluractional verbs 207 reduplication 207 syntax 206 as tonal language 206 use of 206 verbs 206 vowel systems 206 VSO 207 see also Africa; Africa, as linguistic area; Afroasiatic languages; Cushitic languages; Hausa Chaghatay 1053 Chalas-KuRangal 282 see also Pashai languages Chalchiteko 705–706 official recognition 705–706 speaker numbers 706t Chaldean (Nestorian) Church 1033 Chamberlain, Alexander Chico language studies 225 Ryukyuan 908 Chamicuro pronominal suffix loss 60 see also Arawak languages Chang 968–969 see also Konyak languages Channel Islands, French 427 Cha’palaachi see Barbacoan languages Character signs, sign languages grammatical comparisons 957–958 Chatino 751 classification 819–821 speaker numbers 1213 syllable onsets 821–822 see also Oto-Mangean languages Chayama see Cariban languages Chayma 185f Chechen 194, 194t see also Caucasian languages Chedepo 624 see also Grebo languages Chemakum 210 morphology 210 phonology 210 typology 210 Cheremis see Mari languages Cherokee classification 252 noun incorporation 544 tone 543 use of 542 see also Iroquoian languages Cheyenne classification 25 stress 26 see also Algonquin languages Chhong 728 see also Pearic languages Chiapanec-Mangue languages 751 see also Oto-Mangean languages
1228 Index Chibchan languages 750 classification 224, 252 external relationships 209 origins/development 209 speaker numbers 208–209 subgrouping 209 types 208–209 use of 40 see also Andean languages Chibchan-Paezan hypothesis 651–652 Chi-Chewa see Nyanja Chichimeca Jonaz 751 see also Otopamean languages Chichimeko, classification 819–821 Chickasaw 738–739 consonants 739, 739t influence on other languages, Mobilian Jargon 716–717 verbs 741 Chickasaw-Choctaw trade language see Mobilian Jargon Chico languages 224–238 classification 224, 230t, 231t, 233t demography 224, 227, 227f, 228f regional classification 229, 229f dialects 224–225 historical studies 224, 225 Caudmont, Jean 226 Chamberlain, Alexander 225 comparative studies 225 cultural effects 225 Loewen, Jacob 226 Pinto, Constancio 226 SIL 226 history/development 224 present study 229 Centrol Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı´genes (CCELA) 230–231 use of 224 geographical distribution 224 Panama 224 speaker numbers 224 vocabularies 225 workers in Caudmont, Jean 226 Chamberlain, Alexander 225 Loewen, Jacob 226 Pinto, Constancio 226 Chikomulselteko geographical distribution 705 see also Mayan languages Children, sign language acquisition 945 Chile Andean languages 41 Aymara 108 Mapuche 41 Mapudungan languages 701 Chimakuan languages 210–211 diminutives 210 morphology 210–211 phonology 210 typology 210 Wakashan languages 750 see also Chemakum Chimariko languages 750–751 classification 505 see also Hokan languages Chimbu see Kuman (Chimbu) Chimbu-Wahgi languages classification 1086–1087 geographical distribution 669, 670f pronouns 1087–1089 verb root 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Chimchimeko see Oto-Mangean languages Chimila see Chibchan languages Chin (Tiddim: Tedim) 968–969 see also Kuki-Chin languages China Burmese 170 Evenki 405 Kazakh 588
Khmuic languages 727 Kirghiz 610 Mang languages 729 Mon-Khmer languages 725 Palaung-Wa languages 727 Palyu 729 Sino-Tibetan 968 Tai-Kadai 105 Tai languages 1039 Tibetan 1060–1061 Tungusic languages 1103 Uzbek 1145 Wa 1155 Waic languages 728 Chinantec 211–213 ‘ballistic stress,’ 212 classifier 212 ‘controlled stress,’ 212 inflection 211–212 nouns 212 roots 211–212 sandhi 212t, 213 stem inflexion 212t stem modification 211–212 stress 212 tonal features 212 tone sandhi 213t verbs 211–212, 212t prefixes 212 words 211–212 see also Oto-Mangean languages Chinantecan languages 751 progressive 212t VSO 211 see also Oto-Mangean languages Chinanteko 819 time depth 819 see also Oto-Mangean languages Chinese 213–221 classification 214f non-Mandarin group 214f dimorphic words 221 distribution 214 grammar 216 comment 216 topic 216 identifiable morphemes 222 overlapping exponence 223 phonological form invariance 223 suffixes 222, 222t influence on other languages Japanese 557 Korean 615–616 Lao 640 Tocharian 1070 Vietnamese 248, 728–729, 1149 Wa 1156 information processing 219 as isolating language 221–224 classifiers 221 Mandarin see Mandarin Chinese marking 222 Min group 219 see also Fuzhou monomorphemic words 221 affixes 221 classifiers 221 human pronouns 221 morphemes/word 222 phonology 215 finals 215f initials 215 intonations of utterances 215–216 syllables 215f tones 215 pragmatics 216 self-denigration 216–217 script see Chinese script verbs, inflectional suffixes 221 Wu group 219 see also Shanghai Chinese Xinjiang 1142 Yue group 218 see also Hong Kong Cantonese
see also Arabic, as introflecting language; Central Siberian Yupik; Classification (of languages); Finnish (Suomi); Morphological Types; Polysynthetic languages Chinese script 217 development 217 from pictographs 217 hanzi 217 reform of 217 semantic character formation 217–218 strokes 217 Chinese Sign Language, finger/thumb negation 957–958 Chinook 750 see also Penutian languages ChiNyanja see Nyanja Chipaya 752 see also Native American languages Chiquitano classification 666, 666t morphology, word order 667–668 use of 666–667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Chiragh Dargwa 194, 194t see also Caucasian languages Chitimacha 749 see also Muskogean languages Chitral languages 282 see also Dardic languages Chiwere 749 see also Siouan languages Chocho 751 see also Popolocan languages Chochoan languages 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Choco languages classification 252–253 use of 40 see also Andean languages Choctaw 738–739 classification 252 influence on other languages, Mobilian Jargon 716–717 noun phrases 740–741 phonology, consonants 739, 739t verbs 740, 741 word order 741–742 see also Muskogean languages Choctaw-Chikasaw 749 see also Muskogean languages Ch’olan 705–706 speaker numbers 707t see also Mayan languages Chon 752 see also Native American languages Chono 41 see also Andean languages Chontal languages 504 classification 506 speaker numbers 707t see also Hokan languages Chorasmian 238–239, 538 classification 251–252 definite articles 540 dual 540 genders 238–239, 540 imperfect tense 541 modal forms 542 palatal affricates 540 past tenses 541 phonology 238 possessives 238 pronouns 239 script 238 use of 238 verbs 239 vowels 238 see also Iranian languages Chorotegan time depth 819 tone 821 Ch’orti 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages
Index 1229 Chrau 726 see also Bahnaric languages Christaller, Johann Gottlieb 17–18 Christianity, Hebrew, study of 484 Chugani 282 see also Pashai languages Chuj 705–706 dialects 705–706 positionals 707 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Chujean 705–706 see also Mayan languages Chukchi (Chukot) classification 239 male vs. female phonology 239–240 speaker numbers 239–240 see also Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages Chukot see Chukchi (Chukot) Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages 239–241 circumfixes 240 classification 251 as endangered languages 239–240 special characteristics 240 use of 239 speaker numbers 239–240 vowel harmony 240 see also Alutor; Language endangerment Chumashan 750–751 see also Hokan languages Church Slavonic 241–243 definition 241 local varieties 241–242 origins 241 revisionism 242 Russian, influence on 905 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Bulgarian; Macedonian; Old Church Slavonic Chut languages 728–729 see also Arem; Viet-Muong languages Chuvash 243–246, 1109 consonants 244 development 1109 dialects 245 distinctive features 244 grammar 244 lexicon 245 nominative case 245 origin/history 243 phonology 244 possessives 244–245 related languages 243 sound harmony 244 use of 243 verbs 245 vowel harmony 245 linguistic assimilation 244 vowels 244 written language 244 see also Altaic languages; Turkic languages Cilappatrikaram 1047–1048 Circum-Baltic linguistic area 64, 392–393 Circumfixes, diachronic origins 287 Circumflex, French orthography 428 Circumstantial case see Case Circumstantials, linguistic areas 62 Cladistics, Indo-European languages 529 Classification (of languages) 246–257 Central America 252 see also Chibchan languages; Totonacan languages diffusion 246 innovation spread 246–248 plural markers 248 sprachbund 248 tense markers 248 vocabulary borrowing 248 word order 248 genetic classification 246 ancestral languages 246 inflections 246 subgroups 246 tree diagrams 246
geographical distribution 246, 247f grouping status 250 index of synthesis 731 isolates 249 lexicostatistics 248 African languages 248–249 American languages 248–249 ‘basic words 248 morphological technique 731 see also Morphological types North America 252 see also Algonquin languages; Caddoan languages; Hokan languages; Iroquoian languages; Keres; Muskogean languages; Na-Dene languages; Ritwan languages; Salishan languages; Siouan languages; Wakashan languages Nostratic theory 249 pidgins/Creoles 249 relational concepts 731 South America 252 see also Arawak languages; Panoan languages; Quechua languages; Tucanoan languages; Tupian languages see also Mongolia; Morphological types Classifiers Algonquin languages 28 Arawak languages 60 Baniwa 61 Chinantec 212 Chinese 221 Cubeo 1098 Desano 1098 Gondi 457 Hmong 1013 Hokan languages 508 in isolating languages 221 Karen 581 Khmer (Cambodian) 599 K’iche’an 708 Korean 615 Koreguaje 1098 Kwakwala 1160t Lao 639–640 Mandarin Chinese 1013 Mayan languages 708 Na-Dene languages 743–744 Nepali 764 Ngan’gi 766 Oto-Mangean languages 823 Palikur 61 Persian, Modern 850 Popti’ 708, 708t, 709t Q’anjob’al 708, 708t Retuara/Tanimuca 1098 Ritwan languages 28 Secoya 1098 sign language 943, 943f, 952 Siriano 1097, 1098t South Asia 997–998 Southeast Asian languages 1013, 1014t South Philippine languages 1004 Tajik Persian 1042 Tamambo 1047 Tariana 61, 1051 Thai 1060 Tucano 1098 Tucanoan languages 1097, 1098, 1098t, 1099 Tupian languages 1108 Tuyuca 1098 Vure¨s 1154 Wakashan languages 1159–1160, 1160t Wolof 1185–1186 Yucatecan 708 Clicks Bantu languages 1017–1018 Khoekhoe 602t Khoesaan languages 602, 602t Pidgins 859 Southern Bantu languages 1018 Xhosa 1018 Zulu 1215–1216
Clitic(s) ordering 130 resumptive compounds 124 see also Affixation Cluster maps, European linguistic area 402–403, 403f Coahuilteco 751 see also Native American languages Coast Salish 749 Coatla´n 714 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages Codex Leningradensis 483 Codrington, R H, Austronesian languages 98 Coeur d’Alene 749 see also Salishan languages Cofa´n 41 see also Andean languages Cognitive semantics see Classifiers Cohen, M 13 Colima see Cariban languages Colonialism, Later Modern English development 344, 349–350 Colorado see Barbacoan languages Columbia Andean languages 40 Arawak 59 Cariban languages 40 Chibcha 40 Choco languages 40 Embera´ 224 Guajiro 59 Palenquero 828 Quechua 891 Tucanoan languages 1091 Waunme´u 224 Comecrudan 751 see also Native American languages Comelico 894 see also Ladin Come to have verb, Southeast Asian languages 1015 Comitative-instrumental syncretism, European linguistic area 399, 400f Common standard language, German see German Communication, Later Modern English development 344 Comparatives, in introflecting language 52 Complex sentence(s) 989 Complex sentences Dravidian languages 300 Pitjantjatjara 873 Somali 989 Compounding, sign language morphology 949, 949f Computer-supported writing see Writing/written language Con 728 see also Lametic languages Concatenative postbases, in polysynthetic languages 203 ‘Concentric circles’ model see World Englishes, ‘concentric circles’ model Conceptual blending see Lexical semantics Concord African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) 336 Afrikaans 9 American English 336 Balkan linguistic area 125 Bantu languages 140 Benue-Congo languages 151 Cushitic languages 274–275 Domari 296 English 343–344 Fulfulde 432 Gikuyu (Kikuyu) 450, 451t Gur languages 473 Hurrian 515–516 Kru languages 624 Kwa languages 632 Lithuanian 647–648 Luganda 658 Romanian 900 Scots 925
1230 Index Concord (continued) Southern Bantu languages 1018 Spanish 1021 Swahili 1027–1028 Telugu 1055–1056 Tibetan 1061 Toda 1072 Togo Mountain languages 632 Torricelli languages 1078 Trans New Guinea languages 842 Wambaya 1162 Congo, Democratic Republic of Fulfulde 430 Kinyarwanda 604 Swahili 1026 Conjugated prepositions, Old Irish 453 Connacht, Irish, development of 454 Conoy (Piscataway) 24 see also Algonquin languages Consonant(s) in agglutinating languages deletion 419 gradation 418 roots, in introflecting language 50 see also specific languages Continental Celtic see Celtic, Continental Converbs Amharic 35 Assamese 995 Cushitic languages 275 Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 380 Ethiopian Semitic languages 383 Evenki 406–407 Hindi 995 Kannada 995 Kazakh 590 Nilo-Saharan languages 774 Oriya 995 Santali 995 South Asian languages 995 Tamil 995 Tatar 1054 Tigrinya 1064–1065 Tu¨rkmen 1119 Uzbek 1147 Yukaghir 1211–1211 Convergence, Indo-European language classification 530 Coos 750 see also Penutian languages Copainala´ aspects 714 cliticization 714 nouns 714 phonology 713 syllable cods 713 word order 715 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages Copi 1018 see also Inhambane languages Coptic 38–40 classification 250 SVO 39 see also Afroasiatic languages Corachol 1140 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Cornish 257–258 Breton vs. 257 classification 200, 251–252 revival/survival 258 Welsh vs. 257 workers in 258 see also Breton; Brythonic Celtic; Celtic; Pictish; Welsh Coroado see Purı´ (Coroado) Correlative Bengali 148 Dardic languages 284 Kashmiri 583–584 Marathi 704 Ossetic 818 Pali 831 Persian, Old 853 Corsica, Italian 545
Cotoname 751 see also Native American languages Cowlitz 749 see also Salishan languages Creativity, multilingualism 368 Cree 258–263 classification 24–25 derivation 259 primary stems 259 recursive suffixation 259–260 secondary 259 dialects 261 dictionaries 261 grammars (books) 261 inflexion 258 language shift 319 Michif, influences on 710 noun incorporation 260 incorporative verbs 260 medials 260 paradigmatic sets 260 number 258 associative plural constructions 259 origin/development 28 phonology, stress 26 speaker numbers 26 use of bilingualism 261 Canada 261 verbs 260 inflexion 258 parallel constructions 260 word order 260 see also Algonquin languages; Ritwan languages Creek 749 augmentative 264 auxiliary verbs 266 classification 252 consonants 263 dialects 754 diminutives 264 future 265 glides 263 history 263 morphology 264 agreement type 740–741 nouns see below verbs see below noun morphology 264 case marking 264 creation from verbs 264 number 264 possession 264 noun phrases 266 phonology 263 pitch-accent 739–740 possessives 264 postpositions 741 resources 267 resultative 264–265 SOV 266 suffixes 740 syntax 266 verb morphology 264 infection 264–265 negative statements 266 plurals 266 vowel length 740 vowels 263–264 see also Mobilian Jargon (Mobilian); Muskogean languages Creole Portuguese Afrikaans, influence on 9, 11 future 868 Creoles 857–864 classification 858 lexical affiliation 858 as continuum 866 decreolization 869 definition 857 ergativity 862 future languages 863 gender markings 862
influences from other languages, Portuguese 883 lectallectial variation 867 lexical semantics 866 myths about 864 noun classes 862 origins/development 859 Bickerton, D 861 bioprogram hypothesis 861 children vs. adults 859 diffusion theory 860 relexification 860 sociohistorical context 863 source morphemes 862 substrate theory 859 superstrate theory 860 universals theory 860 Pidgins vs. 862 shared features 861–862 sign languages 956 tense-mood-aspect systems 862 types 862 USA 1127 variations in 865 acrolect 868 basilect 867 mesolect 868 see also African-American Vernacular English (AAVE); Austronesian languages; Bislama; Cape Verdean Creole; English, nonnative; Fanagalo; Gullah; Hawaiian Creole English (HCE); Krio; Louisiana Creole; Mobilian Jargon (Mobilian); Morrobalama; Palenquero; Pidgins; Russenorsk; Sango; Tiwi; Tok Pisin; Yanito Creole theory, African-American Vernacular English development 337 Crimean Gothic 460 Crimean Tartar 1109 see also Turkic languages Critical Period Hypothesis (of language acquisition), sign languages 945 Croatia Hungarian 514 Romanian 901 Croatian 936 Slovene vs. 981 Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian Linguistic complex see Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian Linguistic Complex Croatian-Serbian-Bosnian Linguistic complex see Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian Linguistic Complex Cross River languages 151 see also Benue-Congo languages Crow 749 active verbs 269 augmentative 269 classification 252 consonants 267, 267t diminutives 269 final markers 269 habitual 269 morphology 268 morphosyntax 269 noun phrases 269 object incorporation 269 orthography 267 Crow Agency Bilingual Education Program 267 phonology 267 plurals 268 possessors 268 postpositions 269 speaker numbers/location 971–972 stops 267–268 subordinate clauses 269 suffixes 269 switch-reference 269 use of 267 speaker numbers 267 verbs 268–269 vowels 268, 268t
Index 1231 see also Central Siberian Yupik; Lakota; Language endangerment; Omaha-Ponca; Siouan languages Crow Agency Bilingual Education Program 267 Crowther, Samuel Ajayi, Yoruba 1207 Cua speaker numbers 726 see also Bahnaric languages Cubeo adjectives 1099 classification 1091 consonants 1094 evidentiality 1100 morphemes 1096 nasalization 1095 noun classifiers 1098 speaker numbers 1092t verbs, evidentiality 1100 word order 1096 see also Tucanoan languages Cuicatec see Mixtecan languages Cuitlatec 748 Spanish, influences of 651–652 see also Native American languages Culavamsa, Pa¯li commentaries 832 Culli 41 Culture dislocation 325 European linguistic area 390 Nostratic theory 786 Cuna see Chibchan languages Cuneiform script Elamite 316 Hittite 502 Old Persian 852 Cuoi languages 728–729 see also Viet-Muong languages Cupen˜o 270–272 as agglutinating language 270 auxiliary complexes 271 classification 252 dual agreement marking 271 ergative 271 imperfective 271 nouns 270–271 animate 270–271 inanimate 270–271 split-ergative system 271 syntax 271 use of 270 USA 270 word classes 271 word order 271 see also Takic languages Cushitic languages 12, 272–276 Amharic, influences on 33 case system 274–275 classification 250 concord 274–275 converbs 275 genders 274–275 Highland East Cushitic see Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages imperfective 274–275 iterative 274–275 morphology 274 noun plurals 274–275 number of speakers 272–273 phonology 274 postpositions 274–275 relationships 273f SOV 275 syntax 275 tense-mood-aspect 274–275, 275f types 273 use of 272–273 verb person marking 274–275, 274f, 275f see also Afar (Qafar); Afroasiatic languages; Agaw; Chadic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages; Omotic languages; Oromo; Somali
Cyprus Modern Greek 464 Turkish 1112 Cyrillic alphabet Abkhaz 1 Azerbaijanian 111 Belorussian 147 Kazakh 589 Kirghiz 611 Macedonian 664 Tajik Persian 1041–1042 Turkmen 1117 Ukranian 1122 Uyghur 1143 Uzbek 1146 Yakut 1200 Czech 276–277 adjectives 277 cardinal numbers 277 classification 251–252, 974–975 dialects 276 future 277 grammatical gender 277 imperfective 277 inflectional morphology 277 nouns 277 as official language 276 origins 276 phonemes 276–277 pro-drop 277–277 pronouns 277 verbal morphology 277 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Slavic languages; Sorbian Czech Republic Czech 276 German 444 Slovak 977
D Daco-Romanian, Romanian dialect 901 Dagaari 472 see also Oti-Volta languages Dagan languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Dagbani 472 see also Oti-Volta languages Daghestanian languages 193 see also Caucasian languages Dagur 722 use of 723 see also Mongol languages Dahlik use of 382–383 see also Ethiopian Semitic languages Dahl’s Law Bantu languages 139 Kinyarwanda phonology 607 Daju classification 773 speaker numbers 772–773 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Dakota 749 see also Siouan languages Dakota, language shift 319 Dakotan see Lakota Damana see Chibchan languages Dameli case-marking 284 classification 282 sibilants 283 speaker numbers 282 see also Kunar languages Damench 282 see also Pashai languages Danao languages 1001–1002, 1002t see also South Philippine languages Danau 727 see also Palaung-Wa languages Dani languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages
Danish 279–282 adjectives 280 classification 251–252 consonants 279 history 279 Ancient Scandinavian 279 Old Scandinavian 279 influence on other languages Inuit 374 West Greenlandic 1175 language authorities 281 morphology 280 nouns 280 as official language 279 orthography 279 personal pronouns 280 possessives 280 pronunciation 279 questions 281 sentence order 280–281, 281t stød 280 syntax 280 tones 280 use of 279 verbs 280 vowels 279–280 see also Germanic languages; Icelandic; Norse, Old; Norwegian; Scandinavian languages Danube Sprachbund 392–393 Dardic languages 282–285, 582 agreement patterns 284 aspiration loss 283 case-marking 284 classification 251–252, 282 uncertainties 283 correlative 284 counting systems 284 gender 284 history/development 283 influence from other languages 282 morphosyntax 284 phonology 283 retroflex affricates 283–284 sibilants 283 tonal system 526–527 use of 282 Pakistan 282, 283 speaker numbers 282 vowels 526–527 word order 284 written forms 282 see also Brahui; Burushaski; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-Iranian languages; Kashmiri Darra-i-Nur (upper and Lower) classification 282 see also Pashai languages Dative South Asian languages 997 Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Day 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Deaf communities, deaf cultures, formation 940 Decreolization, Creoles 869 De´csy, G, European linguistic area 390–391 Defaka, I˙jo˙ vs. 517 Definite articles, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Defoid 151 see also Benue-Congo languages De’kwana use of 185f see also Cariban languages Delafosse, Maurice, Mande language classification 696 Democratic Republic of the Congo see Congo, Democratic Republic Demonstratives Karitia´na 1106 Kashmiri 584 Mawe´ 1106 Meke´ns 1106
1232 Index Demonstratives (continued) Munduruku´ 1106 Ossetic 815 Tucanoan languages 1099, 1099t Tupian languages 1106 Tuyuca 1099, 1099t Dempwolff, Otto Austronesian languages 98 Proto Oceanic 687 Dengebu 613 see also Kordofanian languages Denial see Negation Denmark Danish 279 German 444 Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) 1172 Dental fricatives, nonnative English 360 Derivational morphology, postbases 202, 203t Desano accent/tone 1096 adjectives 1099 consonants 1094t grammar, case markers 1096 limiting adjectives 1098 morphemes 1096 nasalization 1095 noun classifiers, inanimate 1098 speaker numbers 1092t syllable pattern 1095 see also Tucanoan languages Devanagari script Bengali writing systems 148, 524 Indo-Aryan language writing systems 524 Kashmiri 583 Punjabi writing systems 886 Dhivehi 285–287 classification 251–252 consonants 285 as first language 285 Islam, influence of 285 morphology 286 nouns 286 as official language, Maldive Islands 285 origin/development 285 orthography 285 Roman alphabet 286 ‘Thaana,’ 285 phonology 285 Sinhala vs. 285 syntax 286 use of 285 geographical distribution 285 verbs 286 vocabulary 285 vowels 285 word order 286 see also Dardic languages; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-European languages; Sinhala Diachrony affixes 287 ergative 287 morphological types 287–293 Diaguita 41 Dialect(s) Arabic 55–56 Ashkun 787 Assamese 78 definition 385 I˙jo˙ 518 Kati 787 see also specific languages Dida languages 623–624 see also Kru languages Dien (Diyari) 87 see also Australian languages Diffusion area see Linguistic areas Diffusion theory, Creole origins 860 Diglossia, definition 323–324 Digoron, classification 813 Dimasa 968–969 see also Bodo-Koch languages
Dime 805 see also Omotic languages Diminutives Arabic 52 Bantu languages 1018–1019 Berber languages 154 Bikol 160 Burushaski 176 Chimakuan languages 210 Creek 264 Crow 269 Dutch 203–204 French 428–429 Fulfulde 431 Gikuyu (Kikuyu) 452 Guarani 467 Hokan languages 507–508 in introflecting languages 52 Kwakwala 1159t Mande languages 698 Native American languages 757 Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) 789 Nyanja 796–796 Romance languages 896–897 Ryukyuan 907 Salishan languages 913 Shona languages 938 Sioux 755 Spanish 1021 Swahili 1027 Tupian languages 1106 Wakashan languages 1159 Waray-Waray 915–916 Wolaitta 1180 Xhosa 1188t Yanito 1202 Yiddish 1204 Dimorphic words, in isolating language 221 Dinka 293–294 classification 253 SVO 294 tones 294 use of speaker numbers 772–773 Sudan 293 vowels 293, 293t word order 294 workers in, Andersen, Torben 293 see also Nilo-Saharan languages; Nilotic Dipavamsa, Pa¯li commentaries 832 Directional verbs, Southeast Asian languages 1014 Disappearing languages definition 319–320 reversal/revitalization strategies 326 see also Language endangerment Discourse morphology, Native American languages 746 Distributional criteria, word see Word Ditidaht 1157 syntax, word order 1160 Dixon, Robert M W Australian languages 250 long-range comparisons 649 Dixon, Ronald P, Hokan languages 504 Diyari (Dieri) 87 see also Australian languages Dizoid 805 see also Omotic languages Djenne Chiini 990–991 see also Songai languages Djibouti 272–273 Doabi Punjabi 886 see also Punjabi Dogon 771 classification 253 dialects 294 imperfective 294 noun class system 294 tones 294 use of Mali 771 speaker numbers 294 vowel harmony 294
vowels 294 word order 294 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages; NigerCongo languages Dogri classification 522 tonal system 526–527 vowels 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Dolgopolsky, Aharon, Nostratic theory 249, 653–654 Dolores, Juan, Tohono O’odham research 1074 Domari 295–297 adjectives 296 Arabic, influences from 295, 296 classification 251–252 concord 296 consonants 295 definition 295 demonstratives 296 fricatives 295 history 295 intransitive verbs 296 morphology 296 nominative vs. oblique 296 nouns 296 perfect 296 person markers 296 phonology 295 possessives 296 pronouns 296 Romani vs. 295 syntax 296 tenses 296 use of 295 verbs 296 vowels 295–296 see also Dardic languages; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-European languages; Romani Downstep Bantu languages 139 Chadic languages 206 Efik 314 Guugu Yimithirr 473 I˙jo˙ 518 Kanuri 578 Kwa languages 632 Luo 658–659 Nilo-Saharan languages 774 Omaha-Ponca 803 Dravidian languages 297–307 adjectives 298 adverbs 298–299 agreement 299, 299t, 300t classification 251 Nostratic theory 249 complex sentences 300 consonants 298, 298t contacts Indo-Aryan languages 306 Munda languages 737 dative-subject sentences 300 equational sentences 300 expressives 299 future 304 habitual 304–305 Nostratic theory 653–654, 786 nouns 298, 301 ablative 302 accusative 301–302 agglutinative morphology 301 case suffixes 301 genitive 302 instrumental case 302 nominative case 301 numerals 303, 303t plural suffixes 301 pronouns 302, 302t, 303t particles 299 phonology 297 postpositions 301, 302 Sanskrit, influences from 920–921 script see Dravidian script
Index 1233 Sindhi 960–961 syntax 298 types 297, 297t Central 297 Ellis, Francis Whyte 297 North 297 South 297 use of, India 297 verbs 304 auxiliary verbs 306 finite verbs 304 imperative 305, 305t negative finite verbs 304 nonfinite verbs 305 personal suffixes 305, 305t tenses 304 vowels 297, 298t word classes 298 word order 299 see also Brahui; Elamite; Gondi; Indo-Aryan languages; Kannada; Kurukh; Malayalam; Romani; South Asian languages; Tamil; Telugu; Toda Dravidian script 297 Dual, in introflecting language 52 Duit see Chibchan languages Dunbavin, Paul, Pictish 855–856 Durbin, M, Cariban language classification 183 Duru languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Dutch 307–311 Afrikaans vs. 8, 9 alveolar consonants 308 articles 308 assimilation 308 classification 251–252 consonants 308 declarative main clauses 309 derivational prefixes 308–309 derivational suffixes 308–309 dictionaries 308 diminutives 203–204 elision 308 genders 309 genetic relationships 307 grammars (books) 308 history 307 Bible translation 308 Old Dutch (Old Low Franconian) 307 texts 307–308 influence on other languages 310 Afrikaans 7–8, 310 colonial effects 310 English 310–310 Frisian 310 Malayalam 680–681 Saramaccan 858 Sinhala 964 Sranan 858 morphology 308 nouns 308 orthography 309 phonetics 308 phonology 308 regional/social variations 310 Belgium 310 dialects 310 Flemish change 310 sample sentence 309 special characteristics 307 stressed prefixes 309 syntax 309 use of 307 verbs 308, 309 vocabulary 309 English 309 French 309 Latin 309 see also Afrikaans; English, Early Modern; English, Later Modern; English, Modern; German; Germanic languages; Papiamentu; Scots
Dyirbal avoidance languages 91 morphology 88–89 syntax 88–89 see also Australian languages Dyren, Isidore, fields of work, Austronesian languages 98 Dzhudezmo see Judeo-Spanish Dzubukua´ 667 see also Karirı´ (Kariri-Xoco´)
E East Bird’s Head (EBH) languages classification 1176 Tense-Mood-Aspect verbal complex 1176 see also West Papuan languages Eastern Gurage languages 382–383 see also Ethiopian Semitic languages Eastern Kru languages Ivory Coast 623–624 number of speakers 623–624 see also Kru languages Eastern Sudanic 775f Eastern Yiddish 1206 see also Yiddish East Luwian 37–38 see also Luwian East New Britain languages 841 see also Papuan languages East Syrian Church 58 Ebang 613 see also Kordofanian languages Eblaite 313–314, 930 grammar features 313 sources 313 see also Afroasiatic languages; Akkadian; Semitic languages; Sumerian; Ugaritic Ebrie 631 Ecclesiastical History of the English Peoples 356 Ecuador Andean languages 41 Awa´ 224 Aymaran 41 Embera´ 224 Quechua 41 Tucanoan languages 1091 ‘Eddic’ poetry, Old Icelandic 779–780 Edoid 151 see also Benue-Congo languages Edomite, Phoenician vs. 854 Education Arabic 55 language vitality role 324 pidgins 867 Efik 314–316 Bantu vs. 314–315 classification 314 downstep 314 as endangered language 314 grammars (books) 314 orthography 314 tone 315 focus 315 grammatical characteristics 315 lexical characteristics 315 use of 314 see also Benue-Congo languages Efutu 631 see also Guang languages Ega 631 see also Kwa languages Egypt Aramaic 56 Berber 152–153 Modern Greek 464 Egyptian 12, 38–40 classification 250 earliest record 12 grammar 39 hieroglyphics see Egyptian hieroglyphs Late 39
Middle 39 possessives 39 VSO 39 writing system 38, 39 see also Afroasiatic languages Egyptian hieroglyphs 38, 39 Eipo (Eipomek) 1085–1086 see also Mek languages Eivo 841 see also North Bougainville languages Elamite 316–317 classification 249 earliest evidence 316 morphology 316–317 periods 316 relation to other languages 316 script 316 syntax 316–317 use of 316 word order 316–317 see also Dravidian languages; Iranian languages; Persian, Old; Sumerian Elatives, in introflecting language 52 Ellis, Francis Whyte, Dravidian 297 El Salvador see Mayan languages Elvish 76 Embera´ classification 224 historical studies 226 Uribe, Jose´ Vincente 226 use of 224 see also Choco languages Emilian see Italian Enclitics, in polysynthetic languages 203 Endangered languages see Language endangerment Ende 420 see also Flores languages Endzelin, Jan Balto-Slavic languages 135–136 Latvian 644 Enets (Yenisey-Samoyed) 1129–1130 see also Samoyed languages Enga classification 1086–1087 speaker numbers 836 Sranan, influences on 858 see also Engan languages; Papuan languages; Trans New Guinea languages Engan languages classification 1086–1087 geographical distribution 669, 670f see also Samberigi (Sau); Trans New Guinea languages English African American see African-American English (AAE) African-American vernacular see AfricanAmerican Vernacular English (AAVE) American see American English classification 251–252 concord 343–344 as global language 326 influences from other languages Dutch 310–310 French 248 Greek 248 Latin 248 Mayan languages 708–709 Scots Gaelic 927 Welsh 1170 influences on other languages Afrikaans 8 Algonquin languages 24 Bengali 148 Bislama 162 Dutch 309 Fanagalo 412 French 425, 429 see also Franglais Gikuyu 449–450 Gullah 470–471 Hawaiian Creole English 481 Hindi 495–496
1234 Index English (continued) Hong Kong Cantonese 218 Indo-Aryan languages 522 Inuit 374 Inupiaq 536 Japanese 557 Je`rriais 563 Korean 615–616 Krio 617 Malayalam 680–681 Mayan languages 708–709 Michif 710 Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) 43 Niuean 776 Punjabi 889 Saramaccan 858 Sinhala 964 Telugu 1055, 1058 Tok Pisin 1077 Yanito 1202 long-range comparisons chance similarities 652 with German 651 sound correspondences 650–651 as official language Fiji 413 Israel 485 Malta 688 Philippines 1035 Vanuatu 161 possessives 340 progressive 345–346 Scots vs. 925 spread 363 stratification 363 SVO 341 use of, USA 1123 see also African-American Vernacular English (AAVE); Gullah English, Early Modern 339–343 diversity 341 social differences 341–342 grammar 340 function word development 341 gender changes 340 nominal inflexion 340 periphrastic verb phrases 340 pronouns 340 third-person neuter possessive 340 verbal inflection 340 word order 341 history 339 educational opportunities 339 printing press introduction 339 lexis/semantics 341 French loanwords 341 Latin loanwords 341 technical terminologies 341 phonology 339 consonants 340 diphthong changes 339 Great Vowel Shift 339 short vowels 340 regulation of variants 345 see also Dutch; English, Later Modern; English, Modern; Germanic languages; Middle English; Old English English, Later Modern 343–351 ‘be + -ing’ construction 345–346 definition 343 double negatives 346–347 external history 343 American English development 344 colonization 344 communication developments 344 social mobility 344 transport changes 344 inflection 344–345 innovations 345 lexical innovation 349 colonial influences 349–350 rates 349f scientific classification 349–350 morphology 344
personal pronouns 344–345 phonology 347 consonant dropping 347–348 consonants 347 Great Vowel Shift 349 lengthened vowel 348 rhotics 347 vowels 348 preposition stranding 346–347 pronouncing dictionaries 344 relativization 345 split infinitives 346–347 workers in 343 see also Dutch; English, Early Modern; English, Modern; Middle English; Old English English, Modern 327–334 accusative case 332 adjectives 330–331 adverbs 330–331 American–British differences 332 case structure 330 changes 332 clauses 331 complementation patterns 332 conjunctions 330–331 coordination 332 count nouns 330–331 determiners 330–331 influence from other languages 329–330 information structure 332 inserts 330–331 lexis 329 affixes 330 American–British differences 330 inflection lack 330 vocabulary size 329 mass nouns 330–331 modal auxiliaries 330–331 morphology 330 nominative case 332 noun phrases 331 orthography 327 American–British differences 328 spelling reform 328 vowels 327–328 phonology American–British differences 329 changes 329 consonants 328 intonation 329 prominence/stress 328 received pronunciation 329 rhythm 328–329 voiced/voiceless consonants 328 vowels 328 prepositions 330–331 primary auxiliaries 330–331 pronouns 330–331 sentence structure 332 standardization/prescriptivism 333 media use 333 regional pronunciation 333 usage questions 333 subordination 332 syntax 330 verbs 331 lexical verbs 330–331 word classes 330 word order 330 see also Dutch; English, Early Modern; English, Later Modern; Germanic languages; Middle English; World Englishes English, nonnative 359–363 borrowing 360 grammar 361 aspectual system 361 topic prominence 361 grammatical growth 361 inflection 361 lexical semantics 360–361 lexicon 360 morphology 360 native vs. nonnative speakers 360
native vs. nonnative varieties 359 phonetics/phonology 360 aspirated voiceless stops 360 dental fricatives 360 Singapore English 360 vowel inventory 360 register 361 British English (GB) 361 Singapore English (SIN) 361 Speak Good English movement 361–362 stigmatization 361 theoretical approaches 362 variation measurement 360 see also Creoles; Pidgins Englishization 365 English Jewish 565 development 568 writing system 568 Eotile´ 631 see also Tano languages Equative constructions, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Equatorial Guinea, Spanish 1020 Ergative Afroasiatic languages 14 Andean languages 40 Apinaje´ 668 Arrernte 74 Australian languages 81 Bactrian 115 Basque 145–146 Cupen˜o 271 Jeˆ languages 668 Kakutungu (Kalkutung) 88 Karirı´ (Kariri-Xoco´) 668 Kashmiri 584 Maxakalı´ 668 Morrobalama 735 Niuean 776 North Philippine languages 784 Nuristani languages 788 Obo Manobo 1005–1006, 1006t Pama-Nyungan languages 88 Panara´ 668 Pitjantjatjara 872 South Philippine languages 1002 Tohono O’odham 1075 Wambaya 1163 Warlpiri 88, 1166–1167 West Greenlandic 1173–1175 Xokle´ng 668 Yalarnnga 88 Eritrea Agaw 272–273 Bilen 272–273 Cushitic languages 272–273 Dahlik 382 Italian 545 Nilo-Saharan languages 774 Tigre 382 Tigrinya 382, 1063 Erman, A, Hamitic theory opponent 13 Erzya 1129–1130 see also Mordvin languages Esalen languages classification 506 see also Hokan languages Eskimo-Aleut languages 748 and Amerind 655 case marking 371–372 characteristics 371 classification 251, 1172 definition 371 genetic relationships 371 historical aspects 747–748 history 371 relations between 372 research history 371 Rask, Rasmus 371 sentences 371–372 SOV 371–372 verbs 371–372 vowels 371–372 word building 371–372
Index 1235 word order 371–372 see also Aleut; Central Siberian Yupik; Greenlandic (Kalaallisut); Inupiaq; Native American languages; Polysynthetic languages; West Greenlandic Esmeralden˜o see Barbacoan languages Esperanto 76–77, 375–377 accusatives 376 aims 375 as auxiliary language 75–76 consonants 376 as L2 375 morphology 376 opposition to 375 origin/development 375 World Esperanto Conference 375 Zamenhof, Ludovic Lazar 375 orthography 376 plurals 376 pronunciation 376 Slavic influence 376 SVO 376 syntax 376 tenses 376 vocabulary 376 vowels 376 word order 376 word stems 376 Zamenhof, Ludovic Lazar 76–77, 375 Esselen 750–751 see also Hokan languages Estonia 377 Estonian 377–378 classification 1129–1130 consonantism 1130 consonants 377 dialects 377 extrasegmental quantitative prosody 377–378 history 377 negation 1131 as official language 377 palatalized coronal consonants 378 phonology 377 use of 377 verbs 1131 vowels 377 word order 1132 see also Finnic languages Etchemin 24 see also Algonquin languages Eteograms, Pahlavi (Middle Persian) 827 Ethiopia 930 Agaw 272–273 Amharic 33 classification 250 Cushitic languages 272–273 Fulfulde 430 Hadiyya 272–273 Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages 272–273, 488–489 national language see Oromo Nilo-Saharan languages 774 Sidamo 272–273 Tigrinya 382, 1063 Wolaitta 1179 see also Africa; Afroasiatic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Ethiopian Semitic languages; Semitic languages Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 64, 378–382 converbs 380 definition 378 grammar 380 ideophones 379 imperfective 380 lexicon 381 phonology 379 pharyngeal fricatives 380 possessives 380 postpositions 380 research history 378 Ferguson, C A 379 Leslau, W 378–379 Moreno, W W 378–379 Zaborski, A 379
SOV 380 see also Africa; Africa, as linguistic area; Amharic; Areal linguistics; Balkan linguistic area; Cushitic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Ethiopian Semitic languages; Europe, as Linguistic Area; Ge’ez; Ge’ez; Highland east Cushitic languages; Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages; Omotic languages; Oromo; Somali; Tigrinya; Wolaitta Ethiopian Semitic languages 382–384 classification 382 converbs 383 demography 382 geographical origin 383 ideophones 383 imperfective 383 morphology 383 phonology 383 possessives 383 syntax 383 use of 382 see also Afroasiatic languages; Amharic; Argobba; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Ge’ez; Semitic languages Ethnolinguistic vitality see Language endangerment Ethnologue 384–388 contents 385 history 385 Gordon, Raymond G Jr. 385 Grimes, Barbara G 385 Pittman, Richard S 385 language identification 385 workers in Gordon, Raymond G Jr. 385 Grimes, Barbara G 385 Pittman, Richard S 385 see also Language endangerment; SIL E´tiemble, Rene´ 425 Etruscan 388 archaeological/historical context 388 historical aspects 388 inscriptions 388 names 388 Eurasian Sprachbund 392–393 Europe, as linguistic area 388–405 alienability 394–395 approaches 389 cultural 390 geographical 389–390 political 390 simple languages 390 case distinctions 398, 398f center vs. periphery approach 393 Haspelmath, M 393 cluster maps 402–403, 403f comitative-instrumental syncretism 399, 400f as contact-superposition zone 403 egalitarian methods 390 De´csy, G 390–391 Haarmann, H 391 historical overview 388 isoglosses 394, 395 geographical distribution 395 morphology 398 nominal cases 398–399 ordinal derivation 400, 401f perfect 393–394 phonology 395 rounded vowels 395, 396f vowel length 397, 397f quintessence 402 reduplication 401, 402f segregating approach 392 Lewy, E 392 EUROTYP project 388–389, 392–393 Evenki 405–408 agreement 406, 406t case 406 contacts, Yakut 1200 converbs 406–407 dialects 405–406 future 406
modality markers 407 morphemic ordering 407 morphology 406 negation 407 non-finite verb forms 407 number 406 possessives 406 possessivity 406 resultative 406 sentence structure 406 SOV 406 tense-aspect system 406 use of 405 valency change 407 voice system 407 writing system 405–406 see also Altaic languages; Tungusic languages Evidentiality Aymara 109 Balkan linguistic area 130–131 Cubeo 1100 Karo 1108 Kazakh 590 Koreguaje 1100 Panoan languages 834 Quechua languages 892–892 Retuara/Tanimuca 1100 Secoya 1100 Siona 1100 Siriano 1101, 1101t Tariana 1051 Tucanoan languages 1100, 1101t Tupian languages 1108 Tuyuca 1100, 1101 Uyghur 1144 Uzbek 1147 Wanano 1100 Ewe 408–409 consonants 408 dialects 408 double object constructions 409–409 history 408 ideophones 408 morphology 408 as national language 408 nouns 408 phonology 408 sociolinguistics 408 syntax 409 tenses, lack of 409 tone language 408 use of 408 speaker numbers 408 verbs 632 word order 409 see also Gbe languages Experiencers, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Extinct languages definition 319–320 reversal/revitalization strategies 320, 326 see also Language endangerment; specific languages Eyak 252 see also Na-Dene languages Ezguerra, Domingo, Samar-Leyte 915
F Facial expressions see Sign language Fali 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages False friends see Borrowing Fanagalo 411–412 classification 249t influence from other languages Afrikaans 411 English 412 Nguni 412 Xhosa 411 Zulu 412 origin/development 411 structure 412
1236 Index Fanagalo (continued) tense markers 412 use of 411 decrease 411 verb inflexions 412 word order 412 see also Bantu languages; Creoles; Pidgins; Xhosa; Zulu Fanakalo, SVO 412 Fante dialect, Akan 17 Faroe Islands, Danish 279 Ferguson, Charles A, Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 379 Fiji 413 Fijian 412, 413 Fijian 412–413 classification 250–251 grammar 413 literary tradition 413 as official language, Fiji 413 phonemes 413 use of 412 see also Austronesian languages; Oceanic languages Finisterre-Huon languages 669, 670f Finite verbs in agglutinating languages 416t in introflecting language 51, 51t Finland 911 Finnic languages classification 1129–1130 consonant gradation 1130 diphthongs 1130 subordinate sentences 1132 vowel harmony 1130 see also Uralic languages Finnish (Suomi) 413–415 adjectives 414 as agglutinating language 415–420 aspect 1131–1132 case marking 415 classification 1129–1130 consonants 413–414, 1130 dictionary 415 diphthongs 414 fusion 419 long-range comparisons Amerind 655 sound correspondences with Pipil 651 morphology 414, 415 mutation 418 nominals 416, 416t, 417t case forms 416 nouns 414 numerals 414 object marking 1132 orthography 414 perfect 414 phonology 413 plural markers 1131 polyfunctional suffixes 419 possessives 416t pronouns 414 stem morphophonological alternations 417 allomorphy 417 alternations 418–419 assibilations 418–419 consonant gradation 418 vowel harmony 417–418 vowel mutation 418 weak grade 418, 418t stress 414 suffix morphophonological alternations 419 allomorphs 419 consonant deletion 419 syntax 415 use of 413 verb inflectional class 417t verbs finite verb forms 414, 416t main verb phrases 1132 nonfinite verb forms 414–415, 416t verb inflectional class 417
vowel harmony 414, 417–418 vowels 413–414 word order 1132 SVO 413 VSO 413 word stress 1131 word structure 415 see also Arabic, as introflecting language; Central Siberian Yupik; Finnic languages; Morphological Types; Polysynthetic languages Finno-Ugric languages 254 see also Uralic languages First Sound Shift (Grimm’s Law) 448t Fleming, H C, language families 652–653 Flemish see Dutch Florentine see Italian Flores languages 420–421 classification 250–251, 420 consonants 420 metaphor 420 symbolism 420 verbal morphology 420 vowels 420 see also Austronesian languages; Central Malayo-Polynesian (CMP); Malayo-Polynesian languages Focus-Mood-Aspect morphology, Bikol 159t Focus particles 989 Folk characters, North American native language variation 756 Folklore/folktales, North American native language variation 759 Fon (Fon-gbe) 631–632 see also Gbe languages Fopo 624 see also Grebo languages For, use of 775f Foreign sign languages 954 Forest Nenets 761–762 see also Nenets (Yurak) Formal languages see Artificial languages Formosan languages 421–425 classification 250–251, 421, 422f dictionaries 422–423 grammars (books) 422–423 history 422 noun phrase 423 research history 422 Bible translation 422 structure 423 subgrouping 422 verbal affixes 423–424 see also Amis; Austronesian languages; Ayatalic languages; Malayo-Polynesian languages Four-way stop contrast, Tanoan languages 1049–1050 Frafra 472 see also Oti-Volta languages France Basque 144–145 Breton 166 Catalan 188 Dutch 307 French 427 German 444 Occitan 799 Franglais 425–427, 429 damage to French language 425–426 definition 425 determiner use 425 development 425 bilingualism 425 contact 425 humor 425 English words 425 E´tiemble, Rene´ 425 French words 425 graphemes 425 Kington, Miles 425 orthography effects 425 phonology effects 425 see also French
Frankish, influence on other languages, French 429 Franscisco Leo´n derivational nouns 714 phonology 713 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages Fraser, John, Pictish 856 French 427–430 adjectives 429 as analytic language 428–429 augmentative 428–429 classification 251–252 damage to language, Franglais 425–426 determiners 429 dialects/dialectology 427 diminutives 428–429 as fusional language 428 future 428 influence from other languages English see Franglais Old Norse 248 influence on other languages Bislama 162 Dutch 309 Early Modern English 341 English 248 Inuit 374 Je`rriais 563 Korean 615–616 Krio 620 Lesser Antilles 858–859 Michif 710 Middle English 352, 354 Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) 43 Old English 358 Sango 917 Wolof 1186–1186 interrogation 429 long-range comparisons chance similarities 652 sound correspondences 650–651 morphology 428 negation 429 as official language Canada 427 Central African Republic 917 France 427 French Polynesia 1039 Madagascar 674 Vanuatu 161 origin/development 427 orthography 428 acute accents 428 cedilla 428 circumflex 428 grave accents 428 Roman alphabet 428 tre´ma 428 perfect 428 phonetics 427 Canada 427–428 consonants 428 liaison 428 open syllables 428 vowels 427 phonology 427 subjects 429 SVO 429 syntax 428 tenses 428 use of 427 vocabulary 429 Arabic 429 English 429 Franglais 425 Frankish 429 Italian 429 Latin 429 see also Franglais; Je`rriais; Middle English; Romance languages French-English cognates 651 French Guiana, Arawak languages 59 French Polynesia, official language 1039
Index 1237 Frisian classification 251–252 Dutch, influences from 310 see also Germanic languages Frisian, Old, Old English vs. 356–357 Friulian classification 893 dialects 894 geographical distribution 894 speaker numbers 894 see also Rhaeto-Romance languages Front/back harmony, vowels see Vowel harmony Fujian 969 see also Hakka languages Fula 770 classification 253 Hausa, influences on 477 language families 652–653 use of 770 see also Atlantic Congo languages Fulfulde 430–433 concord 432 consonant alteration 432t dialects 431 diminutives 431 focus 432 voices 432 Islam 430 nomenclature 430 noun classes 430, 431 suffix allomorphy 431 orthography 430 Arabic script 430 Latin script 430 taboos 432 body parts 432 names 433 use of 430 as L2 430 see also Atlantic Congo languages Fullah, Krio, influences on 620 Fusion, in agglutinating languages 419 Fusional languages 291, 731, 732 agglutinating languages vs. 550 affixes vs., roots 554 classification vagueness 549 definition 549 index of fusion 291 index of synthesis 291 isolating languages vs.. 550 morphological types 549 other types vs. 733t see also specific languages Future African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) 335–336 Bactrian 116 Balkan linguistic area see Balkan linguistic area Bantu languages 141 Bikol 159t Bislama 162 Brahui 164t, 165 Bulgarian 169 Creek 265 Creole Portuguese 868 Creoles 863 Czech 277 Dravidian languages 304 Evenki 406 French 428 Gamilaraay 440–441 Gondi 457 Hausa 479 Hiligaynon 494 Ilocano 521 Italian 552–553 Jiwarli 572t Kannada 576 Krio 619 Kurukh 628t Lak 636 Latin 643
Lithuanian 648 Luganda 658 Lyngngam 596 Malayalam 683 Mixe-Zoquean languages 712 negation 129t Nenets (Yurak) 762–763 Nivkh 778 Oneida 807 Ossetic 817t Persian, Modern 851 Pitjantjatjara 873t Pitta Pitta 88 Punjabi 888 Russian 907 Sindhi 963t Siriano 1098t Slovak 979 Tajik Persian 1043 Tibetan 1061 Tohono O’odham 1075 Tok Pisin 1077 Tucanoan languages 1101, 1101t Turkish 1114–1115 Waray-Waray 915–916 will/have 128, 129t Wolaitta 1182 Xhosa 1192 Yiddish 1204 Fuzhou 219 phonology 219 Putonghua vs. 219 use of 219 see also Chinese
G Ga-Dangme 631 double articulated consonants 632 tone 632 verbs 632 vowel harmony 632 word order 632 see also Kwa languages Gaelic, Scots see Scots Gaelic Gagauz 1109 related languages, Azerbaijanian 110–111 use of 1112 see also Turkic languages Galician 435–438 allophones 437 classification 251–252, 435 definite articles 437 history 435 morphology 436 phonology 435, 436t Portuguese, influence on 883 Portuguese vs. 435 pronouns 437 syntax 437 tenses 436–437 use of, Spain 435 verbs 437 see also Portuguese; Romance languages Gallatin, Albert, Uto-Aztecan languages 1140 Gambia Mande 769–770 Wolof 1184 Gamilaraay 438–441 Bible translation 438 case 439 consonants 439, 439t future 440–441 history 438 morphology 439 nouns 439 phonology 439 pronouns 440, 440t relationships 439 revival/survival 438–439 roots 439
stops 439 study 438 syntax 440 interclausal syntax 440–441 use of 438 verbs 440 conjugations 440t dependent verbs 440 vowels 439 word-building 440 word order 440 see also Australian languages; Jiwarli; PamaNyungan languages Gan languages classification 969 speaker numbers 214t see also Chinese Garbrialin˜o 1140 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Garo 968–969 see also Bodo-Koch languages Gartner, T, Rhaeto-Romance language classification 893 Gascon see Occitan Gatschet, Albert, Uto-Aztecan languages 1140 Gaulish Breton vs. 166 classification 199–200 see also Celtic, Continental Gawarbati case-marking 284 classification 282 speaker numbers 282 tonal system 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages; Kunar languages Gbaya languages 3 long-range comparisons 651 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Gbe languages 631–632 double articulated consonants 632 vowel harmony 632 see also Aja (Aja-gbe); Kwa languages Geˆ 750 see also Native American languages Gedebo 624 see also Grebo languages Gedeo noun morphology 491t phonology 490t use of 488–489, 488t verb morphology 490, 490t see also Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages Geechee see Gullah Geelvink Bay languages geographical distribution 840–841 see also Papuan languages Ge’ez 441–442 morphology 442 phonology 441–442 quasi-syllabic script 441–442 use of 441 vocabulary 442 VSO 442 see also Afroasiatic languages; Amharic; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Ethiopian Semitic languages; Semitic languages Gender Abun 1177 Arabic 46, 55 Arawak languages 61 Bactrian 115, 540 Bantu languages 140 Barupu (Warupu) 974 Berber languages 154 Bilua 205 Brahui 164 Cariban languages 184–185, 186t Central Solomons languages 205 Chorasmian 238–239, 540 Creoles 862 Cushitic languages 274–275 Czech 277 Dardic languages 284
1238 Index Gender (continued) Dutch 309 English, Early Modern 340 German 445–446 Germanic languages 449 Gondi 456 Gujarati 527 I˙jo˙ 518 Indo-Aryan languages 527 Iranian languages 540 Italian 550–551, 551t Khoesaan languages 602 Khotanese 540 Kurdish 625–626 Kurukh 627 Latvian 645 Lavukaleve 205 Lithuanian 647–648 Macedonian 664 Makushi 184–185 Manambu 693 morphology 758 North American native languages see North American native languages Omaha-Ponca 804 Oneida 806–807 Palikur 61 Pemong 184–185 Persian, Modern 540, 850 Polish 875 Punjabi 887 Ramo 974 Romani 899 Savosavo 205 Sindhi 962, 963t Sinhala 965, 966t Skou languages 974 Slovak 978 Slovene 983 Sogdian 540 Sumerian 1023 Tajik Persian 1042 Tariana 61, 1051 Tocharian 1069–1070 Touo (Baniata) 205 Uralic languages 1131 Wambaya 1163 West Papuan languages 1177 Wolaitta 1180, 1181–1182, 1181t, 1182t Yiddish 1204 Yoruba 1208 Genetic relationships, areal linguistics 66 Genitive case, dative merging 125 Genje 112 see also Azerbaijanian Georgia Armenian 68 Caucasian languages 192 Georgian 442 Ossetic 812 Georgian 442–444 alphabet, Abkhaz 1 classification 251 consonants 443, 443t ergative 443 Old 291 phonetics, vowels 193, 193t use of 442 verbs 443, 443t case marking/agreement 443t vowels 443, 443t written text 442–443 oldest example 442 see also Abkhaz; Caucasian languages; Kartvelian languages German 444–447 Central 445 classification 251–252 genders 445–446 High 445 history 445 Bible translation 445 High German 445 Second Sound Shift 445
written records 445 inflectional marking 445–446 influence on other languages 444 Inuit 374 Korean 615–616 Pennsylvania Dutch 444 Rabaul 444 Slovak 980 Tok Pisin 858–859 Yiddish 444 long-range comparisons chance similarities 652 with English 651 morphology 445 orthography 445 noun capitalization 445 phonology 445 regional/social variation 446 related languages, Luxembourgish 659 SOV 446 syntax 446 finite verbs 446 Upper 445 use of 444 vowel inflection changes 446 see also Dutch; Europe, as linguistic area; Germanic languages; Luxembourgish; Sorbian Germanic languages classification 251–252 genetic classification 246 East 447 see also Gothic Esperanto, influence on 376 gender distinctions 449 migrations 448–449 North 447 nouns 449 origin/development 447 lexicon 447–448 relationships between 448 SOV 449 Tocharian 1070 West 447 word order 449 see also Afrikaans; Danish; Dutch; English, Early Modern; English, Modern; German; Gothic; Icelandic; Indo-European languages; Luxembourgish; Middle English; Norse, Old; Norwegian; Old English; Swedish; Yiddish Germany Danish 279 German 444 Sorbian 991–993 Urdu 1133 Gerunds see Noun(s); Verb(s) Gesture see Sign language Ghana Akan 17 Ewe 408 Gur 770 Gur languages 472 Kwa 771 Kwa languages 630 Mande 769–770 national languages, Ewe 408 Gheg, Albanian dialects 23 Gibraltar, Yanito 1202 Gigimai 1074 see also Tohono O’odham Gikuyu (Kikuyu) 449–453 aspect marking 452 classification 253 consonants 450 diminutives 452 diphthongs 450 glides 450 habitual phonology 450 influences from other languages 449–450 lexical tone 450 nouns 450 classes 450, 451t compound 452
concord system 450 derivation 452 deverbal 452 morphosyntax 450 phonology 450 prenasalized consonants 450 SVO 451 syllables 450 tense marking 452 as Thagicu language 449–450 as tonal language 450 triphthongs 450 use of, Kenya 449–450 verbs 451 negation 452 reduplication 451–452 vowels 450 word order 451 see also Bantu languages Gilchrist, John, Hindustani grammar 498 Gilgiti 282 see also Gilgit languages Gilgit languages 282 see also Shina languages Gilij, Filippo Salvadore, Cariban language classification 183 Gilligan, Gary, suffixing preference 288 Gimira 805 see also Omotic languages Girard, V, Cariban language classification 183 GiTonga 1018 see also Inhambane languages Glebo 624 see also Grebo languages Globalization, and language endangerment 325, 326 Global language, definition 326 Glottochronology, Indo-European languages 529 Goeje, C H de, Cariban language classification 183 Goidelic Celtic classification 200, 251–252 see also Celtic; Celtic, Insular Goidelic languages 453–455 definition 453 Norse, effects of 453–454 Ogham 453 perfect 453 see also Celtic Gondi 455–459 ablative 457 adjectives 456 adverbs 456 agreement 300t case suffixes 457 classification 251 classifiers 457 consonants 455, 455t dialects 455 future 457 gender 456 genitive 457 instrumental-locative suffix 457 interjections 456 nominative 457 nouns 456 accusative 301–302 number 456 numerals 457, 457t particles 456 phonology 455 plural suffixes 456 postpositions 456, 457 pronouns 457 syntax 456 use of 455 India 455 verbs 456, 457 finite verbs 456, 457, 458t nonfinite verbs 457 verb bases 457 vowels 455, 455t
Index 1239 word classes 456 word order 456 see also Dravidian languages Gonga 805 see also Omotic languages Gonja 631 see also Guang languages Gordon, Raymond G Jr., Ethnologue 385 Gorokan languages classification 1087 geographical distribution 669, 670f grammars (books) 1085–1086 see also Trans New Guinea languages Gorum 736 morphology 737 see also Munda languages Gothic 459–461 classification 251–252 Crimean Gothic 460 history 459 influence on other languages 460 morphology 460 sample text 460 syntax 460 Wulfila 459 alphabet 459, 459f see also Germanic languages; Germanic languages, East; Indo-European languages; Old English Grammars (books) Akkadian 21 Chadic languages 206 Formosan languages 422–423 Hindustani 497–498 Trans New Guinea languages 1085–1086 Grammaticalization, Southeast Asian languages 1012 Grammaticized verbs, evidentiality see Evidentiality Grangali case-marking 284 classification 282 sibilants 283 speaker numbers 282 see also Kunar languages Grasserie, Raoul de la 833 Grave, French orthography 428 Great Britain see United Kingdom (UK) ‘Great Vowel Shift’ Early Modern English 339, 339t Later Modern English 349 Scots 924–925 Grebo languages 770 phonetics/phonology, syllables 624 use of 624 see also Kru languages Greece Albanian 22 Macedonian 663 Modern Greek 464 Romanian 901 Turkish 1112 Greek Ancient see Greek, Ancient Armenian vs. 68–69 classification 251 influence from other languages Phoenician 854 Present Day English 329–330 influence on other languages English 248 Yiddish 1205 Italy 545 modern see Greek, Modern see also Indo-European languages Greek, Ancient 461–464 accent 462 adjectives 463 consonants 462 declensions 463 dialects 461 ‘historical,’ 461 ‘literary,’ 462 Mycenaean 461
external history 461 Latin, relation to 461 Modern Greek vs. 464–465 morphology 462 nominals 463 orthography, Mycenaean 461 perfect 463 phonology 462 resultative 463 stops 462 syntax 462 tenses 463 types 463 verbs 463 vocalic resonants 462 vowels 462 word order 463 see also Balkan linguistic area; Greek, Modern; Latin Greek, Modern 464–467 Ancient Greek vs. 464–465 dialects 465 Peloponnesian-Ionian Greek 465 Pontic 465 Tsakonian 465 as fusional language 466 as official language, Greece 464 origin/development 464 perfect 466 sociolinguistic setting 465 stress accents 466 structure 465 syntax 466 as synthetic language 466 use of 464 vowels 465 see also Balkan linguistic area; Greek, Ancient Greek script, Bactrian 115 Greenberg, Joseph H African languages 4, 248–249 Adamawa-Ubangi languages 2 Benue-Congo languages 150 Gur language studies 472 Khoesaan language classification 600–601 Kordofanian languages 613 Kru language classification 623 Mande language classification 696–697 Niger-Congo languages 769f Nilo-Saharan languages 4, 772 American languages 248–249, 252 Amerind 655 Macro-Jeˆ language classification 665–666 Songai language classification 991 morphological types 730, 731 multilateral comparison 650 Oceanian languages Central Solomon language classification 204–205 Papuan languages 839–840 Greenland Danish 279 Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) 1172 Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) 1172 Central Siberian Yupik vs. 202 classification 1172 dictionary 1172 grammar 1172 historiography 1172 use of 1172 workers in 1172 Greenlandic, East 1172 see also Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) Grimes, Barbara G, Ethnologue 385 Grimes, Joseph E, fields of work, three-letter language identifiers 386 Grimm’s Law, French-English cognates 651 Grundriss der verglecihenden Grammatik der inodgermanischen Sprachen (Brugmann) 135 Grusi languages 770 see also Gur languages Gruzinic see Judeo-Georgian Guajiro 40 see also Arawak languages Guambiano see Barbacoan languages
Guangdong 969 see also Hakka languages Guang languages 631 see also Awutu; Kwa languages Guangxi 969 see also Pinghua languages Guaranı´ 467–468, 752 active/stative verbs 467 case markers 468 diminutives 467 history 467 initial consonants 468 morphology 467 as official language 467 as polysynthetic language 467 prosodic nasality (nasal harmony) 468 relations 468 use of 467 see also Native American languages; Tupian languages; Tupi-Guarani Guarequena (Warekena) 60 see also Arawak languages Guatemala 653 Arawak languages 59 Chalchiteko 705–706 Mayan languages 705–706, 706t official languages 705–706 Guato´ classification 665–666, 666t, 667 inflectional morphology 667 phonology, vowels 667 word order 667–668 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Guaycuruan 752 see also Native American languages Guere-Krahn 624 see also Guere languages Guere languages 770 types 624 use of 624 speaker numbers 623 see also Kru languages Guernsey, languages, French 427 Guinea Fulfulde 430 Mande 769–770 Mande languages 694 Guinea-Bissau Mande 769–770 Portuguese 883 Gujarati 468–470 classification 251–252, 522 dialects 468 genders 527 grammar 469 history 468 literature 468 number of speakers 523 as official language 468 orthography 469 phonology 525–526 use of 468 vowels 526–527 see also Dardic languages; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-Iranian languages Gulf Zoque see Mixe-Zoquean languages Gullah 470–472 classification 249t development 470 etymology 470 habitual 471 history 470 influence from other languages 471 iterative 471 lexicon 471 phonology 471 pronominal form 471 use of 470 see also African-American Vernacular English (AAVE); Creoles; English; Pidgins Gun (Gun-gbe) 631–632 see also Gbe languages Gundert, Hermann, Malayalam 681
1240 Index Gunwinygu (Gunwiggu) morphology 89–90 semantics, pronominal forms 90–91, 91t see also Australian languages Guosa, as auxiliary language 75–76 Guoyu see Putonghua Gurage languages 383 use of 382–383 see also Ethiopian Semitic languages Gurjuc see Judeo-Georgian Gur (Voltaic) languages 770 aspect 473 classification 768–769 Central Gur 472 Senufo 472 concord 473 consonants 472 grammar 472 imperfective 473 phonetics/phonology 472 plurals 473 studies of 472 Polyglotta Africana 472 subgroups 770 SVO 473 syntax 472 tones 473 use of 770 Mali 472 speaker numbers 472 vowel harmony 472 word order 473 workers in 472 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages; NigerCongo languages Gurmukhi script, Punjabi writing systems 886 Gutob 736 see also Munda languages Guugu Yimithirr 473–476 cardinal directions 475 downstep 473 genetic relations 474 Kuku Yalanji 474 history 473–474 orthography 474 personal pronouns 474 progressive 474–475 shortening vs. lengthening suffixes 474 sociolinguistic features 476 suffixes 474 syntax 475 use of 473–474, 476 verbs 474 transitive verbs 475 vowels 474 word order 474 workers in, Roth, W E 473–474 see also Australian languages Guyana Arawak languages 59 Hindi 495 Gypsy see Romani
H Haarmann, H, European linguistic area 391 Habitual African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) 336 Bengali 149 Crow 269 Dravidian languages 304–305 Gikuyu (Kikuyu) 450 Gullah 471 Iranian languages 539 Iroquoian languages 544 Krio 619 Ossetic 816, 817t Papiamentu 835 Pidgins 867–868 Sindhi 963t Sumerian 1024
Hadiyya noun morphology 491t phonology 490–491, 490t use of 488–489, 488t Ethiopia 272–273 see also Cushitic languages; Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages Hadramitic 931 see also Semitic languages Hadza 252 see also Khoesaan languages Haisla 1157 see also Wakashan languages Haitian Creole French, Louisiana Creole vs. 656 Haketiya 567 Hakka languages classification 969 speaker numbers 214t see also Chinese; specific languages Halang speaker numbers 726 see also Bahnaric languages Hale, Kenneth L Arrernte study 73 Warlpiri morphology 1165 Hamar 805 see also Omotic languages Hamitic theory, Afroasiatic languages 12 Hamito-Semitic languages see Afroasiatic languages Handshape, phonology 941, 941f Han’gul, Korean alphabet 616 Hani 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Hanzi 217 Harmony systems see Consonant(s); Vowel harmony Hasaitic 931–932 see also Semitic languages Haspelmath, Martin, European linguistic area 393 Hatam classification 1176 numbers 1177 see also East Bird’s Head (EBH) languages; West Papuan languages Hattic, kinship 196 Hausa 206, 477–480 consonants 477, 477t future 479 ideophones 479 imperfective 478 influence from other languages 477 Krio, influences on 620 morphology 478 negation 479 nouns 478 phrases 479 phonology 477 plurals 478 possessives 479 pro-drop 479 pronouns 478 questions 479 reduplication 478 subject agreement 478 SVO 478 syntax 479 tense-aspect/mood 478 tones 478 use of 477 media 477 Nigeria 477, 1209 verbs 478 vowels 477 word order 479 written script 477 see also Africa; Africa, as linguistic area; Afroasiatic languages; Chadic languages Have perfect tense Balkan linguistic area 129 Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394
Hawaii, Cebuano 197 Hawaiian 480–481 first recording 1149–1150 Hawaiian Creole English, influences on 481 morphophonemics 1150 phonemes 1150 revival of 1149 see also Hawaiian Creole English (HCE); Tahitian Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) 481–482 classification 249t graded variation 481 grammar 481 influence from other languages 481 literary traditions 481–482 phonology 481–482 SVO 481 use of speaker numbers 481 USA 1127 VSO 480–481 see also Creoles; Hawaiian; Pidgins Hawking, John A, suffixing preference 288 Head driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG ), Balinese 118 Hebraicia Stuttgartensia 483 Hebrew classification 250 influence on other languages Jewish languages 566 Judeo-Arabic 568 Yanito 1202 Yiddish 567, 1205 Israeli see below Middle 934 Phoenician, influence from 854 Phoenician vs. 854 pre-Modern see below Rabbinic 483 the Torah 483–484 Yiddish alphabet 1203 see also Afroasiatic languages; Aramaic; Semitic languages Hebrew, Israeli 485–488 adjectives 487 as analytic language 486 clauses 487 consonants 486–487 genetic classification 485 grammatical profile 486 as head-marking language 486 influence on other languages, Jewish languages 566 nouns 487 origins/development 485, 486f phonology 486 political influences 488 pronouns 487 syllable structure 487 use of, Israel 485 verbs 487 vowels 486–487 see also Afroasiatic languages; Hebrew; Jewish languages; Semitic languages; Yiddish Hebrew, pre-Modern 482–485, 933 Biblical 482 see also Afroasiatic languages; Jewish languages; Semitic languages decline of 483 definition 482 in Diaspora 483 literature 484 secular context 484 Israeli pronunciation 484 Masoretes 483 Middle 934 in other languages 484 Rabbinic 483 as ‘sacred language,’ 482
Index 1241 study in Christianity 484 in Talmud 483 Torah 483–484 Heiban 770 see also Kordofanian Heiltsuk 1157 see also Wakashan languages Henry, George, Nyanja 794 Henshaw, H W, Native American languages 747 Heritage languages definition 318 endangerment see Language endangerment Heterograms, Pahlavi (Middle Persian) 827 Hetherwick, Alexander, Nyanja 794 Hibito-Cholo´n languages 41 see also Andean languages Hidatsa 749 see also Siouan languages High German 445 Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages 272, 488–492 classification 489, 489f demography 488 members 488–489, 488t noun morphology 491, 491t phonology 490, 490t progressive 490 SOV 489 syntax 491, 491t types 489, 489t use of 272–273, 488–489 Ethiopia 272–273, 488–489 verb morphology 490, 490t writing 489 see also Africa; Africa, as linguistic area; Afroasiatic languages; Cushitic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) Hildegarde of Bingen, Saint, artificial languages 76 Hiligaynon 492–494 consonants 493 deictics 493t dialects 492 future 494 glottal stop 493 grammar 493 history 492 morphology 493 negatives 494 nouns 493 phonology 492t, 493 progressive 493t pronouns 492t use of 99, 492 Philippines 492 speaker numbers 492 verb inflection 493–494, 493t vowels 493 word order 494 see also Austronesian languages; Bikol; SamarLeyte; Tagalog Hill (western) Mari 1129–1130 see also Mari languages Hindi 494–497 Assamese vs. 78 causatives 997 classification 251–252, 522 compounding 497 consonants 495–496 converbs 995 dative subjects 997 derivation 497 dialects 495 ergative 496–497 formal vs. informal 495 influence on other languages Hindustani 497 Kashmiri 582–583 Kurukh 629 Malayalam 680–681 Punjabi 889 influences from other languages 495–496 learning by children 495 morphology 496–497
Nepali vs. 764 nouns 496–497 as official language 495 Fiji 413 India 499 origin/development 494–495 phonology 495–496, 496t political influences 495 postposition 496–497 reduplication 497 SOV 497 tenses 497 Urdu vs. 1134 lexicography 500 use of 495 number of speakers 522–523 verbs 496–497 vowels 495–496, 526–527 word order 497 writing systems, Devanagari 524 see also Bengali; Dardic languages; Hindustani; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-European languages; Punjabi; Romani; South Asian languages; Urdu Hindko 635 Hinduism Indo-Iranian languages 531–532 language influences, Khmer (Cambodian) 600 Malayalam 680 Punjabi 886 revivalism, Hindustani effects 499 see also Vedas Hindustani 497–501 classification 251–252 dictionaries 500 forms of 498 bazaar 499 vernacular 499 grammars (books) 497–498 Hindu revivalism 499 influences from other languages 497 lexicon 500 Perso-Arabic words 500 Muslim revivalism 499 origin/development 497 colonial influences 498 dialect mixing 498 Kari Boli 497 literary language 498 problems of linguistic description 500 religious influences Islam 498 partitioning 499 as symbol of unity 499 Urdu, divergence from 1135–1136 vocabulary 499 see also Dardic languages; Hindi; Indo-Aryan languages; Urdu Hiri Motu 501–502 consonants 501 definition 501 OSP 501 postposition 501 sentence structure 501 SOP 501 vowel sounds 501 Hishkaryana geography 185f phonology 183–184 word order 186 see also Cariban languages Hismaic 932 see also Semitic languages Hispano-Celtic see Celtiberian Historicist studies, linguistic areas 62 Hitchiti 739 Hitchitii-Mikasuki 749 see also Muskogean languages Hittite 502–503 cuneiform script 502 example 502 historical aspects 36 Luwian vs. 37
morphology 502 phonology 502 syntax 502 texts 532 see also Indo-European languages Hmar 968–969 see also Kuki-Chin languages Hmong classifiers 1013 come to have verb 1015 word order 1014t Hmongic 503 see also Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) classification 968 ideophones 503 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages 503 numbers speaking 503 used in 503 see also Hmongic Ho 736 see also Munda languages Hoenigswald, H M, long-range comparisons 650 Hokan languages 750 adjectives 508 alignment 507 classification 505 classifier 508 comparative studies 504 consonants 507t contrasts 507t core additions 504 descriptive works 506 diminutives 507–508 ergative 507 grammar 507 Hokan hypothesis 504 interrogatives 508 members 504 noun phrases 509 nouns 507 Oto-Mangean vs. 505 person markers 507 phonemic contrasts 506 phonology 506 Pomo family 750–751 possessives 509 quantifiers 508 sentence-level constituents 509 SOV 507 syllable structure 507 use of 505 verbs 508 viability 509 vowels 507t word order 509 workers in 504 Yuman family 750–751 see also Achuan languages; Chimariko languages; Washo; Yanan languages Hokan-Siouan languages 747–748 Honduras Arawak languages 59 Misumalpan languages 711 Sumu (Sumo Tawahka) 711 Hong Kong Cantonese 218 consonants 219 derivation 218 English, influences from 218 phonology 220t speaker numbers 218 syllables 219 use of 218 vowels 219 see also Chinese Honorifics Japanese 559 Korean 615 Telugu 1056, 1056t Tibetan 1062 Ho Nte 503 see also Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages
1242 Index Hope-Tewa 1049 see also Tanoan Hopi 1140 baby talk vocabulary 513–514 classification 1139t demonstratives 512 development 511 dialects 513 imperfective 512 male vs. female speakers 513 nouns 512 plurals 512 orthography 511 pronouns 512 ritual speech 514 song 514 source information types 513 SOV 511 time 511 use of 511 verbs 512 derivational suffixes 512–513 modifiers 513 noun incorporation 513 tense 512 transitive verbs 512 word order 511 workers in, Whorf, B L 511 see also Keres; Uto-Aztecan languages HPSG (Head driven Phrase Structure Grammar), Balinese 118 Hre 726 see also Bahnaric languages Hua 1085–1086 see also Gorokan languages Huave 748 see also Native American languages Huayu see Putonghua Hu¨bschmann, Heinrich, Armenian 68–69 Huehuetla Tepehua 1081 phonology, consonants 1082 speaker numbers 1082 Hu´:hu’ula 1074 see also Tohono O’odham Huhuwos 1074 see also Tohono O’odham Hui languages classification 969 speaker numbers 214t see also Anhui; Chinese Huilliche 41 classification 701 see also Andean languages Huli 1086–1087 see also Engan languages Humahuaca 41 Human pronouns, in isolating language 221 Humboldt, Wilhelm von, morphological types 730 Humburi Senni 990–991 see also Songai languages Humor, Franglais development 425 Hung 728–729 see also Cuoi languages Hungarian 514–516 case suffixes 1131 classification 1129–1130 consonants 515 definite objects 515 history 514 language names 514 main verb phrases 1132 morphology 515 negation 1131 nouns 515 noun phrase 516 object marking 1132 phonology 514 plural markers 1131 possessed nominals 515 postpositions 290, 515 pro-drop 516 syntax 515 use of 514
verbs 515 vowel harmony 1130 vowels 514–515 vowel harmony 514–515 word order 515 word stress 515 written records, earliest 514 see also Australian languages; Finno-Ugric languages; Uralic languages Hungary German 444 Hungarian 514 Slovak 977 Slovene 981 Hunzib vowels 193, 194t see also Caucasian languages Huon-Finistere languages 1086–1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Huron 542 see also Iroquoian languages Hurrian 516 as agglutinating language 516 concord 515–516 extinction 516–516 historical aspects 516 nouns 516 proper names 516 Hutton, James, Indo-European languages 528–529 Huzhu Mongghul 723 see also Mongol languages
I Ibaloi see Inibaloi (Ibaloi) Ibanag 784 see also North Philippine languages Ibo 620 Icelandic classification 251–252 neologisms 782 patronymics 782 speaker numbers, absolute 323 see also Danish; Germanic languages; IndoEuropean languages; Middle English; Norse, Old; Norwegian; Scandinavian languages; Swedish Icelandic, Old 779–783 diphthongs 780 ‘eddic’ poetry 779–780 historical relations 779 indefinite article 780 morphology 780 negation 781 nominative case 781 noun phrases 781 numbers 780 phonology 780 ‘scaldic’ poetry 779–780 syntax 780 terminology 779 use of, Norway 779 verb-initial clauses 781 verbs 780–781 vocabulary 781 vowels 780 word order 781 Ideophones Awetı´ 1106–1107 Chadic languages 207 Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 379 Ethiopian Semitic languages 383 Ewe 408 Hausa 479 Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) 503 Kamayura´ 1106–1107 Karitia´na 1106–1107 Karo 1106–1107 Kinyarwanda 608 Mawe´ 1106–1107 Monde´ 1106–1107 Munduruku´ 1106–1107
Ramara´ma 1106–1107 Shona languages 938 sign language 946 Tuparı´ 1106–1107 Tupian languages 1106–1107 Wolof 1184–1185 Xhosa see Xhosa Xipa´ya 1106–1107 Ido 76–77 Idomoid 151 see also Benue-Congo languages Igbo classification 253 Nigeria 1209 see also Benue-Congo languages Igboid 151 see also Benue-Congo languages I˙jo˙ 517–518 classification 517 Defaka vs. 517 as Kwa language 517 west vs. east 517 dialects 518 downstep 518 gender 518 geographical location 517 Nigeria 517 naming of 517 nomenclature 517 noun class 518 qualifiers 518 SOV 517–518 typological characteristics 517 see also Kwa languages Ijoid 770 classification 768–769 see also Niger-Congo languages Ika see Chibchan languages Ikpeng phonology 183–184 use of 185f see also Cariban languages Illich-Svutych, Vladimir M long-range comparisons 653–654 Nostratic theory 249 Ilocano 518–522 consonants 518–519, 519t demonstratives 521, 521t dialects 518 future 521 noun marking system 520, 520t potentive mode 520 pronouns 520, 521t stops 519 stress 519 syntax 520 use of 99 Philippines 518 speaker numbers 783 verbs 520 voices 520, 520t vowels 519, 519t see also Austronesian languages; North Philippine languages; South Philippine languages Ilonggo see Hiligaynon Imhambane languages see Bantu languages, Southern Imperfective Arabic 47 Berber languages 156 Bulgarian 168 Central Semitic languages 931 Cupen˜o 271 Cushitic languages 274–275 Czech 277 Dogon 294 Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 380 Ethiopian Semitic languages 383 Gur languages 473 Hausa 478 Hopi 512 Kalkutungu 575 Macedonian 664–665
Index 1243 Nenets (Yurak) 762–763 Ossetic 816 Papiamentu 835 Pashto 847 Phoenician 855 pidgins 867–868 Pitjantjatjara 873 Polish 876 Russian 907 Slovak 977 Slovene 983 Sorbian 994 Tohono O’odham 1075 Totonacan languages 1083 Warlpiri 1166t Wolaitta 1182 Xhosa 1192 Inari Saami 911 see also Saami Incorporation Cherokee 544 Cree see Cree Crow 269 Hopi 513 Iroquoian languages 544 Karaja´ 667 Lakota 639 Mohawk 544 Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) 790 Panara´ 667 Indefinite articles, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Indeterminateness, Southeast Asian languages 1011 Index of fusion, types 291 Index of synthesis classification of language 731 types 291 India Bengali 148 Burmese 170 Burushaski 175 Dardic languages 282 Dhivehi 285 Dravidian 297 Gondi 455 Gujarati 468 Hindi 495, 499 Indo-Aryan languages 522 Indo-Iranian languages 531 Kannada 576 Kashmiri 582 Khasi 595 Khasic 727 Kurukh 626–627 Malayalam 680 Marathi 703 Mon-Khmer languages 725 Munda languages 736 Nepali 764 Punjabi 885 Santali 921 Sindhi 960 Sino-Tibetan 968 Syriac 1033 Tai-Kadai languages 105 Tai languages 1039 Telugu 1055 Tibetan 1060–1061 Urdu 522–523, 1133 Indo-Aryan languages 522–528 case inventory 527 classification 251–252 contacts Dravidian languages 306 Munda languages 737 distribution 522 English, influences from 522 ergative 527 genders 527 Indo-Iranian languages vs. 525 major languages 522 morphosyntax 527 origins/development 523
literary traditions 524 Middle Indo-Aryan dialects 523 Old Indo-Aryan dialects 523 written records 523 phonology 525 sociolinguistics 522 stops 525–526 tense system 527 tonal system 526–527 use of 522 number of speakers 522–523 vowels 526–527 writing systems 524 Brahmi 524 Devanagari 524 Kharosthi 524 see also Asoka; Assamese; Italian; Kashmiri; Lahnda; Marathi; Nepali; Punjabi; Romani; Sanskrit; Sindhi; South Asian languages; Southeast Asian languages; Tocharian; Urdu Indo-European languages 528–531 classification 251, 530 archeology 530 convergence 530 genetic classification 246 nostraticism 530 Nostratic theory 249 types 530 definition 530 family tree construction 528 Hutton, James 528–529 ‘Neogrammarians,’ 528–529 Schleicher, August 528–529 as fusional languages 550 historical language change theories 529 ‘glottochronology,’ 529 Schmidt, Johannes 529 and Nostratic 653–654 Nostratic theory 786 Proto-Indo-European vs. cladistics 529 Nichols, Johanna 529 Tocharian vs. 1070 workers in Hutton, James 528–529 Jones, William 528 Nichols, Johanna 529 Schleicher, August 528–529 Schmidt, Johannes 529 Young, Thomas 528 see also Afrikaans; Albanian; Anatolian languages; Armenian languages; Avestan; Catalan; Germanic languages; Goidelic languages; Gothic; Hindi; Hittite; Icelandic; Indo-Iranian languages; Italian; Italic languages; Latin; Norse, Old; Nuristani languages; Old Church Slavonic; Persian, Old; Pictish; Proto-Indo European (PIE); Slavic languages; South Asian languages; Spanish; Tocharian Indo-Iranian languages 531–535 active vs. passive 534 allophones 533 Armenian vs. 68–69 classification 251–252 demonstrative pronouns 533 Hittite texts 532 Indo-Aryan languages vs. 525 inflection 533 labiovelars 532 lexicon 534 moods 534 nominal compounds 534 nouns 533 origin/development 531–532 perfect 533–534 perfect tense 533–534 phonology 532 present tense 533 pronouns 533 religious influences 531–532 SOV 534 syntax 534
tense/aspect distinctions 533 use of 531 verbs 533 vowels 532 word order 534 see also Avestan; Dardic languages; Gujarati; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-European languages; Iranian Languages; Iranian languages; Kashmiri; Pashto; Persian, Old; Sanskrit Indonesia Austronesian languages 97, 99 Balinese 116 Cebuano 197 Madurese 672 Malay 678 Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) Malay 678 Riau Indonesian vs. 895–896 Indus Khosistani sibilants 283 speaker numbers 282 In˜eri 59 see also Arawak languages Infixes, diachronic origins 287 Inflection genetic classification 246 nonnative English 361 sign language morphology 950, 951f Inflectional phrase (IP) see Sentence Inga´in 666–667 see also Jeˆ languages Ingrian 1129–1130 see also Finnic languages Inhambane languages 1017 Inheritance, sign language 940 Iniai (Bisorio) 1086–1087 see also Engan languages Inibaloi (Ibaloi) 784 see also North Philippine languages Ink-brush styles, Chinese script see Chinese script Inner Mongolian 969 see also Jin languages Innes, Gordon, Kru language studies 623 Innovation spread, language diffusion 246–248 Inscriptions Etruscan 388 Italic languages 555 Insular Celtic see Celtic, Insular Intensifier-reflexive differentiation, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Intergenerational variation, North American native languages 755 Interior Salish 749 see also Salishan languages Interlingua 77 International Auxiliary Language Association, artificial languages 77 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), three-letter language identifiers 386 International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), Turkish consonants 1113, 1113t Introflecting languages, Arabic 50–53 Intrusion effects, Italic languages 555 Inuit 374 dialects 374 history 371 influences from other languages 374 use of 374 see also Eskimo-Aleut Inupiaq 535–537 classification 251 consonants 536 dialects 535 ethnonyms 536 influence from other languages 536 lexicon 536 morphology 536 phonology 535 as polysynthetic language 536 SOV 536 syntax 536 use of 535 geographical distribution 535, 535f
1244 Index Inupiaq (continued) USA 535 viability 536 verbs 536 vowels 536 word order 536 workers in 535–536 writing 535–536 see also Eskimo-Aleut languages; West Greenlandic Invented languages, literature see Artificial languages Ipili 1086–1087 see also Engan languages Iran Arabic 42 Aramaic 56 Armenian 68 Azerbaijanian 112–113, 1112 Balochi 134, 538 Brahui 162–163 Iranian languages 537 Kurdish 538, 625 Modern Persian 538, 850 Qashqay 1112 Iranian languages 537–542 classification 251–252 consonants 540 declensions 540, 541 definite articles 540 diphthongs 540 directional prefixes 542 direct object 541 dual 540 genders 540 genetic relationships 538 habitual 539 historical 540 imperfect tense 541 influences on other languages Pahlavi (Middle Persian) 827 Tocharian 1070 Middle 537 modal forms 542 morphology 539 New 538 Arabic words 538 dialects 538 Turkish 538 nominal systems 539 nouns 541 Old 537 palatal affricates 538, 540 past tenses 541 perfect 537 phonology 538 plurals 540 present tense 541 pronominal systems 539 pronouns 541 punctual aspects 542 script 537 syllables 540 syntax 539 historical 540 tenses 541 use of 537 verbs 539, 541 see also Aramaic; Avestan; Bactrian; Balochi; Chorasmian; Elamite; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-Iranian languages; Iranian languages, Old; Khotanese; Kurdish; Ossetic; Pahlavi (Middle Persian); Pashto; Persian, Modern; Persian, Old; Romani; Sogdian; Tajik Persian; Tocharian; Turkic languages Iraq Iranian languages 537 Kurdish 538, 625 Irish classification 251–252 development of 454 Connacht 454 Munster 454
Ulster 454 Eastern 454 see also Scots Gaelic literary Irish 453–454 sample 454 see also Goidelic Celtic; Goidelic languages Irish, Old 453 active 453 conjugated prepositions 453 medio-passive 453 nominals 453 preterite 453 Iron affricates 813 classification 813 consonants 814t Iroquoian languages 749 agent prefixes 544 classification 252 consonants 543 habitual 544 laryngeal features 543 local categories 544 members 542 morphology 543 nouns 544–545 incorporation 544 particles 544–545 perfect 544 phonology 543 prenominal prefixes 544 stress 543 subject/object categories 544 syntax 543 tone 543 use of 542 verbs 543–544, 544–545 see also Native American languages Irula Malayalam vs. 682 nouns, accusative 301–302 see also Dravidian languages Ishthmus see Mixe-Zoquean languages IsiSwati see Swati Iskateko 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Islam influence on Dhivehi 285 Hindustani 498, 499 languages Arabic 42 Fulfulde 430 Malayalam 680 Punjabi 886 Qur’an, Sindhi translations 961 Urdu literature 1137 see also Arabic, Classical Island Melanesia, languages, Papuan languages 841 Isoglosses European linguistic area see Europe, as linguistic area South Asian languages 1000 Isolating languages 291, 731, 732 definition 221 fusional languages vs. 550 index of fusion 291 index of synthesis 291 other types vs. 733t see also specific languages Isopleth mapping, Africa, as linguistic area 6, 6f Israel Arabic 42, 485 Armenian 68 English 485 Israeli Hebrew 485 Israeli Hebrew see Hebrew, Israeli Israeli Sign Language, suffix allomorphs 942, 942f Istro-Romanian 901 Italian 545–549 adjectival inflection 550 affixes 553 homonymy 550
inflection 550 inflectional vs. derivational 553 interfixes 553 agreement 550 classification 251–252 cumulative exponence 550 descendants 548 dialects/dialectology 545–546 example 548 external history 546 as fusional language 549–554 see also Arabic, as introflecting language; Central Siberian Yupik; Italian; Morphological Types; Morphological types; Polysynthetic languages genetic relationship 545 individual characteristics 547 influence on other languages 548 French 429 Yanito 1202 influences from other languages, Latin 545–546 internal history 546 investigation history 548 morphology 546, 547 noun inflection 550 gender 550–551 as official language 545 perfect 546 phonology 546, 547 rhythm 547–548 pro-drop 547 pronoun case traces 551 clitic pronouns 551 stressed pronouns 551 sociolinguistic points 548 dialect use 548 literary use 548 SVO 554 syntax 546 use of 545 verbs 551 analytic forms 552 auxiliary verbs 552 indicative future tense 552–553 indicative imperfect 552 indicative present conjugation 553 irregular conjugations 553 present condition tense 552–553 preterit stem irregular modifications 553t suprasegmental modification 552 thematic vowels 552 word order mobility 554 writing system 547 alphabet 547 written records 546 earliest text 546–547 vernacular 547 see also Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-European languages; Romance languages Italic languages 554–555 classification 251–252 genetic classification 246 definition 554–555 inscriptions 555 intrusion effects 555 reconstruction 246 Umbrian language 555 see also Indo-European languages Italkic see Judeo-Italian Italy Albanian 545 Catalan 188, 545 French 427 German 444, 545 Greek 545 Modern Greek 464 Occitan 799 official languages, Italian 545 Serbo-Croatian 545 Slovene 545, 981
Index 1245 Itbayat phonology 684 use of 783 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages; North Philippine languages Itelmen classification 239 see also Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages speaker numbers 239–240 Iteration see Recursion/iteration Iterative Anatolian languages 37 Cushitic languages 274–275 Gullah 471 Krio 617 Mapudungan languages 702 Polish 876 sign language 941 Slovak 979 Sorbian 994 Tagalog 1036–1037 Tucanoan languages 1099–1100 Warlpiri 1166 Itzaj 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages I-umlaut, Old English 357 Ivatan 783 see also North Philippine languages Ivory Coast Eastern Kru languages 623–624 Grebo languages 624 Guere languages 624 Gur languages 770 Kru languages 770 Kwa 771 Kwa languages 630 Mande languages 769–770 Western Kru 624 Ixcatec 751 see also Popolocan languages Ixil 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Ixilan 705–706 see also Mayan languages
J Jabo 624 see also Grebo languages Jabutı´ classification 665–666, 666t geographical distribution 666–667 morphology 667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone, Pictish 856 Jainism, Indo-Iranian languages 531–532 Japan, Ainu 15 Japanese 31 as Altaic language 31 and Amerind 655 classification 249 Nostratic theory 249 development 557 Altaic languages 557 Austronesian languages 557 geographical isolation 557 dialects 557 honorifics 559 influence from other languages 557 lexicon 557 mimetic words 557–558 literary history 557 modifiers 558 mora 558 pronoun omission 559 related languages 557 Ainu 557 Korean 31, 557 Ryukyuan 557 segmental phonology 558 consonants 558
vowels 558 SOV 558 speaker numbers 557 syntax 558 as tone language 558 topic construction 558 nontopic vs. 558 word order 558 writing system 557 see also Ainu; Altaic languages; Austronesian languages; Korean; Ryukyuan Japanese Sign Language (JSL) 956 Japeria see Cariban languages Jaqaru 752 see also Aymaran Jaqaru languages, Aymara vs. 108 Jaquari see Native American languages Java, Madurese 672 Javanese 560–562 Balinese, influence on 116–117 consonants 560, 560t morphology 560 phonology 560 Sulawesi 560 use of 99, 560 vowels 560, 561t writing system 561 see also Austronesian languages; Balinese; Madurese; Malay Jeh speaker numbers 726 see also Bahnaric languages Jeˆ languages classification 665, 666, 666t, 667 ergative 668 morphology 667 as ergative language 668 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Jen languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Jenner, Edward, Cornish 258 Je`rriais 562–565 affricates 562 classification 251–252 consonants 562 delateralization 563 dictionaries 564 glides 563 grammars (books) 564 history 562 influence from other languages 563 language planning 564 literary tradition 564 morphosyntax 563 phonology 562 use of 562 extracurricular teaching 564 geographical distribution 562, 562f, 563f speaker numbers 562 velar nasals 563 vocabulary 563 vowels 562 workers in, Le Geyt, Matthieu 564 see also French; Romance languages Jersey 427 Jewish English see English Jewish Jewish languages 120, 565–569 biblical/liturgical translations 566 common linguistic features 566 definition 565 history 565 influence from other languages 566 scholarship 565 types 565 use of 565 see also Afroasiatic languages; Hebrew, Israeli; Hebrew, pre-Modern, Biblical; Yiddish Jianghuai classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Mandarin Jiangxi 969 see also Hakka languages
Jiaoliao classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Mandarin Jicaque 748 see also Native American languages Jidi see Judeo-Persian Jidyo´ see Judeo-Spanish Jin languages classification 969 speaker numbers 214t see also Chinese Jinuo 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Jirajaran see Arawak languages Jivaroan languages 41 see also Andean languages Jiwarli 569–574 consonants 570, 570t demonstratives 571t example 573 future 572t history 569–570 language relationships 570 Tharrkari 570 Thiin 570 Warriyangka 570 morphology 570 as non-configurational language 572–573 nouns 570–571, 571t phonology 570 pronouns 571, 571t root 570 stops 570 suffixes 570 syntax 572 use of 569–570 verbs 571–572, 572t vowels 570 word building 571 see also Australian languages; Gamilaraay; Pama-Nyungan languages Johnston, J B, Pictish 856 Jomang 613 see also Kordofanian languages Jones, Charles, Later Modern English definition 343 Jones, David, Malagasy writing systems 674–675 Jones, William Indo-European languages 528 Modern Persian 850 Sanskrit 921 Jordan, Domari 295 Juang 736 see also Munda languages Judaism Aramaic scripture commentaries 58 the Torah 483–484 see also Hebrew Judeo-Arabic 565 development 568 influence from other languages 568 speaker numbers 568 writings 568 Judeo-Aramaic 565 development 566 use of 566 Judeo-Berber 565 Judeo-English 565 Judeo-French 565 Judeo-Georgian 565 Judeo-German see Yiddish Judeo-Greek 565 development 566 use of 566 Judeo-Italian 565 Judeo-Malayalam 565 Judeo-Persian 565 Judeo-Portuguese 565 Judeo-Spanish 565 development 567 Haketiya 567 literary tradition 567 use of 566 speaker numbers 567
1246 Index Judeo-Tadjik see Judeo-Persian Judeo-Tat see Judeo-Persian Judezmo see Judeo-Spanish Jula 770 see also Atlantic Congo languages Ju languages 601–602 see also Khoesaan languages Jul’hoan languages 601–602 see also Khoesaan languages Juquila see Mixe-Zoquean languages Juray 736 see also Munda languages Juru´na classification 1106t tone system 1106 see also Tupian languages
K Kaape Afrikaans 8, 9f Kachari 968–969 see also Bodo-Koch languages Kachchhi, related languages, Sindhi 961 Kadugli languages 613 see also Kordofanian languages Kafiri languages see Nuristani languages Kainantu languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Kainji 151 see also Benue-Congo languages KAKIBA 517 Kako 140 see also Bantu languages Kakutungu (Kalkutung) ergative 88 morphology 88–89 syntax 88–89 see also Australian languages Kalaallisut see Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) Kalak 613 see also Kordofanian languages Kala Lagaw Ya, Australia 79 Kalam complex predicates 671 nouns 671 Kalam-Kobon languages predicates 1089 verb root 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Kalam Kohistani, morphosyntax, case-marking 284 Kalanga 1017 see also Shona languages Kalapuya 750 see also Penutian languages Kalasha agreement patterns 284 case-marking 284 sibilants 283 speaker numbers 282 Kalenjin see Nilo-Saharan languages Kaleung 726–727 see also Katuic languages Kalimantan, languages, Javanese 560 Kalispel 749 see also Salishan languages Kalkutungu 575–576 antipassive 575 applicative constructions 576 core case marking 575 dependent clauses 575–576 ergative 575 imperfective 575 insubordination 576 nouns 575 perfect 575 phonemes 575 verbs 575 see also Australian languages; Pama-Nyungan languages Kalmuk 723 see also Mongol languages
Kam 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Kamaka˜ classification 665, 666, 666t geographical distribution 666–667 records of 667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Kamas 1129–1130 see also Samoyed languages Kamayura´ 1106–1107 see also Tupian languages Kambaata noun morphology 491t phonology 490–491, 490t use of 488–489, 488t see also Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages Kamrupi 78 Kamsa´ see Barbacoan languages Kamviri 787 see also Nuristani languages Kanakanavu classification 421 research history 423 see also Formosan languages Kannada 576–578 classification 251 compound verbs 996 converbs 995 future 576 grammar 577 history 576 India 576 language contacts 577 linguistic theory 577 literature 577 Malayalam vs. 682 nouns genitive 302 plural suffixes 301 numerals 303 pronouns 302–303, 302t, 303t SOV 577 structure 577 tenses 304 variation 577 written scripts 297, 576–577 see also Dravidian languages; Malayalam Kanuri 578–579 classification 253 consonant alterations 578 downstep 578 grammar 578 Hausa, influence on 477 script 578 tone levels 578 use of 578 speaker numbers 772–773 verbs 578 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Kapampangan 579–581 adjectives 579 case marking 579 determiners 579, 580t ergative 579, 580t existence 579 focus constructions 580 grammar 579 lexical classes 579 negation 579 nouns 579 phonology 579 possession 579 pronouns 579, 580t speaker numbers 783 word order 579 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages; North Philippine languages; Southeast Asian languages; Tagalog Kapong gender 184–185 use of 185f vowels 183–184 see also Cariban languages
Kaqchikel 705–706 nongenuine sound correspondences with English 651 positionals 707 speaker numbers 706t verbs 707t see also Mayan languages Karabagh 112 see also Azerbaijanian Karachay-Balkar 1109 see also Turkic languages Karaim see Turkic languages Karaja´ classification 665, 666, 666t, 667 inflectional morphology 667 male vs. female speech 667, 667t noun incorporation 667 phonology 667 use of 666–667 vowels 667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Karakalpak 588, 591 related languages, Kazakh 589 see also Kazakh Karakhanid 1110 see also Turkic languages Kara-Kirghiz see Kirghiz Karamzin, N M, Russian 905 Karanga 1017 see also Shona languages Karankawa 751 see also Native American languages Karao 784 see also North Philippine languages Karelian 1129–1130 see also Finnic languages Karelian Sprachbund 392–393 Karen classification 253 classifier 581 see also Tibeto-Burman languages Karenic languages classification 968–969 morphology 970 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Karen languages 581–582 classification 581 number of speakers 581 sample 581 as Sino–Tibetan language 581 SVO 581 as Tibeto–Burman language 581 typological characteristics 581 tone system 581 verb-medial sentence type 581 use of 581 Burma 581 Thailand 581 writing systems 581 see also Kayah Karenni 968–969 see also Karenic languages Kari Boli, Hindustani origin/development 497 Karihona phonology 183–184 use of 185f see also Cariban languages Karinya 185f see also Cariban languages Karirı´ (Kariri-Xoco´) classification 665, 666, 666t ergative 668 morphology 667 records of 667 use of 666–667 word order 667–668 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Kariri-Xoco´ see Karirı´ (Kariri-Xoco´) Karitia´na classification 1106t ideophones 1106–1107 positional demonstratives 1106 see also Tupian languages
Index 1247 Karmali Santali 736 see also Munda languages Karna:taka Saba:nusa:-sana 577 Karo case marking 1106 classification 1106t evidentiality 1108 ideophones 1106–1107 nouns 1106 classification 1108 see also Tupian languages Kartvelian languages Abkhaz, influence on 2 classification 251 consonants 193 kinship 196 morphology 194 Nostratic theory 249, 653–654, 786 verbs 195 word order 195 see also Caucasian languages Karuk languages 750–751 classification 505 see also Hokan languages Kashmiri 582–585 agreement patterns 284 case-marking 284 classification 251–252, 282, 522, 582 complementation 584 consonants 583 correlative 583–584 demonstrative pronouns 584 dialects 582 ergative 584 example 584 influences from other languages 582–583 morphological causatives 997 morphosyntax 583 number of speakers 523 origin/development 582 phonology 525–526, 583 postpositional language 583–584 religious influences 582 sibilants 283 sociolinguistics 584 split-ergative language 584 SVO 583–584 syllables 583 use of 582 India 582 Pakistan 582 speaker numbers 282 verb phrases 584 vocabulary 582–583 vowel harmony 583 vowels 526–527, 583 word order 284, 583–584 writing systems 282, 524 Devanagari 583 Sharada 583 see also Areal linguistics; Dardic languages; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-Iranian languages; Kashmiri languages; Pakistan; Punjabi; Romani; Sindhi Kashmiri languages 282 see also Dardic languages Kashuyana phonology 183–184 use of 185f see also Cariban languages Kasimov Tatar 1052 Kataang speaker numbers 726–727 see also Katuic languages Kati 787 dialects 787 see also Nuristani languages Katla 770 see also Kordofanian Katu speaker numbers 726–727 verbs 725 see also Katuic languages
Katuic languages 724 use of 726–727 see also Mon-Khmer languages Katupha’s law, Bantu languages 139 Katz, Dovid, Yiddish development 1205 Kaufman, Terrence, Cariban language classification 183 Kavalan 421 see also Formosan languages Kavirajamarga 577 Kawaki 752 see also Native American languages Kawe´sqar (Qawaskar) 41 affiliations, Mapudungan languages 701 see also Andean languages Kayah 581 see also Karen languages Kayardild 585–586 case inflexions 586 case suffixes 585 classification 250 compass terms 586 phonology 585 possessives 585–586 use of 585 word lists 585 see also Australian languages; Language endangerment; Non-Pama-Nyungan languages; Tangkic languages Kaytetye 586–588 kin nouns 587, 587t nouns 587 personal pronouns 587, 587t phonology 586–587 consonants 586–587, 586t resources 588 use of 586 speaker numbers 586 verbs 587, 587t word stress 587 see also Arrernte; Australian languages; PamaNyungan languages; Warlpiri Kazak classification 112 see also Azerbaijanian Kazakh 588–591 comparatives 590 converbs 590 dialects 590 distinctive features 589 evidentiality 590 grammar 590 language contacts 589 lexicon 590 loanwords 590 as official language, Kazakhstan 588 origin and history 588 phonology 589 consonants 589–590 loanwords 590 suffix vowels 589 vowels 589 plurals 590 possessives 590 present tense 590 pronouns 590 related languages 589 Karakalpak 589 Kipchak 589 Noghay 589 Uzbek 589 use of 588 Afghanistan 588 China 588 Kazakhstan 588 Kyrgystan 588 Mongolia 588 Russia 588 Tajikistan 588 Turkmenistan 588 Uzbekistan 588 Xinjiang 1142 written language 589 Arabic script 589
Cyrillic alphabet 589 Roman alphabet 589 see also Altaic languages; Bashkir; Karakalpak; Kirghiz; Mongolia; Turkic languages; Uyghur; Uzbek Kazakhstan Kazakh 588 official language, Kazakh 588 Uyghur 1142 Uzbek 1145 Kazak-Kirghiz see Kazakh Kazan Tatar see Tatar Kazukuru 204 see also Central Solomons languages Kebu 631 see also Togo Mountain languages Kei 690 see also Malukan languages Kelo 772–773 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Kemiehua 729 see also Mon-Khmer languages Kentish, Old English dialect 356 Kenya Cushitic languages 272–273 Gikuyu 449–450 Luo 658 Swahili 1026 Keres 591–593 consonants 591–592 history 591 morphology 591–592 numbers 591–592 pronominal prefixes 591–592 sociolinguistics 592 Spanish, influence from 591 vowels 591–592 see also Hopi Keresan 750 see also Native American languages Ket 593–595 case system 593 classification 249 dialects 593 as first language 593 morphosyntax 594 noun classes 593 Russia 593 tones 593 verbs 593 see also Language endangerment Ketelaer, J J, Hindustani grammar 497–498 Kewa 1086–1087 see also Engan languages Khakas, related languages, Yakut 1200 Khalaj 1109 see also Turkic languages Khalashi 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Khalkha Altaic hypothesis 653 use of 723 see also Mongol languages Khamti 1039 see also Tai languages Khanty case suffixes 1131 classification 1129–1130 main verb phrases 1132 object marking 1132 vocalism 1130 vowel harmony 1130 word stress 1131 see also Uralic languages Kharia 736 see also Munda languages Kharoshthi script, Indo-Aryan language writing systems 524 Khasi languages 595–597, 724 classification 250 morphology 595–596 noun classes 596 SVO 595–596 use of 595
1248 Index Khasi languages (continued) India 727 verbs 725 see also Austroasiatic languages; Mon-Khmer languages Kha Tong Luan 728–729 see also Muong languages Khazakhstan German 444 Kirghiz 610 Russian 588 Kherwarian 736 morphology 737 see also Munda languages Khmer (Cambodian) 597–600, 727 classification 250 classifiers 599 grammar 599 influence from other languages 600 Pa¯li 248 Sanskrit 600 Thai 600 influence on other languages Lao 640 Thai 1059 as isolating language 599 morphology 599 noun phrases 600 phonology/phonetics 598 consonants 598, 598t diphthongs 598–599, 598t, 599t history 599 syllables 598 tonal contrasts 599 unaspirated vs. aspirated stops 598 vowels 598, 598t, 599t religious influences 600 script 598 use of 597 verbs 600 come to have verb 1015 directional verbs 1014 serial verb constructions 725 verb phrases 600 vocabulary 600 word classes 599 word order 599–600, 1014, 1014t written records 598 see also Austroasiatic languages; Mon-Khmer languages Khmeric languages 724, 727 see also Mon-Khmer languages Khmu 725 Khmuic, Lametic languages, influence on 728 Khmuic languages 724 classification 727 local variants 727 use of 727 see also Mon-Khmer languages Khoekhoe Afrikaans, influence on 7–8, 9, 11 click variants 602t tonal melodies 602, 602t use of 601 Namibia 601, 602 see also Khoesaan languages Khoesaan languages 600–603 classification 252, 600–601, 601t Bleek, Dorothea 600–601 extinct varieties 601 Greenberg, Joseph H 600–601 Schulze, Leonhardt 601 clicks 602 development 602 as endangered languages 601 gender 602 language shift 321 morphology 602 phonology 602 click variants 602, 602t tonal melodies 602, 602t tonology 602 SOV 602 syntax 602
use of 601–602, 601f word order 602 workers in Bleek, Dorothea 600–601 Greenberg, Joseph H 600–601 Schulze, Leonhardt 601 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Khotanese 537, 603–604 cases 604 classification 251–252 directional prefixes 542 genders 540 lexicon 604 modal forms 542 perfect 604 phonology 603 intervocalic voiced stops 603–604 palatal affricates 540 retroflex consonants 603 voiced sibilants 603 SVO 604 tenses 604 potentialis tense 604 Tocharian, influence on 1070 verbs 604 written records 603 see also Iranian languages Khowar agreement patterns 284 Burushaski, influence on 179 case-marking 284 sibilants 283 speaker numbers 282 tonal system 526–527 writing systems 524 see also Indo-Aryan languages Khu¨n 1039 see also Tai languages Khusro, Amir, Hindustani 497–498 K’iche’ 705–706 long-range comparisons 653 positionals 707 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages K’iche’an 705–706 noun classifiers 708 see also Mayan languages Kickapoo 26 see also Algonquin languages Kikongo, influence on other languages, Palenquero 829 Kikuyu see Gikuyu (Kikuyu) Kildin Saami 911 see also Saami Kilham, Hannah, Yoruba 1207 Kim 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Kington, Miles, Franglais 425 Kinship expressions Tohono O’odham 1075 Warlpiri 1168 Kinyarwanda 604–610 adjectives 608 classification 253 class markers 607, 607t consonant phonology 607 cluster consonants 605 complex consonants 605 consecutive consonants 607 palatalized consonants 605 prenasalized consonants 605 prevelarized consonants 605 simple consonants 605 existential construction 609 ideophones 608 morphology 607 multiple direct objects 609 nouns 607 object–subject reversal 609 orthography 605 phonology 606 consonants see above Dahl’s law 607 gliding 607
open syllables 605 palatalized fricatives 607 reduplications 607 vowels see below word stems 605 see also Below, tonology possessives 608 prefix derivation 608 preprefix 608 questions 609 relative pronouns 609 SVO 607 syntax 609 tense-aspect-modality 608 tonology 606 function 606 lexical tones 606 morphological tones 606 nouns 606 rules 606 syntactic tones 606 tense-mood-aspect morphemes 606 verbs 606 use of 604 verbs 608 serial verb construction 609 vowel harmony 607 vowel phonology 605, 606 vowel coalescence 606 vowel harmony 605 word order 609 see also Bantu languages Kiowa 750 see also Tanoan Kiowa-Tanoan languages 750 Kipchak, related languages, Kazakh 589 Kipea´ 667 see also Karirı´ (Kariri-Xoco´) Kiranti languages classification 969 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Kirghiz 610–613 dialects 612 distinctive features 611 grammar 612 language contacts 611 lexicon 612 loanwords 611–612 as official language, Kyrgyzstan 610 origin and history 610 phonology 611 labialization 611 morphophonemes 611 vowels 611 plurals 612 possessives 612 pronouns 612 related languages 611 Southern Altay Turkic vs. 611 suffixes 612 use of 610 written language 611 Arabic script 611 Cyrillic alphabet 611 Roman alphabet 611 see also Altaic languages; Kazakh; Turkic languages; Uyghur Kiriaka 841 see also North Bougainville languages Kisi-Sherbro 770 see also Atlantic Congo languages ‘Kitchen Kaffir’ see Fanagalo Kitsai see Caddoan languages Klamath-Modoc 750 see also Penutian languages Klao 770 Liberia 624 see also Kru languages Klingon 76 Ko:adk 1074 see also Tohono O’odham Koasati (Coushatta) 613, 738–739 agreement type 741 vowel length 740
Index 1249 word order 741–742 see also Kordofanian languages Kobon complex predicates 671 nouns 671 Koch 968–969 see also Bodo-Koch languages Kochi 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Kochimi languages 506 see also Hokan languages Kodagu Malayalam vs. 682 nouns accusative 301–302 genitive 302 personal suffixes 305 see also Dravidian languages Koeber, Alfred Louis, Hokan languages 504 Koelle, Sigismund Wilhelm Gur language studies 472 Kru language studies 623 Mande language classification 696 Niger-Congo languages 768 Yoruba 1207 Kogui see Chibchan languages Kohistani languages 282 see also Dardic languages Koho 726 see also Bahnaric languages Koiari languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Kol 841 see also Munda languages; Papuan languages Kolarian see Munda languages Kolo´:di 1074 see also Tohono O’odham Kolyma see Yukaghir Koman classification 773 consonants 774 use of distribution 775f speaker numbers 772–773 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Komi classification 1129–1130 word order 1132 see also Permic (Permian) languages Komi-Permyak 1129–1130 see also Permic (Permian) languages Komi-Zyrian case suffixes 1131 classification 1129–1130 see also Permic (Permian) languages Konkani classification 522 number of speakers 523 phonology 525–526 vowels 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Konkomba 472 see also Oti-Volta languages Konobo 624 see also Guere languages Konyak 968–969 see also Konyak languages Konyak languages 968–969 see also Sino-Tibetan languages K’op 707t see also Mayan languages Kopitar, Jernej, Slovene grammar 981 Korafe 1085–1086 see also Binandere languages Koraku 736 see also Munda languages Koran, Sindhi translations 961 Kordofanian languages 770 branches/individual languages 613 classification 768–769 Greenberg, Joseph H 613 noun classes 613 subgroups 770
use of 770 speaker numbers 613 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages; NigerCongo languages; Nyanja Korea, Sino-Tibetan languages 968 Korean 614–617 classification 249 as agglutinative language 615 as Altaic languages 31 Nostratic theory 249 classifiers 615 grammar 615 honorifics 615 influence from other languages 615–616 link to Japanese 31 markers 615 number 615 onomatopoeia 615–616 phonology 614 consonantal position 614 initial consonant nonclustering 614 intermorphemic sound change 614 intermorphemic sound movement 614 triple consonantal structure 614 triple vowel system 614 vowel stress 614 postposition 616 pronouns 615 related languages 614 Japanese 557 sentence linkage 615 speech level 615 syntax 615 vocabulary 615 lexicon 615 parallel vocabulary sets 616 word creation 616 written language 616 word order 615 word relation 615 see also Altaic languages; Japanese Koreguaje consonants 1095 evidentiality 1100 nasalization 1095 noun classifiers 1098 speaker numbers 1092t syllable pattern 1095 verbs, evidentiality 1100 word order 1096 see also Tucanoan languages Korekore 1017 see also Shona languages Korku 736 see also Munda languages Korwa 736 see also Munda languages Koryak classification 239 speaker numbers 239–240 see also Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages Kosovo Albanian 22 Macedonian 663 Kota, Malayalam vs. 682 Koyong 726 see also Bahnaric languages Koyra Chiini classification 990–991 tone 774 see also Songai languages Kpelle 697–698 see also Mande languages Kposo 631 see also Togo Mountain languages Krachi 631 see also Guang languages Krahn 624 Krena´k (Botocudo) classification 665, 666, 666t, 667 morphology 667 use of 666–667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages
Krio 617–623 Bible translation 618 classification 249t as tone language 622 derivation 618 development 617 Domestic hypothesis 617 Jamaican hypothesis 617 future 619 grammar 619 habitual 619 influence from other languages 620 English 617 French 620 Niger-Congo languages 617 Portuguese 620 Spanish 620 Temne 618 iterative 617 lexical features 620 compounds 620 reduplication 621 literature 618 morphemes 619 negation 619 perfect 619 phonology 621 consonants 621 diphthongs 622 suprasegmentals 622 vowels 622 plurals 619 possessives 617, 619 progressive 619 serial verbs 619 tenses 619 use of in education 618–619 as official language 618 Sierra Leone 617, 618 speaker numbers 618 see also Afrikaans; Creoles; Pidgins Krobu 631 see also Tano languages Krongo 613 see also Kadugli languages Kru languages 770 classification 768–769 Eastern Kru 623–624 Greenberg, Joseph H 623 concord 624 dictionary 623 grammar 624 Krio, influence on 620 noun classes 624 perfect 624 phonetics/phonology 624 register tone 624 syllables 624 studies 623 subgroups 770 SVO 624 syntax 624 use of 770 vowel harmony 624 word order 624 workers in 623 see also Aizi; Kwa languages; Niger-Congo languages Kuanhua 729 see also Mon-Khmer languages Kufo 613 see also Kadugli languages Kuikuro person-marking prefixes 185–186 phonology 183–184 Kuiper, Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus, fields of work, South Asian languages 998–999 Kuki-Chin languages classification 968–969 see also Anal; Asho Chin; Chin (Tiddim: Tedim); Sino-Tibetan languages; Tedim (Tiddim: Chin)
1250 Index Kuku Yalanji, genetic relations, Guugu Yimithirr 474 Kuliak classification 773 use of, distribution 775f see also Nilo-Saharan languages Kulon 421 see also Formosan languages Kuman (Chimbu) classification 1086–1087 contacts, Tatar 1053 pronouns 1087–1089 see also Chimbu-Wahgi languages Kumanakoto 185f see also Cariban languages Kumauni tonal system 525–526 vowels 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Kumyk 1109 see also Turkic languages Kunama use of 775f vowel harmony 773–774 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Kunar languages 282 see also Dardic languages Kunua (Rapoisi) 841 see also North Bougainville languages Kuot 841 see also Papuan languages Kurdish 625–626 case distinctions 625–626 classification 251–252 derivational nominal suffixes 626 dialects 625–626 dictionaries 625 genders 625–626 grammars (books) 625 influence from other languages 625 literary types 625 passive forms 626 past tenses 625–626 phonology 625 pronouns 625–626 use of 538, 625 verbs 626 see also Iranian languages; Persian, Modern Kurdistan, languages, Aramaic 58 Kurdit see Judeo-Aramaic Kurschat, F, Lithuanian grammar 648 Kurua´ya 1106t see also Tupian languages Kurukh 626–630 adjectives 627 adverbs 627 agreement 627, 628t classification 251 future 628t gender 627 Hindi, influence from 629 nouns 628 ablative 628 accusative 628 case suffixes 628 dative 628 genitive 628 instrumental 628 nominative 628 numerals 629 plural suffixes 628 postpositions 628 pronouns 628 number 627 phonology 627 consonants 627, 627t vowels 627, 627t postpositions 628, 629 syntax 627 use of 626–627 India 626–627 speaker numbers 626–627 verbs 629 agent noun 630
compound verbs 996–997 female speech 629 finite verbs 628t, 629 negative verb 630 nonfinite verbs 629 verb bases 629 word classes 627 word order 627 see also Dravidian languages Kurumba 301–302 see also Dravidian languages Kurux-Malto 299, 300t see also Dravidian languages Kusal 472 see also Oti-Volta languages Kutenai 751 see also Native American languages Kutkashen 112 see also Azerbaijanian Kuwaa 624 see also Kru languages Kuy causative verbs 725 speaker numbers 726–727 see also Katuic languages Kwahu dialect, Akan 17 Kwakiutlan branch, Wakashan languages 749–750 Kwakwala 1157 classifiers 1160t diminutives 1159t possession 1160 suffixes 1159t syllable structure 1158 see also Wakashan languages Kwa languages 771 classification 630, 768–769 concord 632 double articulated consonants 632 downstep 632 nouns 632 progressive 632 subgroups 771 Lagoon languages 631 SVO 632 tone 632 use of 771 verbs 632 vowel harmony 632 word order 632 workers in 630 Yoruba vs. 631 see also Abbey; Abe´; Abidji; Adamawa-Ubangi languages; Adjukru; Akan; Alladian; Attie´; Avikam Kwalean languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Kwikateko 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Kwomtari languages 840–841 see also Papuan languages Kyrgystan Kazakh 588 Kirghiz 610 official language 610 Uzbek 1145
L Lachik (Lasi) 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Ladin classification 893 dialects 894 geographical distribution 893–894 speaker numbers 894 written records 893–894 variants 893–894 see also Rhaeto-Romance languages Ladino see Judeo-Spanish Lahnda 635–636 classification 251–252, 522 phonology 525–526
tonal system 526–527 see also Dardic languages; Indo-Aryan languages; Kashmiri; Pashto; Punjabi Lahu classification 968–969 morphology 970 syllable structure 969–970 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Lak 636–638 deictics 636 future 636 locational affixes 636 morphology 636 noun classes 636 phonology 636 consonants 636, 636t vowels 636 syntax 636 use of 636 Russia 636 word order 636–637 see also Caucasian languages; Daghestanian languages; North Caucasian languages Lake Miwok 651, 653 Lakota 638–639 classification 252 dialects 754, 755, 755t diminutives 755 men’s speech vs. women’s speech 639 morphology 638 nouns 638 noun incorporation 639 postpositions 638 syntax 639 use of 638 speaker numbers 638, 971–972 verbs 638 word classes 638 word derivation 638 affixation 638 circumstantial stems 638 compounding 638 word order 639 see also Caddoan languages; Central Siberian Yupik; Crow; Polysynthetic languages; Siouan languages Lala 1018 see also Nguni languages ‘La langue d’oc’ see Occitan Lamaholot 420 see also Flores languages Lamani 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Lamet 728 classification 727 see also Lametic languages Lametic languages, Khmuic, influence from 728 Langenhoven, C J 9–10 Language attrition see Language endangerment bilingualism see Bilingualism classification see Classification (of languages) death see Language endangerment definition 385 as continua 385 geographic distribution 319, 319t literacy and see Writing/written language maintenance see Language endangerment sign see Sign language Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry 1206 Language endangerment 317–327, 386 assessment 322, 386 criteria 322 education and literacy materials 324 governmental/institutional attitudes 325 intergenerational transmission 322 response to new domains and media 324 speaker numbers, absolute 323 total population speaker proportion 323 trends in existing domains 323 causes 325 definition 317 effects 320
Index 1251 identification 387 levels 319 reversal/revitalization strategies 320, 326 taxonomy of situations 321 see also Caddoan languages; Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages; Crow; Disappearing languages; Ethnologue; Kayardild; Ket; Language endangerment; Language shift; Louisiana Creole; Malukan languages; Mongolia; Tamambo; Uralic languages; Zapotecan languages Language prestige, Balkan linguistic area 132, 132f Language shift causes 325 definition 318, 319 see also Language endangerment Languages of wider communication see Bilingualism; World Englishes Language spread, English 363 Language subgroupings, areal linguistics 65, 65t Languedocian see Occitan Lanyin classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Mandarin Lao 639–640 classification 253 classifiers 639–640 grammar 639 influence from other languages 640 nouns 639–640 phonology 639 recent history 640 sample of 640 SVO 639–640 Thai vs. 639 as tonal language 639–640 use of 639 verbs 639–640 see also Tai-Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) languages; Tai languages Laos Bahnaric languages 725–726 Burmese 170 Katuic languages 726–727 Khmuic languages 727 Lao 639 Mon-Khmer languages 725 Palaung-Wa languages 727 Tai-Kadai languages 105 Tai languages 1039 Viet-Muong languages 728–729 Larteh 631 see also Guang languages Laru 613 see also Kordofanian languages Late Aramaic 934 Late Egyptian 39 Latin 640–644 adjectives 642 affiliations 640 Ancient Greek vs. 461 classification 251–252 ‘deponents,’ 642–643 derivational morphology 643 future 643 history 640 inflection 642 influence on other languages Catalan 190 Dutch 309 Early Modern English 341 English 248 French 429 Italian 545–546 Middle English 352, 354 Old English 358 Old Icelandic 781 Portuguese 883 Present Day English 329–330 Romanian 900–901 Slovak 980
Spanish 1020 Yiddish 1205 language shift 321 morphology 642 nouns 642 perfect 642 phonology 641 accent 642 consonants 641t prosody 642 semivowels 641 spelling relationships 641 vowels 641 script 641 alphabet 641 sentence structure 643 syntax 643 varieties 641 vulgar Latin 641 written 641 verbs 642, 643 Wackernagel’s Law 643 word order 643 see also Balkan linguistic area; Greek, Ancient; Indo-European languages; Italic languages; Middle English; Romance languages; Spanish Latin (Roman) alphabet Azerbaijanian 111 Balinese 117 Dhivehi 286 Evenki 405–406 Fulfulde 430 Kazakh 589 Kirghiz 611 Old English 357 Polish 874–875 Slovak 977–978 Turkmen 1117 Uyghur 1143 Uzbek 1146 Yoruba orthography 1207 Latin America, Spanish 1020 Latino sine Flexione 77 Latvia, official languages 644 Latvian 644–646 classification 251–252 consonants 645 dictionaries 644 gender 645 grammars (books) 644 influences 645 lexicon 645 nouns 645 as official language 644 origin/development 644 stress 645 use of 644 verbs 645 vowels 644–645 workers in 644 written works 644 see also Baltic languages; Balto-Slavic languages; Lithuania; Lithuanian Latviesu valodas vardnica 644 Laumbe see Lavukaleve Laven (Boloven) 726 see also Bahnaric languages Lavukaleve 841 classification 204 gender 205 use of 204 see also Central Solomons languages Lawngwaw (Maru) 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Learning, by children 495 Lebanon, Domari 295 Leco 41 see also Andean languages Lectal level, pidgins 867 Lectal variation, Creoles 867 Left May languages 840–841 see also Papuan languages Le Geyt, Matthieu 564
Leko languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Lelemi-Lefana 631 see also Togo Mountain languages Lembena 1086–1087 see also Engan languages Lenition, Wakashan languages 1158, 1159t Lepontic 199–200 see also Celtic, Continental Lepsius, Karl Richard, Hamitic theory 12–13 Leslau, W, Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 378–379 Lesotho official languages 1017–1018 Southern Bantu languages 1017 Southern Sotho 1017–1018 Lesser Antilles French, influence from 858–859 lexicon 858–859 Lettische grammatik 644 Le¨tzebuergesch see Luxembourgish Lewotobi 420 see also Flores languages Lewy, E 392 Lexical categories, postbases 203 Lexical comparison 650 Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), Balinese 118 Lexical semantics Creoles 866 nonnative English 360–361 Lexical terms Afroasiatic languages 14 Nostratic theory 786 Lexicase see Case Lexicon see Word(s) Lexicostatistics, Tai-Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) language classification 248 Lhuyd, Edward, Cornish 258 Liberia Bassa 624 Grebo languages 624 Klao 624 Kru 770 Mande 769–770 Mande languages 694 Western Kru 624 Libico-Berber script see Berber Libya, Berber 152–153 Libyan script see Berber Lichtenstein, German 444 Ligurian see Italian Lillooet 749 Limba, Krio, influence on 620 Limousin see Occitan The Lindesfarne Gospels 358 Lingala 137 see also Bantu languages Lingua franca, definition 318 Lingua Ignota 76 Linguistic areas borrowings vs. 67 circumstantial studies 62 definition 3, 62, 64 examples 62 historicist studies 62 types 66 see also Areal linguistics; specific linguistic areas A Linguistic Atlas of Late Middle English 355 Linguistic communities, World Englishes 364 Linguistic creativity, multilingualism 368 Linguistic imperialism, morphological types 731 Linguistic reconstruction, areal linguistics 65 Linguo internacia (Zamenhof) 375 Li’o 420 see also Flores languages Lisboa, Marcos de 158 Lisu 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Literacy see Writing/written language Literary Mongol 723 Literature Hebrew 484 World Englishes 368
1252 Index Lithuania, official language 646 Lithuanian 646–649 classification 251–252 concord 647–648 dialects 646 future 648 grammars (books) 646 lexicon 648 morphology 647 nouns 647 case forms 647 gender 647–648 genitive 647 as official language 646 perfect 648 phonology 646 consonants 647 prosody 646 stress 646 vowels 647 verbs 648 gerunds 648 participles 648 tenses 648 written language 646 East Prussian tradition 646 in Grand Duchy 646 National Standard Language 646 see also Baltic languages; Balto-Slavic languages; Latvian Littoral Bund 392–393 Livonian 1129–1130 see also Finnic languages Llanito see Yanito Llull, Ramo´n, artificial languages 76 Loanword(s) Kazakh 590 Kirghiz 611–612 Turkic languages 1112 see also Borrowing Local languages, endangerment see Language endangerment Loewen, Jacob 226 Logba 631 see also Togo Mountain languages Logic see Artificial languages Loglan 77 artificial languages 76 Logol 613 see also Kordofanian languages Logophoric marking, African linguistic area 5 Lolo-Burmese languages 968–969 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Lombard see Italian Lomonosov, Mikhail Vasilyevich 905 Lomorik 613 see also Kordofanian languages Long-range comparisons 649–656 basic vocabulary 650 borrowing 651 chance similarities 652 erroneous morphological analysis 653 glottochronology 650 grammatical evidence 651 hypothesized long-range relationships 649, 649t lexical comparison 650 long-range proposals 653 methods 649 multilateral comparison 650 nonlinguistic evidence 652 nursery forms 652 onomatopoeia 652 semantic constraints 652 short forms and unmatched segments 652 sound correspondences 650 sound-meaning isomorphism 652 spurious forms 653 Longuda 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Lontar writing, Balinese 117 Lottner, C 13 Louisiana Creole 656–657 classification 249t
grammar 657 Haitian Creole vs. 656 use of 656 USA 656, 1127 variation 656 see also Creoles; Language endangerment; Pidgins Lounsbury, Floyd Glenn 808 Lower Chehalis 749 see also Salishan languages Lozi 1017–1018 Zambia 1017–1018 see also Sotho-Tswana languages Lu¨ 1039 see also Tai languages Luchuan see Ryukyuan Lude 1129–1130 see also Finnic languages Ludhianwi Punjabi 886 see also Punjabi Luganda 657–658 as agglutinating language 657–658 concord 658 future 658 genetic affiliation 657 morphology 657 noun classes 657–658 nouns 657–658 orthography 657 phonology 657 consonants 657, 657t syllables 657 tone 657 vowels 657, 658t syntax 658 use of 657 speaker numbers 657 Uganda 657 verbs 658 word order 658 see also Bantu languages; Benue-Congo languages Lule Saami 911 see also Saami Luo 658–659 Bantu, influence from 659 classification 253 downstep 658–659 grammars (books) 658–659 noun class prefixes 659 orthography 658 SVO 659 use of 658 speaker numbers 772–773 vowel harmony 658–659 word order 659 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Lushai 968–969 see also Kuki-Chin languages Luwian historical aspects 36 Hittite vs. 37 Luxembourg French 427 German 444 national language 659–660 Luxembourgish 659–661 adjectives 659–660 German, related to 659 history 659 as national language 659–660 noun plurals 659–660 OVS 659–660 phonology 660 consonants 660 sample 660 SOV 659–660 syntax 659–660 third-person pronouns 659–660 word order 659–660 see also German; Germanic languages Lyngngam 595 future 596
M Maasai, Gikuyu, influence on 449–450 Maban classification 773 geographical distribution 775f see also Nilo-Saharan languages Macalister, R A S 856 Macbain, Alexander 856 Macedonia, Republic of Albanian 22 Macedonian 663 Romani 898 Romanian 901 Macedonian 663–665 classification 251–252, 974–975 declensions 976–977 dialects 664 genders 664 imperfective 664–665 lexicon 664 morphology 664 origin/development 663 Bulgarian 663 Misirkov, Krste 663–664 Old Church Slavonic 663 orthography 664 Cyrillic alphabet 664 perfect 664–665 phonology 664 resultative 664–665 syntax 664 use of 663 verbs 664–665 see also Balkan linguistic area; Balto-Slavic languages; Bulgarian; Church Slavonic; Old Church Slavonic; Slavic languages; Slovene Macro-Geˆ 750 see also Native American languages Macro-Jeˆ languages 665–669 classification 252–253, 665, 666t comparative evidence 665 ergative 668 inflectional morphology 667 long-range affiliations 666 morphology 667 phonology 667 vowels 667 resources 668 use of 666–667 geographical distribution 666 vowel harmony 667 word order 667–668 see also Apinaje´; Cariban languages; Tucanoan languages; Tupian languages Macuna accent/tone 1096 adjectives 1098 case markers 1097 consonants 1094 morphemes 1096 speaker numbers 1092t see also Tucanoan languages Madagascar Austronesian languages 97 French 674 Malagasy 674 Madang languages adverbs 671 case marking 671 classification 253, 669–670, 1086–1087 clause chains 671 complex predicates 671 development 669 grammar 671 nouns 671 OVS 671 phonology 670 consonants 670–671 syllables 670–671 vowels 670–671 resources 669–670 SOV 671
Index 1253 structure 670 suffixes 671 use of 669 geographical distribution 669, 670f word order 671 written records 669 see also Papuan languages; Trans New Guinea languages Madi 652–653 Madura 99 see also Austronesian languages Madurese 672–674 dialects 672 morphology 673 phonology 672 consonants 672, 673t vowels 673, 673t reduplication 673 use of 672 vocabulary 673 vowel harmony 673 writing system 673 see also Austronesian languages; Javanese; Malay Maguindanaon case-marking 1005, 1005t morphosyntax 1005 phonology 1003 pronouns 1005, 1005t word order 1005 see also South Philippine languages Mahabharata 961 Mahali 736 see also Munda languages Mahaparitta 832 Mahavamsa 832 Mahican 24 see also Algonquin languages Mahl see Dhivehi Maiduan 750 see also Penutian languages Mailuan languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Maipure 60 see also Arawak languages Maisica, C P Defining a linguistic area 999 South Asian languages 999, 1000 Maithili 525–526 see also Indo-Aryan languages Majhi Punjabi 886 see also Punjabi Makah 1157 vowel epenthesis 1158–1159 see also Wakashan languages Makura´p 1106t see also Tupian languages Makushi gender 184–185 geographical distribution 185f person-marking prefixes 185–186 see also Cariban languages Malagasy 674–677 classification 250–251 dialects 674 genetic relationships 674 geographical distribution 674, 675f morphology 675 orthography 675, 675t phonology 675, 675t spirant/stop alternation 675–676 use of 674 Madagascar 674 as official language 674 verbs 676 writing systems 674 Arabic script 674–675 see also Austronesian languages Malawi Fanagalo 411 national language 791 Nyanja (Chichewa) 791 Shona 938
Malay 677–680 British/Dutch colonization 678 Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) 678 influence on other languages Afrikaans 8, 9, 11 Tok Pisin 1077 Malaysian (Bahasa Malayu) 678 morphology 679 origin/development 677 phonology 679 consonants 679t vowels 678t use of Borneo 678–679 Indonesia 678 Malaysia 678 Papua New Guinea 836 Singapore 679 Thailand 679 see also Austronesian languages; Javanese; Madurese; Malayo-Polynesian languages; Riau Indonesian Malayal, morphological causatives 997 Malayalam 680–684 classification 251 consonants 298 dialects 681 etymology/variant names 680 future 683 genetic affiliation 682 grammar 681 influence from other languages 680–681 interrogative sentences 683 literature development 680 morphology 682 morphophonemics 682 sandhi rules 682 nominative case 682 nouns 682 accusative 301–302 noun phrases 683 numerals 682 personal suffixes 305 phonology 682 single velar stops 682 voiceless stops 682 vowels 682 pronouns 302–303, 303t script 297, 681 Vatteluttu 681 see also Tamil script sentences 683 SOV 683 stops 683 syntax 683 three-way tense distinctions 683 use of 680 verbs 682–683 finite verbs 304 vowel-ending stems 683 workers in 681 see also Dravidian languages; Kannada; Tamil; Telugu Malayo-Polynesian languages 684–688 classification 250–251, 685f, 686f definition 684 development 684 ‘politeness shift,’ 684 prefixes 684–685 pronouns 684 settlement 687 history 685 archaeological evidence 685 integrity 684 Mon-Khmer languages, influence from 687 resources 687 structure 687 subgrouping 685 use of 684 workers in 684 see also Austronesian languages; Balinese; Bikol; Flores languages; Formosan languages; Kapampangan; Malay;
Malukan languages; Maori; North Philippine languages; Papuan languages; Proto-Austronesian; Samar-Leyte; South Philippine languages Malaysia Aslian languages 94–95 Austronesian languages 97, 99 English 678 Hindi 495 Malay 678 national language 678 official language 678 Malaysian (Bahasa Malayu) 678 Maldive Islands Dhivehi 285 Indo-Aryan languages 522 official language 285 Maldivian classification 522 writing systems 524 Tana (Thaana) 524 see also Indo-Aryan languages Malecite-Passamaquoddy classification 24 speaker numbers 26 see also Algonquin languages Mali Berber 152 Dogon 771 Gur languages 472 Mande languages 769–770 Songai languages 990–991 Malta English 688 Italian 545 Maltese 688 official languages 688 Maltese 688–689 see also Afroasiatic languages Malukan languages 689–691 alienable-inalienable contrasts 690 classification 250–251 as endangered languages 690 SVO 690 use of 689, 689f speaker numbers 690 word order 690 see also Austronesian languages; Central Malayo-Polynesian (CMP); Language endangerment; Malayo-Polynesian languages; Papuan languages Malwi Punjabi 886 see also Punjabi Mam 705–706 dialects 705–706 positionals 707t speaker numbers 706t transitive verbs 708 see also Mayan languages Mambila 691–693 classification 253, 691 dialects 1213 language vitality 692 morphology 692 phonology 691 consonants 691 tone 692 vowels 692 plurals 1213 suffixes 1213 SVO 692 syntax 692 use of 1213 Cameroons 691 Nigeria 691, 1213 speaker numbers 1213 word order 1213 see also Bantu languages; Benue-Congo languages Mamean 705–706 see also Mayan languages Mampruli 472 see also Oti-Volta languages
1254 Index Manambu 693–694 classification 253 as agglutinating language 693 as endangered language 694 as synthetic language 693 clause-chaining 693 dialects 693 genders 693 morphology 693 nouns 693 numbers 693 personal name ownership 693–694 phonology 693 consonants 693 vowels 693 switch-reference 693 use of 693 verbs 693 see also Ndu languages; Tok Pisin Manchu, Korean 614 Manda 300t see also Dravidian languages Mandarin Chinese 214 classification 969 classifiers 1013 come to have verb 1015 indeterminateness 1011 lexical tones 223 use of 969 speaker numbers 214t word order 1014t see also Chinese; Sinitic languages; Sino-Tibetan languages Mande languages 769 classification 768–769 current 696 Delafosse, Maurice 696 earlier 696 Greenberg, Joseph H 696–697 Mukasˇovsky´, Jan 696–697 Steinthal, Heymann 696 vocabulary 697 Westerman 696–697 Williamson 696–697 diminutives 698 Hausa, influence on 477 morphosyntax 698 noun classes 698 phonology 697 consonants 697 reconstructed history 694 linguistic evidence 695–696 resources 698 SOV 697 tone 697 use of 769–770 speaker numbers 694 variants 694t verb suffixes 698 word order 698 workers in 696 see also Niger-Congo languages Mande Studies Association (MANSA) 698–699 Mandingo, Krio, influence on 620 Mangala see Jiwarli Manggarai classification 420 voice alteration 420 see also Flores languages Mang languages 729 see also Viet-Muong languages Manichaeism 531–532 Manimekalai 1047–1048 Manjaku-Papel 770 see also Atlantic Congo languages Mano 697–698 see also Mande languages Manobo languages classification 1001–1002, 1002t consonants 1003 contrast neutralization 1003 see also South Philippine languages Mansi classification 1129–1130
diphthongs 1130 object marking 1132 vowel harmony 1130 see also Uralic languages Mansim classification 1176 see also East Bird’s Head (EBH) languages Manubaran languages classification 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Manx classification 200, 251–252 development 454 sample 454 see also Goidelic Celtic; Goidelic languages Manyika 1017 see also Shona languages Mao 805 see also Omotic languages Maori 699–701 classification 250–251 dialects 700 lexicon 700–701 long-range comparisons 651 Niuean, influence on 776 as official language, New Zealand 700 phonemes 700 revival of 700 syntax 700 VSO 700 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages; Oceanic languages Mapoyo 185f see also Cariban languages Mapuche 41 Chile 41 Patagonia 41 verbs 41 see also Andean languages Mapudungan languages 701–703 affiliations 701 classification 252–253, 701 influence from other languages 702 iterative 702 lexicon 702 noun morphology 702 noun phrases 702 phonology 701–702 consonants 701–702 fricatives 701–702 vowels 701–702 pronouns 702 resultative 702 use of 701 verb morphology 702 Maraga 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian Marand 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian Maranungku 89 see also Australian languages Marathi 703–705 classification 251–252, 522 compound verbs 996 correlative 704 ergative 524 history 703 morphology 704 notion of subject 704 nouns 704 passivization 704 phonology 525–526, 703 alphabet 703 consonants 703, 704t vowels 703, 703t script 703 SOV 704 subordination 704 suprasegmentals 703 accent 703 nasal vowels 703 syntax 704 use of 703 number of speakers 523
word order 704 writing systems, Devanagari 524 see also Dardic languages; Indo-Aryan languages Margany case marking 87, 87t morphology/syntax 87 verbs 87–88 see also Australian languages Margay 90 see also Australian languages Mari languages classification 1129–1130 object marking 1132 vowel harmony 1130 word order 1132 see also Uralic languages Marking, in isolating language 222 Maronites 1033 Marriage aspects, Tucanoan languages 1092 Masatekan languages classification 819–821 syllable onsets 821–822 see also Oto-Mangean languages Masateko 819 time depth 819 see also Oto-Mangean languages Masawa 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Mason, J Alden 1074 Masoretes, Hebrew 483 Matagalpa classification 711 use of 711 see also Misumalpan languages Matbat 1177 see also West Papuan languages Mathews, R H 438 Matlatzinka 751 classification 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Mator 1129–1130 see also Samoyed languages Matteson, Ester 60 Mauritania Arabic 42 Fulfulde 430 Mande 769–770 official language 42 Wolof 1184 Mauritius, Hindi 495 Mawe´ classification 1106t ideophones 1106–1107 positional demonstratives 1106 see also Tupian languages Maxakalı´ classification 665, 666, 666t ergative 668 morphology 667 as ergative language 668 use of 667 geographical distribution 666–667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Maxi (Maxi-gbe) 631–632 see also Gbe languages May 728–729 see also Chut languages Ma’ya 1177 see also West Papuan languages Mayali see Gunwinygu (Gunwiggu) Mayan languages 751 affiliations, Mapudungan languages 701 classification 705–706 classifiers 708, 708t, 709t directional particles 708 ergative 707 geographical distribution 705 grammar 707 influence on other languages 708–709 influences from other languages 708–709 noun classifiers 708 numeral classifiers 708 positionals 707
Index 1255 transitive verbs 708 use of 705–706 Guatemala 705–706, 706t Mexico 707t as official language 705–706 speaker numbers 706–707 verbs 707 vocabulary 708 see also Achi’; Akateko; Awakateko; Native American languages Mayan-Mixe-Zoquean languages 748 see also Native American languages Maybrat 1176 see also West Papuan languages Mazatecan 751 Mazatla´n see Mixe-Zoquean languages Mazdaism see Zoroastrianism Mbatto 631 Mbum languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Meadow (Eastern) Mari 1129–1130 see also Mari languages Media, language endangerment role 324 Medio-passive, Old Irish 453 Mediterranean language area 392–393 Medlpa classification 1086–1087 speaker numbers 836, 1085 see also Chimbu-Wahgi languages; Papuan languages; Trans New Guinea languages Meghalaya 595 Megleno-Romanian dialect 901 Meherrin 542 see also Iroquoian languages Me´hif (Michif) see Michif Meillet, Antoine Paul Jules, Balto-Slavic languages 135–136 Meinhof, Carl Friedrich Michael, Hamitic theory 13 Meinhof’s law, Bantu languages 139 Meke´ns classification 1106t positional demonstratives 1106 see also Tupian languages Mek languages 1085–1086 see also Trans New Guinea languages Mel languages 770 see also Atlantic Congo languages Mendi (Angal Enen) classification 1086–1087 Krio, influence on 620 see also Engan languages Menomini classification 25 speaker numbers 26 see also Algonquin languages Mercian (midlands), Old English dialect 356 Meryam Mer 79 Mesoamerica 63 Mesolect 868 Me´tchif see Michif Mexicano see Nahuatl Mexico Mayan languages 707t Tohono O’odham 1074 Totonacan languages 1080 Meyah classification 1176 nominal complex, numbers 1177 tone 1177 see also East Bird’s Head (EBH) languages; West Papuan languages Meyan˜a 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian Michif 261, 709–711 agreement 710 influence from other languages Cree 710 English 710 French 710 origin/development 28, 709–710 orthography 710 phonology 710 use of 709 verbs 710
word order 710 see also Algonquin languages; Ritwan languages Micmac classification 24 speaker numbers 26 see also Algonquin languages ‘Micro-Altaic,’ 30 Middle America, Native American languages 748 Middle Arabic 932 Middle Aramaic 57–58, 934 Middle Egyptian 39 Middle English 351–356 declensions 353 definition 351 determiners 353 development to Early Modern English see English, Early Modern dictionaries 355 example 354 external history 351 grammar 353 graphology 352 alphabet 352 inflexion 353 internal history 352 lexicon 354 French loans 352, 354 Latin loans 352, 354 Norse loans 354 modern works 355 noun phrase 353 origin/development 351 phonology 353 consonants 353 diphthongs 353 long vowels 339 unstressed vowels 353 vowels 353 SOV 354 verb phrase 354 word order 354 see also English, Early Modern; English, Later Modern; English, Modern; French; Germanic languages; Icelandic; Latin; Norse, Old; Old English Middle English dictionary 355 Middle Hebrew 934 Middle Persian see Pahlavi (Middle Persian) Middle Wahgi 1086–1087 see also Chimbu-Wahgi languages Midrashim, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic 58 Mienic 503 see also Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages Mikasuki 738–739 agreement type 740–741 vowel length 740 Milindapan˜ha 832 Min classification 969 geographical distribution 969 see also Sinitic languages; Sino-Tibetan languages Minaean 931 see also Semitic languages Minangkabau 99 see also Austronesian languages Min languages 219 classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Chinese; Sinitic languages Minority language endangerment see Language endangerment Miri 613 see also Kadugli languages Misantla Totonac 1080 applicative affixes 1083–1084 body part prefixes 1083 nouns 1083 object agreement 1084 phonology consonants 1082 vowels 1082 use of 1080–1081
word order 1084 see also Totonacan languages Misher Tatar 1052 Mising (Miri) 968–969 see also Tani languages Misirkov, Krste 663–664 Miskito classification 711 use of 711 see also Misumalpan languages Misteko 819 classification 819–821 time depth 819 see also Oto-Mangean languages Misumalpan languages 711–712 classification 252 use of 711 classification 711 see also Chibchan languages Miwok-Costanoan 750 see also Penutian languages Mixed languages see Creoles; Pidgins Mixe-Zoquean languages 751 aspects 714 auxiliary constructions 715 classification 712 as agglutinative languages 714 cliticization 714 dependent verb forms 715 derivational nouns 714 future 712 inflectional classes 714 inversive person marking 714–715 long-range comparisons 653 morphology 714 nouns 714 origin/development 712 persons 714 phonology 712 consonants 712 glottal stop metathesis 713 syllable cods 713 unstressed vowel loss 713 positional references 715 syntax 715 transitive verbs 714–715 verbs 714 VSO 715 word order 715 see also Native American languages Mixtec 751 see also Mixtecan languages Mixtecan endocentric noun classes 823 noun classes 823 syllable onsets 821 Mixtecan languages 751 see also Cuitlatec Mnong 726 see also Bahnaric languages Moabite 934 Phoenician vs. 854 see also Semitic languages Mobilian Jargon (Mobilian) 716–718, 739 case marking 716–717 classification 249t definition 857–858 development 716–717 influence from other languages 716–717 origin 717 use of, social context 717 word order 716–717 see also Algonquin languages; Creek; Creoles; Muskogean languages; Pidgins; Ritwan languages; Siouan languages Mochica 41 Mocho’ 705–706 speaker numbers 707t see also Mayan languages Modality Evenki 407 Nuristani languages 787 sign language 946, 946f Wolaitta 1182
1256 Index Modern Persian see Persian, Modern Modern Southern Arabian 931 see also Semitic languages Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) 43 influence from other languages 43 see also Arabic; Aramaic; Syriac Modern Standard Chinese see Putonghua Modern Tiwi 1065–1066, 1067 Moghol 722 see also Mongol languages Mohawk noun incorporation 544 subject/object categories 544 tone 543 use of 543 verbs 543–544 see also Iroquoian languages Molale 750 see also Penutian languages Moldova, Gagauz 1112 Molo 772–773 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Mon 718–721 causative verbs 725 classification 250 as tonal language 719 decline of 718 dialects 718 dictionaries 718–719 example 720 Internet 719 phonology 719 consonantal clusters 719–720, 720t consonants 719, 719t minimal pairs 719, 719t syllable rhythms 720 vowels 719, 720t scripts 719 SVO 720 use of Burma/Myanmar 718, 727 speaker numbers 718 Thailand 718, 727 written texts oldest 718, 719 spoken vs. 718 see also Austroasiatic languages; Monic languages; Mon-Khmer languages Monaco, Italian 545 Monde´ adjectives 1106 classification 1106t ideophones 1106–1107 tone system 1106 see also Tupian languages Mongolia Evenki 405 Kazakh 588 see also Altaic languages; Areal linguistics; Classification (of languages); Kazakh; Language endangerment; Tungusic languages; Turkic languages; Uralic languages Mongolian (Khalkha) see Khalkha Mongolian, Inner 969 see also Jin languages Mongol languages 721–724 classification 250, 722, 722t definition 721 demography 723 distribution 721 genetic status 722 literary use 723 political status 723 research history 723 time depth 722 Turkic-Tungusic relationship 30 types 722 use of 723 see also Altaic languages Monic languages 724 use of 727 see also Mon-Khmer languages
Mon-Khmer languages 95, 724–730 causative verbs 725 classification 250, 724 Malayo-Polynesian languages, influence on 687 morphology 725 phonology 725 serial verb constructions 725 subgroupings 1010t syntax 725 use of 725 verbs 725 see also Austric hypothesis; Austroasiatic languages; Khasi languages; Khmer (Cambodian); Mon; Southeast Asian languages; Vietnamese; Wa Monomorphemic signs, sign language, morphology 949, 949f Monomorphemic words, in isolating language see Chinese Montagnais classification 24–25 phonology, stress 26 see also Algonquin languages Montenegro, Republic of 22 Monumbo 1078 see also Torricelli languages Mood Bislama 162 Indo-Iranian languages 534 Nenets (Yurak) 762–763 Spanish 1021 Telugu 1057 Wolaitta 1183, 1183t Xhosa see Xhosa Mo`ore´ 472 see also Oti-Volta languages Mopan 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Mordvin languages classification 1129–1130 phonology vocalism 1130 vowel harmony 1130 word stress 1131 vowel harmony 1130 see also Uralic languages Moreno, W W 378–379 Moribund languages definition 319–320 reversal/revitalization strategies 326 see also Language endangerment Moro 613 see also Kordofanian languages Morocco, Berber 152 Morphemes in isolating language 222 morph ratio 731 Morphological causatives, South Asian languages 997 Morphological types 730–735 clustering features 731 agglutinating type 732 comparisons 733, 733t fusional type 732 isolating type 732 contemporary 733 morphology-syntax interface 734 partial 733 universals 734 word order importance 733–734 criticism of 730–731 Greenberg 731 linguistic imperialism 731 Sapir 731 morpheme-morph ratio 731 morph word internal modification 731 origin/development 730 Greenberg, Joseph 730 von Humboldt, Wilhelm 730 Sapir, Edward 730 Schlegel, August Wilhelm 730 Schlegel, Friedrich 730
postposition 733–734 ratio of morph to word forms 731 types 730 agglutinating 731 classical 731 continuum 731 fusional 731 ideal 731 isolating 731 workers in Greenberg, Joseph 730 von Humboldt, Wilhelm 730 Sapir, Edward 730 Schlegel, August Wilhelm 730 Schlegel, Friedrich 730 Morphological universals 734 Morphology gender assignment 758 postbases 202, 203t syntax interface 734 see also specific languages Morrobalama 735–736 as endangered language 735 ergative 735 phonology 735 changes 735 split-ergative system 735 suffixes 735 use of, Australia 735 word order 735 see also Arrernte; Australian languages; Creoles; Pidgins Moru 652–653 Mosete´n 41 see also Andean languages Mosina dialect see Vure¨s ‘Mother-in-law’ languages, Australian languages 91 Motu see Hiri Motu Motuna (Siwai) 841 see also South Bougainville languages Mouthing see Sign language(s) Movima 41 see also Andean languages Mozambique Fanagalo 411 Nyanja 791 Portuguese 883 Shona 938 Shona languages 1017 Southern Bantu languages 1017 Swahili 1026 Tshwa 1018 Tsonga 1018 Mpi 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Mpur classification 1176 tone 1177 see also West Papuan languages Mudari see Bhumij (Mudari) Mudo 613 Muisca see Chibchan languages Mukasˇovsky´, Jan, Mande language classification 696–697 Multilingualism language shift 326 see also Bilingualism Mumuye languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Munda languages 94, 736–738 classification 250 contacts 737 morphology 737 Northern group 736 morphology 737 phonology 737 possessives 737 Southern group 736 morphology 737 SOV 736–737 SVO 737 use of 736 verb construction 737
Index 1257 VSO 737 see also Agariya; Asuri; Austroasiatic languages; Santali Mundari 736 see also Munda languages Munduruku´ classification 1106t ideophones 1106–1107 noun classification 1108 positional demonstratives 1106 tone system 1106 see also Tupian languages Munsee 24 see also Algonquin languages Munster, Irish, development of 454 Muong languages 728–729 speaker numbers 728–729 see also Viet-Muong languages Muskogean languages 749 agreement type 740–741 classification 739 morphology 740 noun phrases 740 phonology 739 consonants 739, 739t pitch-accent 739–740 suffixes 740 vowel length 740 vowels 739 postpositions 741 types 738–739 use of 738 verbs 740, 741 word order 741 see also Alabama-Koasati; Atakapa; Timucua; Tunica; Yuchi; Yukian Muskogee 754 Mutation Breton 167 Finnish (Suomi) 418 Nivkh 778 Old English 358–359 Slovak 979 Welsh 1170 Mutual intelligibility, North American native language variation 754 Muya 968–969 see also Qiangic languages Muzo see Cariban languages Myanmar see Burma/Myanmar Mycenaean Greek 461
N Na-Dene languages 748 and Amerind 655 classification 743 classifiers 743–744 distribution 743 historical aspects 747–748 types 743, 744t see also Athabaskan–Eyak–Tlingit (AEC); Native American languages Nagamese 78 Naga Pidgin 78 Nagara Apabhramsa 468 Nagovisi 841 see also South Bougainville languages Nahali (Nihali) 94 see also Austroasiatic languages Nahua see Nahuatl Nahuatl 745 classification 252 dialects 745 dictionaries 745 grammars (books) 745 history 745 Mayan languages, influence on 708–709 nouns 745 phonology 745 consonants 745 vowels 745
use of 745 word order 745 workers in 745 see also Central Siberian Yupik; Polysynthetic languages; Uto-Aztecan languages Nakh-Daghestanian morphology 194 vowels 193, 193t word order 195 see also Caucasian languages Nama see Khoekhoe Naman language 101 see also Austronesian languages Names Etruscan 388 Fulfulde taboos 433 Namibia Afrikaans 7 Fanagalo 411 Khoekhoe 601, 602 Namuyi 968–969 see also Qiangic languages Nance, Robert Morton 258 Narragansett 24 see also Algonquin languages Nasal assimilation, Tucanoan l anguages 1095 Nasal spreading, Tucanoan languages 1092 Nasioi 841 see also South Bougainville languages Naskapi 24–25 see also Algonquin languages Nasu 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Native American languages 746–753 areal analysis 746 diminutives 757 discourse morphology 746 geographic distributions 746 historical aspects 747 Brinton, Daniel G 747 Henshaw, H W 747 re-classification 748 linguistic features 746 linguistic stock identification 747 vocabulary inspection 747 middle America 748 north American isolates resisting affiliation 751 polysynthesis 746 sentence morphology 746 social distributions 746 South America 748 Andean area 752 lowlands 752 southern ‘cone’ area 752 southern Texas/Mexico isolates 751 see also Aboriginal languages; Algonquin languages; Aranama; Araucanian; Arawakan; Aymara; Coahuilteco; Karankawa; North American native languages; Oto-Mangean languages; Panoan languages; Puquina; Quechua languages; Salishan languages; Siouan languages; Solano Nativization, World Englishes 365 Nauatl see Nahuatl Navajo 761 classification 252 language shift 319, 323 postpositions 761 SOV 761 speaker numbers 323 syllables 761 verbs 761 vowels 761 word order 761 see also Na-Dene languages Nawat see Nahuatl Nawuri 631 see also Guang languages
Nchumuru 631 see also Guang languages Ndau 1017 see also Shona languages Ndebele 1017 South Africa 1187 Zulu vs. 1215 see also Nguni languages Nding 613 see also Kordofanian languages Ndu 1078 Ndu languages 253 see also Papuan languages Nederlandsche Taal-en Letterkundig Congressen 308 Nedungadi, Kovunni 681 Negation future tense 129t sign language affixation 949, 950f Negative pronouns 393–394 Nembe–Akaha 517 Nen 137 see also Bantu languages Nenets (Yurak) 761–764 classification 1129–1130 as agglutinating language 762 as endangered language 763 as synthetic language 762 conjugation 762–763 Forest Nenets 761–762 future 762–763 imperfective 762–763 literary tradition 763 moods 762–763 nouns 762 phonology consonants 762 glottal stops 762 vowels 762 word stress 1131 possessives 762 postpositions 762 pronouns 762, 763 resources 763 Russian bilingualism 761–762 SOV 763 tenses 762–763 Tundra Nenets 761–762, 762–763 use of 761–762 speaker numbers 761–762 verbs 762–763 nonfinite verbs 763 word order 763 see also Samoyed languages Neo-Aramaic see Aramaic, Modern (Neo-Aramaic) Neogrammarianism, Indo-European languages 528–529 Nepal Hindi 495 Indo-Aryan languages 522 Munda languages 736 Nepali 764 Tibetan 1060–1061 Nepali 764–765 Bengali vs. 764 classification 251–252 classifiers 764 dialects 764 Hindi vs. 764 literary purposes 764 number of speakers 523 tonal system 525–526 use of 764 writing systems, Devanagari 524 see also Dardic languages; Indo-Aryan languages Nera, use of, distribution 775f The Netherlands, Dutch 307 New Caledonia, Javanese 560 ‘New language,’ North American native language variation 755 New Persian see Persian, Modern New Tiwi see Tiwi
1258 Index New Zealand Fijian 412 Maori 700 Ngad’a 420 see also Flores languages Nganasan (Tavgy) classification 1129–1130 phonology diphthongs 1130 vowel harmony 1130 word stress 1131 see also Samoyed languages Ngan’gi 765–768 classification 765t classifiers 766 morphology 766 noun classes 766–767 phonology 767 consonants 767t vowels 767t as polysynthetic language 765–766 pronominal indexing 766 pronouns 766, 767t use of 765 speaker numbers 765 verbal classification 766 see also Australian languages; Central Siberian Yupik; Polysynthetic languages Ngbaka-Mba languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Ngbandi languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Ngile 613 see also Kordofanian languages Nguni languages 1017 Fanagalo, influence on 412 see also Bantu languages, Southern Nguoˆn 728–729 see also Muong languages Nha Ho¨n 726 see also Bahnaric languages Niaibo 624 see also Grebo languages Nicaragua Arawak languages 59 Misumalpan languages 711 Sumu (Sumo Tawahka) 711 Nichols, Johanna 529 Nicobarese 94 Austric hypothesis 92 influence from other languages 93 noun phrases 92–93 text materials 92–93 word order 92–93 see also Austroasiatic languages Nicolaisen, W F H 856 Nida, Eugene Albert, Inupiaq writing 535–536 Niger Berber 152 Kanuri 578 Mande 769–770 Songai languages 990–991 Niger-Congo languages 768–772 accepted classification 769f classification 253 early classification 768 Bleek 768 Greenberg, Joseph H 769f Koelle, Sigismund W 768 Westermann 768 Krio, influence on 617 Nilo-Saharan languages vs. 773–774 use of 768 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages; Akan; Atlantic Congo languages; Bantu languages; Benue-Congo languages; Dogon; Efik; Ewe; Gur (Voltaic) languages; Kordofanian languages; Kru languages; Kwa languages; Mande languages; Nilo-Saharan languages; Nyanja; Swahili; Wolof; Xhosa; Yoruba
Nigeria Adamawa-Ubangi languages 771 Arabic 42 Benue-Congo 771 Efik 314 Gur languages 770 Hausa 477, 1209 Igbo 1209 I˙jo˙ 517 Kanuri 578 Kwa 771 Mambila 691 Mande languages 769–770 Nilo-Saharan languages 774 Yoruba 1207 Nikayas 832 Nilo-Saharan languages 772–776 Afroasiatic languages vs. 773–774 case suffixes 774–775 classification 253 consonants 774 converbs 774 downstep 774 grammars (books) 773 Niger-Congo languages vs. 773–774 noun referring 774 orthography 773 subgroups 773t tone 774 use of 772 Chad 774 distribution 775f Eritrea 774 Ethiopia 774 Nigeria 774 speaker numbers 772–773 Sudan 774 vowel harmony 773–774 workers in, Greenberg, Joseph H 4, 772 see also Afroasiatic languages; Aka; Dinka; Kanuri; Khoesaan languages; Luo; Niger-Congo languages; Songhay languages Nilotic languages classification 773 use of 775f vowel harmony 773–774 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Nimbari 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Nimuendaju, Curt, Macro-Jeˆ language classification 665–666 Nipmuck 24 see also Algonquin languages Nisu 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Niuean 776–777 ergative 776–777 influence from other languages 776 lexicon 776–777 phonology 776–777 as split-ergative language 776 VSO 776 word order 776 see also Tongan Nivkh 777–779 case forms 778 classification 249 counting forms 778 future 778 morphology 778 mutation 778 subordinate clauses 778 use of 777–778 velar nasal 778 see also Turkic languages Nkonya 631 see also Guang languages Nkoro 517 Noble, G Kingsley, Arawak languages 60 Nocte 968–969 see also Konyak languages Noghay 589
Nominals 398–399 affixes 290 in agglutinating languages 416t Old Irish 453 sign language 950f Nominative case in agglutinating languages 416t Chuvash 245 Oromo 810–811 Nonobligatory categoricals, Southeast Asian languages 1011t Non-Pama-Nyungan languages 89 see also Australian languages Nonpolysynthetic languages, productive affixation 203–204 Nootka see Nuuchahnulth; Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Nootkan branch, Wakashan languages 749–750 Norse, Old influence on other languages French 248 Goidelic languages 453–454 Middle English 354 Old English vs. 356–357 pro-drop 781 see also Danish; Germanic languages; Icelandic; Indo-European languages; Middle English; Norwegian; Swedish North Alaskan Inupiaq (NAI) 535 see also Inupiaq North American native languages augmentative 757 gender indicators 757 meanings 758 morphology 758 phonology 757 vocabulary 758, 758t language density 319 lexicostatistics 248–249 Northwest coast, as linguistic area 63 use of, USA 1127 variation 753–761 abnormalities 756 assessment 754 baby talk 757 caretaker language 757 folk characters 756 folktales 759 grammar 755, 756t intergenerational 755 lexicon 755 mutual intelligibility 754 new language 755 personal indicators 756 phonology 755, 755t regional dialects 754 research history 753–754 style 758 see also Algonquin languages; Hopi; Lakota; Language endangerment; Muskogean languages; Pomoan languages; Ritwan languages see also Canada; USA North Arabian see Arabic, North North Bougainville languages 841 see also Papuan languages North Caucasian languages 251 see also Abkhaz; Caucasian languages Northeastern Mandarin classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Mandarin Chinese Northern Brahmi script see Brahmi script Northern Qiang classification 968–969 morphology 970 syllable structure 969–970 see also Qiangic languages Northern Sotho 1017 South Africa 1017–1018 see also Sepedi
Index 1259 Northern Totonac 1080 speaker numbers 1081 vowels 1082 see also Totonacan languages North Germanic languages see Germanic languages, North North Gurage languages 382–383 see also Ethiopian Semitic languages North Halmahera languages classification 1176 word order 1176 see also West Papuan languages North Philippine languages 783–785 development 783 ergative 784 intransitive constructions 784 noun phrases 783–784 phonology 784 affricate prevocalic stops 784 fricatives 784 vowels 784 resources 784 syntax 783–784 use of 783 speaker numbers 783 see also Austronesian languages; Bikol; Ilocano; Kapampangan; Malayo-Polynesian languages; South Philippine languages; Tagalog Northumbrian (Northern) dialect 356 North West Greenlandic 1172 see also West Greenlandic Northwest Semitic languages 932 unidentifiable 934 see also Semitic languages Norway Old Icelandic 779 Saami 911 Norwegian 785–786 adverbs 785–786 auxiliary verbs 785 classification 251–252 interrogative clauses 786 nouns 785 passives 786 phonology 785 Russenorsk, influence on 904 sociohistorical setting 785 Aasen, Ivar 785 subject requirements 786 SVO 785 syntax 785 verbs 785 second language 785 word order 785 workers in, Aasen, Ivar Andreas 785 written standards 785 see also Danish; Germanic languages; Icelandic; Norse, Old; Scandinavian languages; Swedish Nostratic theory 786–787 Afroasiatic languages 786 Altaic languages 249, 786 Berber languages 249 culture 786 Dravidian languages 249 Indo-European languages 249, 530, 786 Japanese 249 Kartvelian languages 249, 786 Korean 249 lexical terms 786 long-range comparison 649, 652 methodological problems 654–655 parent languages 786–787 Semitic languages 249 Uralic languages 249 workers in 249 Nottoway 542 see also Iroquoian languages Noun(s) Anatolian languages 37 Hurrian 516 in introflecting language 50 in polysynthetic languages 203
Tanoan languages 1049–1050 Thai 1059 Noun classes Adamawa-Ubangi languages 3 Australian languages 89 Bantu languages 140 Bantu languages, Southern 1018 Benue-Congo languages 151 Burushaski 176 Creoles 862 Fulfulde 430 Gikuyu (Kikuyu) 450 I˙jo˙ 518 Ket 593 Khasi languages 596 Kordofanian languages 613 Kru languages 624 Lak 636 Luganda 657–658 Mande languages 698 Mixtecan 823 Ngan’gi 766–767 Nyanja 796–796 Oaxacan languages 823 Oto-Mangean languages 823 Papuan languages 842 Sepik-Ramu languages 842 Shona languages 938 Swahili 1027 Torricelli languages 842 Tswana (Setswana) 1018–1019 Yoruba 1208 Zapotecan languages 823 Zulu 1017 Novgorodov, S A, Yakut 1200 Nubian classification 773 use of 775f vowel harmony 773–774 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Nukha 112 see also Azerbaijanian Numbers, sign language morphology 949–950, 950f Numic 1139t see also Uto-Aztecan languages Numidian script see Berber Nung 1039 see also Tai languages Nupoid 151 see also Benue-Congo languages Nuristani languages 787–788 area spoken 787 as ergative language 788 modal forms 787 numbers speaking 787 phonetics 787 spatial orientation 788 temporal forms 787 see also Ashkun Nusu 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Nutka see Nuuchahnulth Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) 788–791, 1157 augmentative 789 classification 252 compounding 1160 coordination 790 diminutives 789 fixation 789 head initial 789 head marking 789 morphemes 789 morphology 789 nominal phrase 1160 noun incorporation 790 phonology 788 consonants 788, 789t delabialization 788–789 glottalization 788–789 labialization 788–789 lenition 788–789 vowel coalescence 788–789 vowels 788
predicates 789 reduplication 789 relative clauses 789–790 resources 790 suffixation 789 syntax 789 use of 788 VSO 790 word order 789 see also Wakashan languages Nyabwa 624 see also Guere languages Nyahkur 727 see also Monic languages Nyangumarda (Nyangumarta) 90 see also Australian languages Nyanja 791–797 classification 253 dialects 791 dictionaries 794 diminutives 796–796 grammars (books) 794 Henry, George 794 Hetherwick, Alexander 794 history/politics 791 literary tradition 794 name reversion 793 noun classes 796–796 nouns 794 possessives 795–796 regional politics 792 Riddel, Alexander 794 Scott, David 794 as tonal language 794–795 use of 791 media 792 verbs 794 see also Bantu languages; Kordofanian languages; Niger-Congo languages Nymylan see Koryak Nyo 771 see also Kwa languages Nyorsk, Norwegian 785 Nzema 631 see also Tano languages
O Oasis dialects, North Arabian 932 Oaxacan languages eccentric noun classes 823 exocentric noun classes 823 noun classes 823 Obi-Urgic see Uralic languages Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), Bantu languages 139–140 Obo Manobo case marking 1005–1006, 1006t ergative 1005–1006 ergative patterns 1005–1006, 1006t morphology 1003 morphosyntax 1005 pronouns 1005–1006, 1006t transitive sentences 1005–1006 see also South Philippine languages Ob-Urgic classification 1129–1130 main verb phrases 1132 negation 1131 plural markers 1131 word order 1132 Occidental 77 Occitan 799–800 classification 251–252 dialects 799 diversity 799 history 800 texts 800 official status 799 perspectives 800 revival/survival 800 status 799 structure 799
1260 Index Occitan (continued) Catalan vs. 799 use of 799 see also Catalan; French; Romance languages Oceanic languages Austronesian languages 99 classification 250–251, 685 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages Ofaye´ classification 665, 666, 666t, 667 morphology 667 speaker numbers 667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Official Aramaic see Aramaic, Official Ofo 749 see also Siouan languages Ogham Gaelic script 200 Goidelic languages 453 Oghuz, South, related languages, Azerbaijanian 110–111 O’Grady, G N, Australian language classification 84 Oirat 722 use of 723 see also Mongol languages Ojibwa bilingualism 261 classification 25 dialects 755, 756t language shift 319 origin/development 28 phonology, stress 26 speaker numbers 26 see also Algonquin languages Okere 631 see also Guang languages Okinawan see Ryukyuan Ok languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Oko 151 see also Benue-Congo languages Old Aramaic see Aramaic Old Church Slavonic 800–802 classification 251–252 Macedonian, influence on 663 see also Balkan linguistic area; Balto-Slavic languages; Bulgarian; Church Slavonic; Indo-European languages; Macedonian; Russian; Slavic languages; Sogdian Old Dutch (Old Low Franconian) 307 Old English 356–359 case marking 359 dialects 356 genetic relationships 356 Old Frisian vs. 356–357 Old Norse vs. 356–357 Old Saxon vs. 356–357 grammar 358 inflectional morphology 358–359 influence on other languages Old Icelandic 781 Present Day English 329–330 influences from other languages 358 Celtic 358 French 358 Latin 358 Scandinavian languages 358 mutation 358–359 origin/development 357 see also Germanic languages period used 356 phonology 357 fricatives 358 i-umlaut 357 syllable structure 357 verb positions 359 written records 357 Latin script 357 see also English, Early Modern; English, Later Modern; Germanic languages; Gothic; Middle English
Old French Sign Language 956 Old Georgian 291 Old Icelandic see Icelandic, Old Old Irish see Irish, Old Old Javanese script, Balinese 117 Old Kirghiz 1110 see also Turkic languages Old Norse see Norse, Old Old Persian see Persian, Old Old Saxon see Saxon, Old Old Southern Arabian 931 see also Semitic languages Old Uyghur 1110 see also Turkic languages Olmos, Andre´s de, Nahuatl 745 Olonetsian 1129–1130 see also Finnic languages Oluta, aspects 714 Oluteco 713 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages Omaha-Ponca 802–805 auxilaries 804 classification 252 as active-stative language 803 as endangered language 802 as pronominal argument language 804 dialects 804 downstep 803 gendered speech 804 morphology 803 orthography 802 phonology 802, 802t nasality 803 vowel length 803 possessives 803 relative clauses 804 revival/survival 802 SOV 804 spelling 802 subordinate clauses 804 syntax 804 use of 802 USA 802 verbs 803 intransitive verbs 803 transitive verbs 803–804 word order 804 see also Crow; Siouan languages Oman, Arabic 42 Ometo 805 see also Omotic languages Omotic languages 12, 273, 805–806 classification 250 definition 805 as tonal language 806 use of 805 see also Afroasiatic languages; Ari; Cushitic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Wolaitta Oneida 806–809 affixation 806–807 classification 252 derivational process 806–807 future 807 genders 806–807 history 806 morphology 806 nouns 807 phonology 806 vowels 806 preservation/recovery 808 scholarship 808 syntax 807 verbs 807 word building 807 word classes 806–807 word order 807–808 workers in, 808 see also Iroquoian languages Onomatopoeia, Korean 615–616 Onondaga 543 see also Iroquoian languages Oosgrens Afrikaans 8, 9f
Oowekyala 1157 glottalized vowels 1158 see also Wakashan languages Opo´n-Carare see Cariban languages Oral tradition, Avestan 107 Oranjeriver Afrikaans 8, 9f Oraon see Kurukh Ordinal derivation, European linguistic area 400, 401f Ordos 722 see also Mongol languages Orejo´n consonants 1095 nasalization 1095 speaker numbers 1092t see also Tucanoan languages Oriya Assamese vs. 78 classification 522 compound verbs 996–997 converbs 995 number of speakers 523 phonology 525–526 vowels 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Oromo 809–812 consonant clusters 810 dialects 809 morphology 810 as national language 809 nominative case 810–811 number of speakers 272–273 person markers 811–812 phonemes 809–810, 810t phonology 809 political effects 809 possessives 810–811 SOV 812 as tone-accent language 810 use of 809 verbs 811 vowels 810 word order 812 see also Afroasiatic languages; Cushitic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) ‘Oryan Tepe 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian OSP, Hiri Motu 501 Ossetic 812–819 adjectives 815 agglutinative 814 aktionsart 816, 817t aspect 816, 817t Caucasian languages, influence from 814 classification 251–252 copular sentences 818 correlative 818 declensions 540 definite articles 540 demonstratives 815 dialects 813 directional prefixes 542 embedding 817f, 818, 818f enclitics 815, 816t ethnography 812 future 817t genitives 815 habitual 816 habitual present 816, 817t history 812 imperfective 816 literature 812 momentaneous present 816, 817t nouns 814 noun phrases 816 numerals 815, 816t objects 814–815 phonology 540 accent 814 affricates 813 consonants 540, 813, 814t loanwords 814 postalveolar affricates 813 vowels 814, 814t
Index 1261 plurals 814–815, 815t postposition phrases 816 pronouns 815, 815t simple sentences 817 SOV 817 tenses 815–816, 816t Tocharian, influence on 1070 use of 812 geographical distribution 813f verbs 815 word order 817 see also Indo-European languages; Iranian languages Ostapirat, W, Austro-Tai hypothesis 105 Ostayak-Samoyed see Selkup (Ostayak-Samoyed) Osttocharisch see Tocharian OSV, Thai 1059 Otı´ 665–666, 666t see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Oti-Volta languages 770 see also Gur languages Oto-Mangean languages 748 alignment 822 locative adpositionals 822 noun phrases 822 verbs 822 classification 819–821 comparative phonology 819 as endangered language 824 Swadesh, Morris 819 classifiers 823 cliticization 822 consonants 821 constituent order 822 documentation 823 grammar 822 historical aspects 751 Hokan languages vs. 505 noun classes 823 endocentric noun classes 823 origin/development 823 phonology 821 pronouns 822 SOV 823–824 syllabic nuclei 821 syllable onsets 821 morpheme patterns 821 time depth 819 tone 821 use of 819 speaker numbers 824 viability 823 vowels 821 VSO 822 workers in, Swadesh, Morris 819 see also Amusgo; Amuzgoan languages; Native American languages Otomian see Otopamean languages Otomı´ languages 819 classification 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Oto-Palmean, time depth 819 Otopamean languages 751 see also Chichimeca Jonaz Oto-Panean-Chinanteko languages 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Oto-Panean languages classification 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Ottoman, contacts, Tatar 1053 Otu´ke see Boro´ro (Otu´ke) Overlapping exponence, in isolating language 223 OVS Arabic 49 Cariban languages 186 Luxembourgish 659–660 Madang languages 671 Spanish 884 Trans New Guinea languages 1087 Tucanoan languages 1096 Oxford History of the English Language 355
P Pacoh 726–727 see also Katuic languages Padang see Dinka Padari 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Padaung 581 see also Karen languages Pa´ez see Barbacoan languages Pahari classification 522 phonology 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Pahlavi (Middle Persian) 827–828 classification 251–252 declensions 540 eteograms 827 heterograms 827 influences from other languages 827 literature 827 past tenses 541 pronouns 541 script 827 Zoroastrianism 538, 827 see also Iranian languages; Persian, Modern; Persian, Old Paiwan classification 421 dialects 421 dictionaries 423 grammars (books) 423 research history 423 see also Formosan languages Paiwanic languages 250–251 see also Austronesian languages; Formosan languages Pajalat 506 see also Hokan languages Pakatan 728–729 see also Chut languages Pakistan Balochi 134, 538 Brahui 162–163 Burushaski 175 Dardic languages 282, 283 Hindi 495 Indo-Aryan languages 522 Iranian languages 537 Kashmiri 582 official language 885–886, 1133 Pashto 538, 845 Punjabi 885 Shina languages 283 Sindhi 960 Tibetan 1060–1061 Urdu 522–523, 885–886, 1133 Pakistani Baluchistan 846 Palaic features of 37 historical aspects 36 Palaihnihan languages 750–751 see also Hokan languages Palare 548 Palaung languages 727 Shan, influence from 728 use of 728 varieties 728 see also Palaung-Wa languages Palaung-Wa languages 724 use of 727 see also Angkuic languages; Mon-Khmer languages Palaychi 581 see also Karen languages Palenquero 828–830 classification 249t code switching 828–829 development, isolation 828 influence from other languages Kikongo 829 Spanish 828 lexicon 828 resources 829–830
use of 828 Colombia 828 geographical distribution 828f, 829f see also Creoles; Pidgins Pa¯li 830–833 alphabet 831 canonical texts 830–831, 831–832 classification 251–252 commentaries 832 correlative 831 influence on other languages Khmer 248 Lao 640 Thai 248 morphology 831 non-canonical literature 832 origin/development 830 phonology 525, 831, 831t Sanskrit vs. 831 script 831 Thai, influence on 1059 use of Burma/Myanmar 830 Cambodia 830 Sri Lanka 830 Thailand 830 word order 831 see also Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-Iranian languages; Sanskrit; Tibetan Palikur classifiers 61 genders 61 predicate structure 60 see also Arawak languages Palmella 185f see also Cariban languages Palula 282 see also Shina languages Palyu 729 see also Mon-Khmer languages Pama-Nyungan languages 84 classification 250 ergative 88 morphology 87 nouns 87 pronouns 84–85, 87 syntax 87 see also Australian languages Pamean languages 751 classification 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Pame languages 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages ‘Pan-African properties,’ Africa, as linguistic area 4, 5t Panama Andean languages 40 Chico languages 224 Choco languages 40 Embera´ 224 Waunme´u 224 Panara´ ergative 668 noun incorporation 667 see also Jeˆ languages Panare geographical distribution 185f morphemes 184–185 phonology 183–184 see also Cariban languages Panche see Cariban languages Panduro, Lorenzo Hervas, Austronesian languages 98 Pangasinan 783 see also North Philippine languages Panoan languages 750 classification 252–253, 833 de la Grasserie, Raoul 833 ergative 834 evidentiality 834 history/culture 833 lexicon/ethnolinguistics 834 morphology 834 phonology 834
1262 Index Panoan languages (continued) syntax 834 use of 833 see also Native American languages Panzaleo 41 Pa-O (Taungthu) 581 writing systems 581 see also Karen languages Papantla Totonac 1080 consonants 1082 nouns 1083 object agreement 1084 speaker numbers 1081 see also Totonacan languages Papiamentu 835–836 classification 249t habitual 835 imperfective 835 morphology 835 origins 835 orthography 835 phonology 835 progressive 835 SVO 835 syntax 835 use of 835 see also Creoles; Dutch; Pidgins Papora-Hoanya 421 see also Formosan languages Papua New Guinea Cebuano 197 English 836 language density 319 Manambu 693 national languages 1076–1077 Papuan languages 836 Skou languages 973 Tok Pisin 1076–1077 Torricelli 1078 Papuan languages 836–845 classification 840 Ross, Malcolm 837f dictionaries 841 diversity 842 geographic barriers 842–843 isolation 843 social/political organization 842–843 existential verbs 842 grammars (books) 841 Island Melanesia 841 morphology 841 nominal inflexions 842 North New Guinea languages 840 noun classes 842 noun roots 842 phonetics 841 pronominal systems 841 research history 839 Greenberg, Joseph H 839–840 Ray, S H 839 SOV 841 SVO 841 use of 836 geographical distribution 837f New Guinea 836 speaker numbers 836 verbs 842 verb roots 842 word order 841 workers in Greenberg, Joseph H 839–840 Ray, S H 839 Ross, Malcolm 837f see also Austronesian languages; Central Solomons languages; Madang languages; Malayo-Polynesian languages; Malukan languages; Torricelli languages; Trans New Guinea languages; West Papuan languages Paraguay, Guaranı´ 467 Paraujano see Arawak languages Parengi 996–997 Parent languages, Nostratic theory 786–787
Parsic see Judeo-Persian Parthian 538 declensions 540 Kurdish, influence on 625 past tenses 541 pronouns 541 see also Iranian languages Participial passive, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Particle comparatives, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Particles Anatolian languages 37 Thai 1060 Pashai languages agreement patterns 284 case-marking 284 classification 282 sibilants 283 see also Dardic languages; Iranian languages Pashto 845–849 ‘auxiliation,’ 847 classification 251–252 conjugation 847 dialects 845, 845t Pakistani Baluchistan 846 Waziri metaphony 845–846 differential object marking 848 dual 540 ergativity 848 imperfective 847 landey 849, 849t morphology 847 nouns 847 order of terms 847, 848t origin/development 845 orthography 846 Arabic script 846 Persian, influence from 846 phonology 540, 846 consonants 845, 845t, 846, 846t word-initial clusters 846, 847t present tenses 847 pronouns 847, 847t SOV 848 syntax 847 use of 538, 845 Afghanistan 538, 845 Pakistan 538, 845 verbs 847 anti-impersonal verbs 848 see also Avestan; Balochi; Indo-Iranian languages; Iranian languages; Lahnda; Persian, Modern; Urdu Passive Arabic 51, 51t Bengali 150 Indo-Iranian languages 534 in introflecting languages 51, 51t Kurdish 626 Norwegian 786 Persian, Modern 851 Patagonia Andean languages 41 Mapuche 41 Welsh 1169 Patronymic names, Icelandic 782 Pawnee 749 see also Caddoan languages Pazeh classification 421 research history 423 see also Formosan languages Peano, Guiseppe, fields of work, artificial languages 77 Pear 728 see also Pearic languages Pearic languages 724 use of 728 see also Mon-Khmer languages Pederson, Holger, Nostratic theory 530 Pehuenche 701 see also Mapudungan languages
Pelliot, Paul Sogdian 986 Tocharian 1068–1069 Peloponnesian-Ionian Greek dialect 465 Pemong gender 184–185 geographical distribution 185f vowels 183–184 see also Cariban languages Pengo 300t see also Dravidian languages Pennsylvania Dutch 444 Penobscot 26 see also Algonquin languages Pentreath, Dolly 257–258 Penutian languages 750 historical aspects 747–748 see also Yokutsan Pequot-Mohegan-Montauk 24 see also Algonquin languages Perfect Arabic 51 Azerbaijanian 112 Bactrian 115 Balkan linguistic area 129, 130t Bengali 149 Berber languages 157t Brahui 165 Bulgarian 169 Domari 296 European linguistic area 393–394 Finnish (Suomi) 414 French 428 Goidelic languages 453 Greek, Ancient 463 Greek, Modern 466 have 129 Indo-Iranian languages 533–534 Iranian languages 537 Iroquoian languages 544 Italian 546 Kalkutungu 575 Khotanese 604 Krio 619 Kru languages 624 Latin 642 Lithuanian 648 Macedonian 664–665 Persian, Modern 851 Persian, Old 853 Romani 900 Romanian 902–903 Slavic languages 977 Slovak 979 Sogdian 986 Sorbian 994 Southern Bantu languages 1017 Spanish 1021 Swedish 1030 Syriac 1033 Tajik 1042 Xhosa 1192 Yanito 1202 Periphrasis see Clitic(s); Inflection Permic (Permian) languages classification 1129–1130 phonology, consonantism 1130 see also Uralic languages Persian classification 251–252 influence on other languages Azerbaijanian 112 Bengali 148 Hindi 495–496 Kashmiri 582–583 Kurdish 625 Malayalam 680–681 Pashto 846 Punjabi 889 Urdu 1134 Middle see Pahlavi (Middle Persian) Modern see below Old see below
Index 1263 Urdu literature 1137 see also Iranian languages Persian, Modern 849–852 classifiers 850 definite markers 850 dialects 850, 851 future 851 genders 540, 850 grammars (books) 850 indefinite markers 850 indirect speech 851–852 morphology 850 origin/development 849 passive constructions 851 passives 851 past continuous 851 perfect 851 phonology 850 vowels 850 pluperfect tense 851 plurals 850 possession 850 preverbs 851 relative clauses 851 syntax 851 tenses 541 see also specific tenses use of 538 Afghanistan 538, 850 Iran 538, 850 Tajikistan 850 Tajikstan 538 verbs 851 workers in, Jones, William 850 writing 538 Arabic script 850 see also Arabic; Aramaic; Avestan; Bengali; Iranian Languages; Iranian languages; Kurdish; Pahlavi (Middle Persian); Pashto; Persian, Old; Punjabi; Tajik Persian; Tu¨rkmen Persian, Old 537, 852–854 adjectives 853 Avestan divergence 107 correlative 853 definition 852 inflectional morphology 853 inscriptions 852 cuneiform script 852 extent 852 trilingual 852 morphology 539 nouns 853 perfect 853 periphrastic past tense 853 phonology 852 pronouns 853 relative pronouns 853 use of 852 verbs 853 see also Akkadian; Avestan; Bengali; Elamite; Indo-European languages; Indo-Iranian languages; Iranian languages; Pahlavi (Middle Persian); Persian, Modern; Sanskrit; Sogdian; Tajik Persian Perso-Arabic Punjabi writing systems 886 Telugu, influence on 1055, 1058 Personal indicators, North American native language variation 756 Person markers 811–812 Peru Andean languages 41 Arawak languages 59 Aymara 108 Aymaran 41 Campa languages 59 official languages 891 Panoan languages 833 Quechua 41, 891 Tucanoan languages 1091 Pharyngeal fricatives 380
Philippines Austronesian languages 97, 99 Cebuano 197 English 1035 Hiligaynon 492 Ilocano 518 official languages 1035 Samar-Leyte 914 Tagalog 783, 1035 Pho 581 see also Karen languages Phoenician 854–855, 933 alphabet 854 Ammonite vs. 854 classification 250 Edomite vs. 854 Hebrew vs. 854 imperfective 855 influence on other languages 854 inscriptions 854 Moabite vs. 854 nouns 854 use of 854 verbs 855 word order 855 see also Afroasiatic languages; Northwest Semitic languages; Semitic languages ‘Phoenician shift,’ 854–855 Phonetics Assamese 78 Nuristani languages 787 Phonological form invariance, in isolating language 223 Phonology, gender assignment 757 Phunoi 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Pictish 855–857 affiliation of 855–856 classification 251–252 as non Indo-European language 856 origin/development 855 Scotland 855 workers in Camden, William 856 Dunbavin, Paul 855–856 Fraser, John 856 Jackson, Kenneth H 856 Johnston, J B 856 Macalister, R A S 856 Macbain, Alexander 856 Nicolaisen, W F H 856 Rhys, John 856 Skene, W F 856 Sverdrup, Harald V 856 see also Brythonic Celtic; Cornish; Finnish (Suomi); Indo-European languages; Scots Gaelic; Welsh Pictographs, Chinese development 217 Picunche 701 see also Mapudungan languages Picuris 1049 see also Tanoan Pidgins 857–864 Algonquin languages 28 Assamese 78 basilect 867 classification 858 lexical affiliation 858 clicks 859 Creoles vs. 862 definition 859 development 249 education 867 future research 863 habitual 867–868 imperfective 867–868 lectal level 867 Portuguese, influence from 883 pro-drop 865 progressive 867–868 SVO 862 tense-mood-aspect systems vs. 858 types 249t variations in 865
see also African-American Vernacular English (AAVE); Austronesian languages; Bislama; Cape Verdean Creole; Creoles; English, nonnative; Fanagalo; Gullah; Hawaiian Creole English (HCE); Krio; Louisiana Creole; Mobilian Jargon (Mobilian); Morrobalama; Palenquero; Russenorsk; Sango; Tiwi; Tok Pisin; Yanito Pidgin Swahili 140 see also Bantu languages Pie 624 see also Grebo languages Piedmontese see Italian Pied-piping 1214 Pijao see Cariban languages Pijin 836 Pimenteria 185f see also Cariban languages Pina, Francisco de 1149–1150 Pinghua languages classification 969 speaker numbers 214t see also Chinese Pinto, Constancio 226 Pipil, sound correspondences with Finnish 651 Piratapuyo consonants 1094t speaker numbers 1092t syllable pattern 1095 see also Tucanoan languages Pisaflores Tepehua 1081 consonants 1082 inflectional affixes 1083 reciprocal verbs 1083 speaker numbers 1082 see also Totonacan languages Pisamira case markers 1097 consonants 1094t morphemes 1096 speaker numbers 1092t see also Tucanoan languages Piscataway see Conoy (Piscataway) Pite Saami 911 see also Saami Pitjantjatjara 871–874 ceremonial vocabularies 871 complex sentences 873 ergative 872 example 873 future 873t history 871 imperfective 873 morphology 90, 872 nominal morphology 872 ergative case allomorphy 872 locative case morphology 872 pronouns 872, 873t phonology 872 consonants 872, 872t vowels 872 sociolinguistics 871 syntax 90, 872 use of 871 speaker numbers 871 verbs 88, 872, 873t alternate forms 871 serial verb constructions 871 tense-aspect-mood categories 872–873 word order 871 see also Australian languages; Pama-Nyungan languages; Warlpiri Pitta Pitta future 88 morphology 87, 88 syntax 87, 88 verbs 88 see also Australian languages Pittman, Richard S, Ethnologue 385 Platoid 151 see also Benue-Congo languages
1264 Index Plural(s), language diffusion 248 Plural sweep, sign language 951, 952f Pnar 595 Poguli 282 see also Kashmiri languages Poland German 444 Slovak 977 Police Motu see Hiri Motu Polish 874–878 classification 251–252, 974–975 declensions 875–876 dialects 877 genders 875 imperfective 876 iterative 876 lexicon 877 morphology 875 nouns 875 origin/development 877 orthography 874 Latin alphabet 874–875 phonology 875 consonants 875 diphthongs 975 vowels 875 word stress 875 plurals 875 pronouns 877 syntax 876 verbs 876 word order 876 written records 877 Yiddish, influence on 1205 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Belorussian; Slavic languages; Sorbian ‘Politeness shift,’ 684 Politics, European linguistic area 390 Polivanov, E D 31–32 Polyfunctional suffixes 419 Polyglotta Africana 472 Polymorphemic signs 952, 952f Polysynthesis, Native American languages 746 Polysynthetic languages 201–204 productive noninflectional concatenation vs. nonproductive morphology 204 see also Algonquin languages; Arabic, as introflecting language; Caddoan languages; Central Siberian Yupik; Crow; Eskimo-Aleut languages; Lakota; Morphological Types; Nahuatl; Ngan’gi; Ritwan languages; Tiwi Pomoan languages 878–883 as agglutinative languages 881 assertion evidence 881 classification 880f Barrett, Samuel A 878 clauses 881 grammars (books) 878–879 historical relationships 881 intermarriage 878–879 instrumental prefixes 881 interrelationships 880f kinship terms 881 morphology 881 phonology 880 consonants 880 voiced stops 881 voiceless aspirated stops 880–881 pronouns 881 as stative-active languages 881 use of 878, 879f see also Hokan languages Pomo languages 750–751 classification 505 see also Hokan languages Pong 728–729 see also Cuoi languages; Muong languages Pontic dialect 465 Popoloca 751, 819 see also Oto-Mangean languages; Popolocan languages Popolocan languages 751 see also Chocho
Popti’ 705–706 noun classifiers 708 numeral classifiers 709t speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Poqom 705–706 see also Mayan languages Poqomam 705–706 speaker numbers 706t transitive verbs 708t see also Mayan languages Poqomchi’ 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Portugal official languages 883 Portuguese 883 Portuguese 883–885 adjectives 884 characteristics 883 classification 251–252 Galician vs. 435 history 883 earliest texts 883 literary texts 883 influence on other languages Cape Verdean Creole 182 Hindi 495–496 Korean 615–616 Krio 620 Malayalam 680–681 Saramaccan 858 Sinhala 964 Sranan 858 Telugu 1058 influences from other languages Galician 883 Latin 883 morphology 884 phonology 884 consonants 884 diphthongs 884 monophthongs 884 SVO 884 syntax 884 use of 883 Brazil 883, 884 varieties 884 Creoles 883 pidgins 883 verbs 884 see also Catalan; Galician; Romance languages; Spanish Possessive doubling, Balkan linguistic area 125 Possessives African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) 336 Akan 19 Austronesian languages 101 Balkan linguistic area 124 Balto-Slavic languages 136 Cariban languages 186 Chorasmian 238 Chuvash 244–245 Creek 264 Danish 280 Domari 296 Egyptian 39 English 340 Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 380 Ethiopian Semitic languages 383 Evenki 406 Finnish (Suomi) 416t Hausa 479 Hokan languages 509 Kayardild 585–586 Kazakh 590 Kinyarwanda 608 Kirghiz 612 Krio 617 Munda languages 737 Nenets (Yurak) 762 Nyanja 795–796 Omaha-Ponca 803
Oromo 810–811 Santali 922–923 Sumerian 1024 Swahili 1027t Swedish 1031 Tatar 1054 Tohono O’odham 1075 Turkic languages 1112 Turkish 1116 Uyghur 1144 Wambaya 1163 Wolaitta 1181–1182 Xhosa 1188 Yakut 1200 Postpositions Ainu 17 Akan 19 Balkan linguistic area 122 Bengali 149 Burmese 173 Cariban languages 186 Caucasian languages 195 Creek 741 Crow 269 Cushitic languages 274–275 Dravidian languages 301 Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 380 Gondi 456 Hindi 496–497 Hiri Motu 501 Hungarian 290 Kashmiri 583–584 Korean 616 Kurukh 628 Lakota 638 morphological types 733–734 Muskogean languages 741 Navajo 761 Nenets (Yurak) 762 Ossetic 816 Punjabi 888 Sindhi 962 Sinhala 965–966 Siouan languages 972 Tajik Persian 1042 Tamil 1048–1049 Telugu 1056 Tupian languages 1106 Turkish 1113–1114 Uralic languages 1131–1132 Votic 290 Potawatomi classification 25 speaker numbers 26 see also Algonquin languages Poutsma, Hendrik, Later Modern English definition 343 Powadi Punjabi 886 see also Punjabi Powell, John Wesley, Uto-Aztecan languages 1140 Powhatan classification 24 origin/development 28 see also Algonquin languages Pragmatics, Southeast Asian languages 1011 Prakrit, influence on other languages, Telugu 1058 Prasun 787 see also Nuristani languages Prefixes diachronic origins 287 suffixation vs. 288 Pre-Proto-Indo-European (PPIE) 530 Presˇeren, France 981 Principe Islands 883 Pro-drop Czech 277–277 Hausa 479 Hungarian 516 Italian 547 Norse 781 Pidgins 865 Punjabi 889
Index 1265 Telugu 1058 Turkish 1116 Productive noninflectional concatenation (PNC) 203 Productivity, postbases 202–203 Progressive Berber 156t Bikol 159t Breton 167 Chinantecan languages 212t English 345–346 Guugu Yimithirr 474–475 Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages 490 Hiligaynon 493t Krio 619 Kwa languages 632 Papiamentu 835 Pidgins 867–868 Sogdian 537–538 Somali 987 Tajik Persian 1042 Tucanoan languages 1100 Turkish 1114–1115 Waray-Waray 915t Xhosa 1191 Pronominal(s) clitics see Clitic(s) object doubling 124 subject markers, in introflecting language 52, 52t Pronouncing dictionaries, Later Modern English 344, 347 Proom (Souei) 726–727 see also Katuic languages Proper names, Hurrian 516 Prosodic nasality (nasal harmony), Guaranı´ 468 Proto-Algonquian classification 24–25 consonants 27t reconstruction 26 stress 26 see also Algonquin languages Proto-Austronesian 684 phonology 684 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages Proto-Bantu see Bantu Proto-Central-Algonquian 651 Proto Central/Eastern Malayo-Polynesian (PCEMP) classification 685 evidence for 685–687 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages Proto-Dravidian consonants 298, 298t vowels 297–298, 298t Proto-Germanic 447–448 First Sound Shift (Grimm’s Law) 448t Verner’s Law 449t see also Germanic languages Proto-Indo European (PIE) Brugmann, K 529 definition 530 phonology, Tocharian vs. 1069 see also Indo-European languages Proto-Je 651 Proto Oceanic evidence for 687 use of 687 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages Proto-Semitic 929 see also Semitic languages Proto-Sino-Tibetan morphology 970 prefixes 970 suffixes 970 syllable structure 969–970 use of 968 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Proto Trans New Guinea language phonemes 1086t pronouns 1086t use of 1087 Proto-Uralic see Altaic languages; Areal linguistics; Uralic languages
Proto-World, long-range comparisons 649 Provencal see Occitan Puare (Puari) subject marking 974 vowels 973 see also Skou languages Pukapuka, Niuean, influence on 776 Pulaar see Fula Pumi classification 968–969 see also Qiangic languages Punjabi 885–889 adjectives 887–888 cases 887 classification 251–252, 522 dialects 886 future 888 genders 887 history 886 influence from other languages 889 Kashmiri, influence on 582–583 literature 886 morphology 887 negatives 889 nouns 887, 888t numbers 887 phonology 525–526, 886 aspirated vs. unaspirated consonants 886–887 consonants 887, 887t germinates 887 retroflexion 887 tonal contrasts 886 tonal system 525–526, 526–527 vowels 526–527, 887, 887t postpositions 888 prefixes 887 pro-drop 889 pronoun case system 888, 888t SOV 889 stress 887 suffixes 887 syntax 889 use of 885 speaker numbers 523, 885–886 varieties 886 religions 886 verbs 888 causative verbs 888 complex verbs 888 compounding 888 conjunct verbs 888 prefixes 888 stative/active distinctions 888 tenses 888 volitional/nonvolitional distinctions 888 word order 889 writing systems 524, 886 Devanagari 886 Gurmukhi 886 Perso-Arabic 886 see also Arabic; Dardic languages; Hindi; IndoAryan languages; Kashmiri; Lahnda; Persian, Modern; Sanskrit Puquina 752 see also Native American languages Purı´ (Coroado) classification 665, 666, 666t geographical distribution 666–667 records of 667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Purubora´ 1106t see also Tupian languages Puruha´-Can˜ar 41 Putonghua 215 development 215 Fuzhou vs. 219 phonology 220t finals 215 initials 215 tones 215 Puyuma classification 421 dialects 421
research history 423 see also Formosan languages Pwo 968–969 see also Karenic languages
Q Qafar see Afar (Qafar) Q’anjob’al 705–706 noun classifiers 708 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Qashqay 1112 Qatabanian 931 see also Semitic languages Qawaskar see Kawe´sqar (Qawaskar) Q’eqchi’ 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Qiangic languages 968–969 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Qualifiers, I˙jo˙ 518 Quapaw 749 see also Siouan languages Quapaw, and Amerind 653 Quechua languages 752 agglutinating structure 892 Aymara vs. 891 classification 252–253 dialects 891–892 evidentiality 892–892 grammar 891 Mapudungan languages, influences on 702 morphology 892 nominalization 892 nouns 892 as official language 891 phonology 892 reconstruction 891 stops 892 subdivisions 891–892 use of 891 Bolivia 41 Ecuador 41 Peru 41, 891 verbs 892 vowels 892 see also Andean languages; Aymara; Native American languages Question words, sign languages 958 Quetzaltepec see Mixe-Zoquean languages Quileute 210 morphology 210 phonology 210 typology 210 voiced stops 211 Quinault 749 see also Salishan languages Quingnam 41 Quirupi-Unquachog 24 see also Algonquin languages Quotatives, South Asian languages 997 Qur’an Sindhi translations 961 see also Arabic, Classical; Islam
R Rabaul 444 Rabbinic Hebrew 483 Rabha 968–969 see also Bodo-Koch languages Racism, Afroasiatic language investigations 12 Rajasthani 525–526 see also Indo-Aryan languages Ramara´ma adjectives 1106 ideophones 1106–1107 phonology, tone system 1106 Ramo 974 see also Skou languages
1266 Index Ramstedt, Gustaf John, Altaic 31 Ranquel 701 see also Mapudungan languages Rapoisi see Kunua (Rapoisi) Rashad 770 see also Kordofanian Rask, Rasmus Kristian Eskimo-Aleut 371 Rathi Punjabi 886 see also Punjabi Ray, S H, Papuan languages 839 Reading see Writing/written language Real character 76 Recursion/iteration postbases 203 sign language, syntax 944 Red Tai (Tai Daeng) 1039 see also Tai languages Reduplication Apalai 184 Balkan linguistic area 124 Bislama 162 Cape Verdean Creole 182 Cariban languages 184 Central Solomons languages 205 Chadic languages 207 European linguistic area 401, 402f Gikuyu (Kikuyu) 451–452 Hausa 478 Hindi 497 Kinyarwanda 607 Krio 621 Madurese 673 Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) 789 Salishan languages 913 South Asian languages 998 Tamambo 1046 Tiriyo 184 Wayana 184 Reference, sign language morphology 942, 943f Referential opacity, word see Word Referent tracking, converbs see Converbs Regional accents/dialects English 333 North American native language variation 754 Thai 1058 Register tone, Kru languages 624 Rek see Dinka Reland, Hadrian 98 Relational concepts, language classification 731 Relexification, Creole origins/development 860 Religion, Austronesian languages 97 Rembarnga (Rembarunga) 90 see also Australian languages Remo 736 see also Munda languages Replication, Balkan linguistic area 124 Rere 613 see also Kordofanian languages Resı´garo pronominal suffix loss 60 tones 60 see also Arawak languages Resultative African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) 336 Balkan linguistic area 126 Berber languages 156 Bulgarian 169 Creek 264–265 Evenki 406 Greek, Ancient 463 Macedonian 664–665 Mapudungan languages 702 Slovak 975 Resumptive clitic compounds, Balkan linguistic area 124 Retroflex Burushaski 176 Dardic languages 283–284
Khotanese 603 Punjabi 887 South Asian languages 995 Retuara/Tanimuca accent/tone 1096 adjectives 1099 case markers 1096 classification 1091 consonants 1094 evidentiality 1100 morphemes 1096 nasalization 1095–1096 noun classifiers 1098 speaker numbers 1092t syllable pattern 1095 see also Tucanoan languages Rhaeto-Romance languages 893–895 classification 251–252, 893 phonology 894–895 use of 893 geographical distribution 893 see also Indo-European languages; Romance languages Rhodes, Alexander de, Vietnamese 1149–1150 Rhys, John 856 Riang 727 see also Palaung-Wa languages Riau Indonesian 895–896 Bazaar Malay vs. 895–896 Riau Malay vs. 895–896 Standard Indonesian vs. 895–896 use of 895 see also Austronesian languages; Malay Riau Malay, Riau Indonesian vs. 895–896 Riddel, Alexander 794 Ridley, William 438 Riis, H R 17–18 Rikbaktsa´ classification 665, 666, 666t, 667 use of 666–667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Ringe, D A Jr. 655 Ritwan languages classification 25, 252 classifiers 28 see also Algonquin languages; Central Siberian Yupik; Cree; Michif; Mobilian Jargon (Mobilian); Polysynthetic languages Ro 75 Roanoke-Pamlico 24 see also Algonquin languages Rokytno Bund 392–393 Roman alphabet see Latin (Roman) alphabet Romance languages 896–898 classification 251–252 definition 896 diminutives 896–897 divergence 897 influence on other languages Esperanto 376 Spanish 1020 Medieval speakers 897 reconstruction 896 texts 897 see also Catalan; French; Galician; Italian; Italic languages; Latin; Occitan; Portuguese; Rhaeto-Romance languages; Romanian; Spanish Romani 120, 898–900 classification 251–252 clauses 900 definition 898 diversity 900 Domari vs. 295 history 898 influence from other languages 898–899 morphology 899 nouns 899 adjectives 899 genders 899 ikeoclitic declension classes 899, 899t
numbers 899 phonology 899 consonants 899 dental clusters 898 stops 899 vowels 899 syntax 900 use of 898 verbs 898, 899 default stems 899–900 perfective tense 900 personal conjugations 900 present tense 900 valency 899 word order 900 see also Armenian languages; Balkan linguistic area; Dardic languages; Domari; Dravidian languages; Hindi; Indo-Aryan languages; Iranian languages; Kashmiri Romania Gagauz 1112 German 444 Hungarian 514 Romanian 901 Slovak 977 Romanian 900–904 alphabet 901 Balkan Sprachbund 902 cases 902, 903t concord 900 definite articles 902t dialects/dialectology 901 earliest texts 901 influences from other languages Latin 900–901 Slavic languages 901 morphology 902, 902t origin/development 900 perfect 902–903 phonetics 901 consonants 901, 901t diphthongs 901 palatal velars 901 vowels 901t word stress 901–902 Romance languages vs. 902 tenses 902–903, 903t use of 901 verbs 902–903, 902t see also Balkan linguistic area; Romance languages Roman script see Latin (Roman) alphabet Romansh classification 893 as national language 893 use of 893 geographical distribution 893 speaker numbers 893 Switzerland 893 see also Rhaeto-Romance languages Romany see Romani Ronga 1018 see also Tshwa Roots, affixes vs., agglutinating vs. fusional languages 554 Ross, Malcolm, Papuan language classification 837f Roth, W E 473–474 Rotokas 841 see also North Bougainville languages Rounded vowels, European linguistic area 395, 396f Rounding harmony, vowels see Vowel harmony Ruc 728–729 see also Chut languages Rudhari 526–527 Ruhlen, M 649 Rukai classification 421 dialects 421 see also Formosan languages
Index 1267 Russell, Bertrand see Reference Russenorsk 904–905 classification 249t lexicon 858 Norwegian 904 SVO 904 written material 904 see also Creoles; Pidgins Russia Armenian 68 Caucasian languages 192 Evenki 405 Iranian languages 537 Kazakh 588 Ket 593 Kirghiz 610 Lak 636 Ossetic 812 Saami 911 Uralic languages 1129–1130 Russian 905–908 Belorussian vs. 147 Church Slavonic features 905 classification 251–252, 974–975 declensions 976–977 future 907 grammar 906 grammars (books) 905 imperfective 907 influence on other languages 908 Abkhaz 2 Aleut 373 Azerbaijanian 110–111, 112 Inuit 373 Inupiaq 536 Russenorsk 904 Tajik Persian 1043 lexicon 907 word borrowing 907 location, Uzbek bilingualism 1145 Nenets (Yurak) bilingualism 761–762 nouns 906 articles 907 feminine declension 906 masculine declension 906 predicative instrumental standard 906 phonetics 905 accent 906 allophones 906 consonants 905 nonpalatalized consonants 906 palatalized consonants 906 voiced consonants 906 vowels 905 sound correspondences and comparisons 650–651 Ukranian vs. 1122–1123 use of Khazahkstan 588 as official language 588 Uzbekistan 1145 verbs 907 Aktionsart 907 participles 907 tenses 907 ‘verbs of motion,’ 907 written language 905 18th Century 905 diglossia 905 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Belorussian; Old Church Slavonic; Slavic languages; Tajik Persian; Tu¨rkmen; Ukranian Russian Federation, Buryat 723 Rwanda Kinyarwanda 604 national language 604 Swahili 1026 Ryukyuan 908–909 Chamberlain, Alexander 908 classification 249 dialects 908 diminutives 907
grammar 908 origin/development 908 related languages, Japanese 557 speaker numbers 908 see also Altaic languages; Japanese
S Saami 911–912 books 911 classification 911, 1129–1130 as nominative-accusative language 911 dialects 911 finite verbs 911 history 911 negation 911 nouns 912 phonology 912 consonant gradation 1130 consonantism 1130 consonants 912 diphthongs 1130 vowels 912 word stress 912 plural markers 1131 SOV 911 use of 911 word order 1132 see also Akkala Saami; Finno-Ugric languages; Uralic languages Saami, South 911 see also Saami Saaroa classification 421 research history 423 see also Formosan languages Sabaean 931 see also Semitic languages Sabdamanidarpana 577 Sach 728–729 see also Chut languages Sadani 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Safaitic 932 see also Semitic languages Safe languages definition 319–320 see also Language endangerment Sagart, L 106 Sahaptin-Nez Perce 750 see also Penutian languages Saharan languages classification 773 geographical distribution 775f see also Nilo-Saharan languages Sairaki 526–527 see also Indo-Aryan languages Saisiyat 421 see also Formosan languages Sakapulteko 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Salina languages 504 classification 506 verbs 508 see also Hokan languages Salinan 750–751 see also Hokan languages Salishan languages 749 consonants 913, 913t dictionaries 913–914 diminutives 913 as endangered language 913–914 genetic links 913 grammars (books) 913–914 morphology 913 phonology 913 reduplication 913 syntax 913 types 912–913 word classes 913 see also Bella Coola; Tillamook
Sama, Southern morphosyntax 1007 nouns 1007–1008 personal names 1007–1008 pronouns 1007–1008, 1008t Sama languages classification 1002t phonology 1002 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages Samar-Leyte 914–917 case markers 916, 916t demonstratives 916, 916t dialects 914 dictionaries 915 distinguishing features 915 lexicon 916 phonology 915 pronouns 915–916, 916t related languages 914 Tagalog vs. 916 use of 914 Philippines 914 verbs 915–916, 915t VSO 913 written works 915 see also Austronesian languages; Bikol; Cebuano; Hiligaynon; Malayo-Polynesian languages; Tagalog Samberigi (Sau) 1086–1087 see also Engan languages Samoa, Austronesian languages 102 Samoan classification 250–251 Niuean, influence on 776 possessive forms 101 see also Austronesian languages; Oceanic languages Samoyed languages classification 1129–1130 plural markers 1131 word order 1132 see also Uralic languages Samre 728 see also Pearic languages Sanchez, Mateo 915 Sandawe 252 see also Khoesaan languages Sangali 613 see also Kadugli languages Sango 917–918 classification 249t French, influence from 917 as official language, Central African Republic 917 origin/development 917 speaker numbers 917 see also Creoles; Pidgins San Marino, Italian 545 Sanskrit 918–921 Avestan vs. 918–919 characteristics 919 classification 251–252 Indian cultural effects 920 influence on other languages Bengali 148 Dravidian languages 306, 920–921 Hindi 495–496 Kashmiri 582–583 Khmer (Cambodian) 600 Lao 640 Malayalam 680–681 Punjabi 889 Telugu 1055, 1058 Thai 1059 morphology 919–920 origin/development 918 earliest records 919 standardization 919 Pani vs. 831 phonology 525, 920 present tense 533 religious influences 920–921 sample sentence 920 scripts, Devanagari 524
1268 Index Sanskrit (continued) workers in 921 see also Avestan; Balkan linguistic area; Bengali; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-Iranian languages; Pa¯li; Persian, Old; Punjabi; Tocharian Santa 723 see also Mongol languages Santali 736, 921–924 classification 250 consonants 921 converbs 995 demonstrative system 922 dialects 921 morphology 737 possessives 922–923 use of 921 India 921 verbs 922 compound verbs 996–997 vowels 921 writing system 922 see also Austroasiatic languages; Munda languages Sa’och 728 see also Pearic languages Sa˜o Tome´ and Prı´ncipe, Portuguese 883 Sapir, Edward morphological types 730 criticism of 731 Na–Dene languages 743 Uto-Aztecan languages 1140 Wolof 1184 Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, artificial languages 76 Sapoteko 819 classification 819–821 time depth 819 see also Oto-Mangean languages Sarab 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian Saramaccan influence from other languages 858 lexicon 858 Sardinian 251–252 see also Romance languages Sassetti, Fillipo 921 Sau (Samberigi) 1086–1087 see also Engan languages Savara (Sora) 736 see also Munda languages Savosavo 841 classification 204 gender 205 use of 204 see also Central Solomons languages Saxon, Old Old English vs. 356–357 Old Icelandic, influence on 781 Sayulen˜o auxiliary constructions 715 cliticization 714 inversive person marking 714–715 nouns 714 phonology 713 positional references 715 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages ‘Scaldic’ poetry, Old Icelandic 779–780 Scandinavian languages classification 251–252 influence on other languages Danish 279 Old English 358 see also Germanic languages Schlegel, August Wilhelm von, morphological types 730 Schlegel, Friedrich von, morphological types 730 Schleicher, August Indo-European languages 528–529 Lithuanian grammar 648 Schleyer, Johan Martin 76 Schmidt, Isaac-Jacob 723 Schmidt, Johannes, Indo-European languages 529
Schmidt, P Wilhelm Austric hypothesis 92 Malayo-Polynesian languages 684 Schulze, Leonhardt, Khoesaan language classification 601 Schwa, stressed 122 Scientific classification, Later Modern English development 349–350 Scotland, Pictish 855 Scots 924–926 classification 251–252 concord 925 definition 924 English vs. 925 grammar 925 ‘Great Vowel Shift,’ 924–925 origin/development 924 orthography 925 phonology 925 vowels 926 as recognized language 924 revival 925 Scottish Vowel-Length Rule 925–926 spelling 924 vocabulary 926 vowel length 925 written records 925 see also Dutch; Germanic languages; Scots Gaelic Scots Gaelic 926–929 alphabet 927 characteristics 927 classification 200, 251–252 decline of 928 development 454 dialects 927 English loanwords 927 origins/development 926 pre-aspiration 927 revival 928 teaching in schools 928 sample 454 script, Ogham 200 speaker numbers 928 spelling 927 verbs 927 vowels 927 VSO 927 word order 927 see also Celtic; Goidelic Celtic; Goidelic languages; Pictish; Scots; Welsh Scott, David, Nyanja 794 Scottish Vowel-Length Rule 925–926 Sebuano 99 see also Austronesian languages Second Sound Shift, German 445, 445t Secoya accent/tone 1096 adjectives 1099 consonants 1095 evidentiality 1100 noun classifiers 1098 speaker numbers 1092t syllable pattern 1095 verbs, evidentiality 1100 see also Tucanoan languages Secret languages, Australian languages 91 Sedang 726 see also Bahnaric languages Seediq classification 421 dialects 421 research history 422–423 see also Atayalic languages Selkup (Ostayak-Samoyed) case suffixes 1131 classification 1129–1130 negation 1131 verbs 1131 see also Samoyed languages Semantography 76 Sembla 697–698 see also Mande languages
Seminole/Creek 738–739 definition 263 see also Creek Semitic languages 12, 929–935 Central 931 classification 250 Nostratic theory 249 earliest record 12 East 930 influences on other languages Pahlavi (Middle Persian) 827 Yiddish 1205 Northwest see Northwest Semitic languages sentence structure 930 use of 929 West 930 alphabet 1121 see also Afroasiatic languages; Akkadian; Amharic; Arabic; Arabic, as introflecting language; Arabic, Classical; Arabic, Middle; Arabic, North; Arabic, Southern; Aramaic; Eblaite; Ethiopian Semitic languages; Ge’ez; Hebrew, Israeli; Hebrew, Pre-Modern, Biblical; Phoenician; Sumerian; Syriac; Tigrinya; Yiddish Seneca 543 see also Iroquoian languages Senegal Fulfulde 430 Mande 769–770 Mande languages 694 Wolof 1184 Sentence(s) Hiri Motu 501 Native American languages 746 structure 988, 989 Senufo languages 770 see also Gur languages Sepedi 1187 Sepik-Ramu languages classification 253 nominal inflexions 842 noun classes 842 use of 840 see also Papuan languages Sera 770 see also Atlantic Congo languages Serbia and Montenegro Albanian 22 Hungarian 514 Serbian 936 Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian Linguistic Complex 935–938 classification 251–252, 974–975 cultural divisions 936 dialects 936 morphology 936 orthography 937 use of, Italy 545 word order 936 see also Balkan linguistic area; Slavic languages; Slovene Serbo-Croat see Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian Linguistic Complex Sere languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Serial verbs Central Solomons languages 205 Khmer (Cambodian) 725 Kinyarwanda 609 Krio 619 Mon-Khmer languages 725 Pitjantjatjara 871 Ravu¨a 725 Tamambo 1046 Tariana 1051 Torricelli languages 1079 Seri languages 504 classification 506 person markers 507 see also Hokan languages Sesotho 1017 South Africa 1187 see also Sotho-Tswana languages
Index 1269 Setswana see Tswana (Setswana) Seward Peninsula Inupiaq (SPI) 535 see also Inupiaq Sgaw 581 classification 968–969 writing systems 581 see also Karenic languages Shan classification 1039 influence on other languages Palaung languages 728 Wa 1156 see also Tai languages Shanghai Chinese 219 development 219 phonology 219 use of 219 see also Chinese Shanxi 969 see also Jin languages Sharada, Kashmiri 583 Sharchopkha see Tshangla (Sharchopkha) Shastan languages 750–751 see also Hokan languages Shawnee classification 25 speaker numbers 26 see also Algonquin languages Sherbro 620 Shevoroshkin, V 649 Shina languages Burushaski, influence on 179 case-marking 284 classification 282 phonology sibilants 283 tonal system 526–527 use of 283 writing systems 524 see also Astor languages; Dardic languages; Indo-Aryan languages Shirumba 613 see also Kordofanian languages Shixing 968–969 see also Qiangic languages Shompeng 94 see also Austroasiatic languages Shona languages 1017 classification 1017 as tone language 938 consonants 938 dialects 938 dictionary 938 diminutives 938 ideophones 938 morphology 938 nouns 938 noun classes 938 syntax 939 use of 938 Botswana 1017 Mozambique 1017 as official language 1017 Zimbabwe 938, 1017 verbs 938–939 vowels 938 see also Bantu languages; Bantu languages, Southern Shoshonean 1139 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Shumashti agreement patterns 284 classification 282 phonology, sibilants 283 see also Kunar languages Shusha 112 see also Azerbaijanian Shuswap 749 see also Salishan languages Siam see Thailand Siberia Nivkh 777–778 Tungusic languages 1103
Sichuan Yi 969 see also Hakka languages Sicily 464 Sidaama noun morphology 491, 491t phonology 490–491, 490t use of 488–489, 488t verb morphology 490 see also Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages Sidamo Ethiopia 272–273 number of speakers 272–273 see also Cushitic languages Sieg, Emil 1068–1069 Siegling, Wilhelm 1068–1069 Sierra Leone Krio 617 Mande languages 769–770 Sierra Popoluca as agglutinative languages 714 glottal stop metathesis 713 persons 714 transitive verbs 714–715 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages Sierra Totonac 1080 nouns 1083 speaker numbers 1081 see also Totonacan languages Sign language(s) 953–960 acquisition 945 children 945 critical period hypothesis 945 aspectual marking 952 brain functions 945 canonical forms 942f character signs 957–958 Chinese finger/thumb negation 957–958 classifiers 943, 943f, 946, 952 signs 943, 943f, 952 compounding 949, 949f current state of knowledge 953 ages of languages 953–954 basic vocabulary compilation 954 links to other languages 954 numbers of languages 953 development 939–940 difference degree, spoken language 952 facial expressions 944, 944f, 958 grammatical comparisons 958 WH questions 944–945, 945f future developments 958 grammatical similarities and differences 957 headshake negation 958 grammatical comparisons 958 iconicity 946, 951–952 modality 946, 946f morphology 951–952 ideophones 946 inflection 950, 951f inheritance 940 iterative 941 linguistic structure 940 modality 939, 946 visual-gestural modality 946, 946f monomorphemic signs 949, 949f morphology 949–953 mouthing 958 grammatical comparisons 958 movement modification 950, 950f, 951 negative affixation 949, 950f nominal verb derivation 950, 950f number incorporation 949–950, 950f phonology 941 handshape organization 941, 941f minimal pairs 941, 941f plural sweep 951, 952f polymorphemic signs 952, 952f question words 958 referential loci 942, 943f relationships between sign languages 956 American Sign Language 956 British Sign Language family 956 colonial history, effect of 956–957
creolization 956 educational facility establishment 956–957 family trees 957 Japanese Sign Language family 956 language mixing 956 Old French Sign Language 956 simultaneous morphology 957 sociocultural and sociolinguistic variables 954 continuous emergence 954–956 foreign sign languages 954 urban sign languages 954 village-based sign languages 954 spatial mechanisms 957 syntax 944 recursion 944 WH questions 944 verbal agreement 942, 943f verbal modification 951 Sika classification 420 voice alteration 420 see also Flores languages Sikhism, Punjabi 886 SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) Arrernte study 73 Chico language studies 226 Simultaneous morphology, sign languages 957 Sinasina 1086–1087 see also Chimbu-Wahgi languages Sindhi 960–964 cases 962 classification 251–252, 522 as Dravidian language 960–961 dialects 961, 962 future 963t gender 962, 963t grammars (books) 963 habitual 963t history 960 earliest reference 961 influences from other languages 961 morphology 962 nouns 962 phonology 961 consonants 961, 962t stops 961 syllable structure 962 vowels 961–962 postposition 962 Qu’ran translation 961 related languages 961 Kachchhi 961 Siraiki 961 SOV 962 syntax 963 use of 960 number of speakers 523 verbs 962, 963, 963t word order 963 writing systems 524 see also Dardic languages; Gujarati; Indo-Aryan languages; Kashmiri Sindhu see Sindhi Singapore Austronesian languages 97 Hindi 495 Malay 679 Mandarin Chinese 679 official languages 679 Tamil 679 Singapore English 360, 679 register 361 Singhalese see Sinhala Singular nouns, in introflecting language 51 Sinhala 964–968 cases 965 classification 251–252, 522 clef/focused sentence construction 967 conjunctive participles 966 dative subject sentences 967 demonstratives 965 Dhivehi vs. 285 genders 965, 966t influence from other languages 964
1270 Index Sinhala (continued) morphology 965 nonverbal sentences 966–967 nouns 966t orthography 965, 966t phonology 965 consonants 965, 965t vowels 965, 965t postpositions 965–966 pronouns 965 script 964 subject case forms 967 syntax 965 use of Buddhist traditions 964 as official language 964 Sri Lanka 964 varieties 964 spoken vs. literary 964–965, 966t word order 965–966 see also Dardic languages; Dhivehi; Indo-Aryan languages Sinhalese see Sinhala Sinitic languages classification 969 subgroupings 1010t syllable structure 969–970 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Sino-Tibetan languages 968–971 classification 253 influence from other languages 970 influence on other languages 970 Karen languages 581 subgroupings 968–969 use of 968 see also Austric hypothesis; Austroasiatic languages; Burmese; Chinese; Karen languages; Proto-Sino-Tibetan; Sinitic languages; South Asian languages; Southeast Asian languages; Tibeto-Burman languages Siona accent/tone 1096 adjectives 1099 case markers 1097 consonants 1095 evidentiality 1100 nasalization 1095 plurals 1097 speaker numbers 1092t syllable pattern 1095 verbs, evidentiality 1100 see also Tucanoan languages Siouan languages 749 argument structure 972 demography 971 dictionaries 973 external relationships 972 Catawban languages vs. 972 lexicon 972 locations 971 morphology 972 phonology 972 postpositions 972 SOV 972 subgroups 971 see also Biloxi Sioux see Lakota Sipakapense 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Siraiki 635 Sindhi vs. 961 Siraya 421 see also Formosan languages Sirenikski 373 history 371 see also Eskimo-Aleut Siriano adjectives 1099 animate noun classifiers 1097 case markers 1096 consonants 1094t
evidentiality 1101 future 1098t morphemes 1096 nasalization 1095–1096 plurals 1097 speaker numbers 1092t verb evidentiality 1101 see also Tucanoan languages Siswati see Swati Siwai see Motuna (Siwai) Skene, W F 856 Skolt Saami 911 see also Saami Skou languages 973–974 classification 253, 973 gender 974 morphosyntax 973 phonology 973 consonants 973 vowels 973 SOV 258 subject marking 974 use of geographical distribution 840–841 New Guinea 973 verb agreement 974 word order 973 see also Papuan languages; Warupu (Barupu) Slavic languages 974–977 conjugation 977 declension 976 influence on other languages Esperanto 376 Romanian 901 morphology 976 perfect 977 phonology 975 diphthongs 975 prosody 976 sonority 975 syllabic synharmony 975 vowels 976 types 974–975 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Belorussian; Bulgarian; Czech; Indo-European languages; Macedonian; Polish; Russian; Slovak; Slovene; Sorbian; Turkic languages; Ukranian Slavonic languages, Church see Church Slavonic Slovak 977–981 adjectives 978–979 biaspectual verbs 979 cases 978 classification 251–252 consonant alternations 979 declensions 976–977, 979 dialects 980 future 979 genders 978 imperfective 977, 979 iterative 979 lexicon 980 word-borrowing 980 morphology 978 mutation 979 nouns 978, 979 origin/development 980 orthography 977 Latin alphabet 977–978 phonology 978 consonants 978 diphthongs 978 ‘rhythmic law,’ 978 vowels 978 word stress 978 plurals 978–979 pronouns 978–979 resultative 975 Stu´r, L’udovit 980 syntax 980 use of 977
verbs 979 perfective verbs 979 word order 980 workers in, Bernola´k, Anton 980 written 980 see also Slavic languages; Slovene Slovakia German 444 Hungarian 514 Romani 898 Slovene 981–985 adjectives 983 alphabet 982t cases 983 classification 974–975 as inflecting language 983 clitics 984 Croatian vs. 981 declensions 976–977 dialects 981, 982f genders 983 grammars (books) 981 imperfective 983 lexicon 985 maintenance 981 morphology 983 nouns 983, 984t origin/development 981 phonology 982 consonants 983, 983t stress patterns 983 vowels 982, 983t word prosody 983 writing systems 982 political issues 981 syntax 984 use of 981 Italy 545, 981 as official language 981, 982 Slovenia 981, 982 verbs 983, 984, 984t word order 984 writings 981 Bible translations 981 earliest documents 981 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Bulgarian; Macedonian; Slavic languages; Slovak Slovenia Hungarian 514 Slovene 981, 982 Soˆ (Tro) 726–727 see also Katuic languages Social dislocation 325 Social distributions, Native American languages 746 Social mobility, Later Modern English development 344 Sociolect/social class, Arabic 55 Sociolinguistics, Thai 1060 Sogdian 537–538, 985–987 alphabets 985 classification 251–252 declensions 540–541 definite articles 540 dual 540 genders 540 history 985 imperfect tense 541 modal forms 542 morphology 986 past tenses 541, 986 perfect 986 phonology 986 ‘potentials,’ 986 progressive 537–538 SVO 984 tenses 541 see also specific tenses use of 985 verbs 986 workers in, Pelliot, Paul 986 written texts Buddhist texts 986
Index 1271 differences 986 oldest 985 religious texts 985 see also Aramaic; Avestan; Iranian languages; Old Church Slavonic; Persian, Old; Tajik Persian Soghdian Inner Asian scripts see Manchu Solano 751 see also Native American languages Solresol 76 Somali 987–990 adjectives 988 alienability 988 complex sentences 989 focus particle 989 morphology 987 nouns 988 phonology 987 phonemes 987, 987t syllable structure 987 tone 987 progressive 987 questions 989 sentence structure 988, 989 SOV 989 syntax 988 use of 987 number of speakers 272–273 verbs 987 word order 989 see also Afroasiatic languages; Cushitic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) Somalia Cushitic languages 272–273 Swahili 1026 Somray 728 see also Pearic languages Song, Hopi 514 Songai languages 990–991 classification 773 Greenberg, Joseph H 991 as tonal languages 991 development 991 use of 990–991 distribution 775f speaker numbers 772–773 varieties 990–991 vowel harmony 773–774 word order 991 workers in, Greenberg, Joseph H 991 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Songhay languages 253 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Sonoran 1139 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Sora (Savara) 736 see also Munda languages Sorbian 991–995 alphabet 994 classification 251–252, 974–975 ‘dialect centers,’ 993 grammar 994 imperfective 994 iterative 994 perfect 994 SOV 994 ‘transitional dialects,’ 994 use of 991–993, 992f current speakers 993 Germany 991–993 word order 994 writings 993–994 see also Balto-Slavic languages; Czech; German; Polish; Slavic languages Sotho, Southern 1017–1018 Lesotho 1017–1018 South Africa 1017–1018 see also Sotho-Tswana languages Sotho-Tswana languages 1017 see also Bantu languages, Southern Souei (Proom) 726–727 see also Katuic languages
Sougb classification 1176 nominal complex 1177 see also East Bird’s Head (EBH) languages; West Papuan languages Sound change, and long-range comparison 650–651 Sound correspondences and long-range comparison 650–651 nongenuine 651 Sound harmony Chuvash 244 Turkic languages 1111 Uzbek 1147 Yakut 1200 ‘Sound’ plurals, in introflecting language 52 South Africa Afrikaans 7 Fanagalo 411 Gujarati 468 language shift 321 Ndebele 1187 Northern Sotho 1017–1018 Sepedi 1187 Sesotho 1187 Setswana 1187 Siswati 1187 South African Ndebele 1018 Southern Bantu languages 1017 Southern Sotho 1017–1018 Swati 1018 Tshivenda 1187 Tsonga 1018 Tswana 1017–1018 Venda 1017 Xhosa 1018 Xitsonga 1187 Zulu 1018 South African Ndebele 1018 see also Nguni languages South America language families 651–652 Native American languages see Native American languages South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) 522 South Asian languages 62, 995–1001 absolutive 62–63 classifiers 997–998 compound verbs 996 converbs 995, 996–997, 998–999 dative subjects 997 historical evidence 999 isoglosses 1000 Kuiper, F B J 998–999 Maisica, C P 999, 1000 morphological causatives 997 quotatives 997 reduplication 998 research history 998 retroflex consonants 995 Southworth, F C 999 SOV 62–63 subareas 1000 word order 995 see also Austronesian languages; Balkan linguistic area; Bengali; Burushaski; Dravidian Languages; Europe, as Linguistic Area; Hindi; Indo-Aryan languages; Indo-European languages; SinoTibetan languages South Bird’s Head (SBH) languages classification 1176 word order 1176 see also West Papuan languages South Bougainville languages 841 see also Papuan languages Southeast Asian languages 1009–1017 classifiers 1013–1014, 1013t, 1014t come to have verb 1015 directional verbs 1014 geography 1009 grammaticalization 1012 indeterminateness 1011 Islam see Islam
language families 1009 nonobligatory categoricals 1011t pragmatics 1011 structure 1012 syllabic morphology 1011 syntactic patterns 1014 tense-aspect-modality (TAM) markers 1014 versatility 1012 word order 1013, 1013t, 1014, 1014t see also Areal Linguistics; Austroasiatic languages; Balkan linguistic area; Europe, as Linguistic Area; Indo-Aryan languages; Kapampangan; Mon-Khmer languages; Sino-Tibetan languages; Tai languages Southern Altay Turkic 611 Southern Arabic see Arabic, Southern Southern Bantu languages see Bantu languages, Southern Southern Sama see Sama, Southern Southern Sotho see Sotho, Southern Southern White Vernacular English (SWVE) 335 South Halmahera/West New Guinea (SHWNG) languages 685 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages South Mindinao languages classification 1002t phonology consonants 1002 vowel loss 1003 vowels 1002 see also Malayo-Polynesian languages South Oghuz see Oghuz, South South Philippine languages 1001–1009 antipassives 1004 case-marking 1005 classification 1001–1002, 1002t classifiers 1004 clitics 1004 ergative 1002 grammar 1002 morphemes 1003–1004 morphology 1003 morphosyntax 1004 phonology 1002 consonants 1002, 1003 vowels 1002 sentences 1004 syntax 1008 markers 1003–1004 use of 1001–1002 verbal affixes 1004 word order 1004, 1004f see also Austronesian languages; Bikol; Ilocano; Malayo-Polynesian languages; North Philippine languages; Tagalog South Saami see Saami, South Southwestern Mandarin classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Mandarin Southworth, F C 999 SOV Ainu 15–16 Amharic 36 Australian languages 90 Bashkir 143 Basque 146 Bengali 148 Burushaski 178 Creek 266 Cushitic languages 275 Eskimo-Aleut languages 371–372 Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 380 Evenki 406 German 446 Germanic languages 449 Highland East Cushitic (HEC) languages 489 Hindi 497 Hokan languages 507 Hopi 511 I˙jo˙ 517–518 Indo-Iranian languages 534 Inupiaq 536 Japanese 558
1272 Index SOV (continued) Kannada 577 Khoesaan languages 602 Luxembourgish 659–660 Madang languages 671 Malayalam 683 Mande languages 697 Marathi 704 Middle English 354 Munda languages 736–737 Navajo 761 Nenets (Yurak) 763 Omaha-Ponca 804 Oromo 812 Ossetic 817 Oto-Mangean languages 823–824 Papuan languages 841 Pashto 848 Punjabi 889 Saami 911 Sindhi 962 Siouan languages 972 Skou languages 258 Somali 989 Sorbian 994 South Asia 62–63 Tai languages 1040 Tanoan languages 1048–1049 Telugu 1058 Thai 1059 Tibetan 1062 Tigrinya 1065 Toda 1072 Trans New Guinea languages 1087 Tungusic languages 1104 Tupian languages 1107–1108 Turkic languages 1111–1112 Turkish 1115–1116 Uralic languages 1132 West Papuan languages 1176 Wolaitta 1183 Yukaghir 1211–1211 Spain Basque 144–145 Catalan 188 Galician 435 Spanish 1020 Spanglish see Yanito Spanish 1020–1022 borrowing 651–652, 653 classification 251–252 concord 1021 diminutives 1021 history 1020 indicative mood 1021 influence on other languages Keres 591 Korean 615–616 Krio 620 Mapudungan languages 702 Mayan languages 708–709 Palenquero 828 Tagalog 1036 Tohono O’odham 1074 Yanito 1202 influences from other languages 1020 Arawak languages 59 Mayan languages 708–709 morphology 1021 nouns 1021 OVS 884 perfect 1021 phonetics 1020 consonants 1020–1021 semi-vowels 1020–1021 phonology 1020 plurals 1021 subject 1021 subjunctive 1021 syntax 1021 use of 1020 verbs 1021 irregular verbs 1021 vocabulary 1021
word order 1021 see also Basque; Catalan; Indo-European languages; Latin; Portuguese; Romance languages; Yanito Spanyol see Judeo-Spanish Spanyolit see Judeo-Spanish Spatial mechanisms, sign languages 957 Spatial orientation Nuristani languages 788 Warlpiri 1167–1168, 1167t Speak Good English movement 361–362 Sprachbund definition 119 see also Linguistic areas Sprachbund, language diffusion 248 Sranan classification 249t influence from other languages 858 lexicon 858 Sri Lanka Indo-Aryan languages 522 official language 964 Pa¯li 830 Sinhala 964 Standard Average European (SAE) languages 392–393 characteristics 393–394 Statenbijbel 308 Stein, Aurel 1068–1069 Steinthal, Heymann, Mande language classification 696 Stem morphophonological alternations, in agglutinating languages see Finnish Stevens, Thomas 921 Stieng 726 see also Bahnaric languages Stigmatization, nonnative English 361 Stød, Danish pronunciation 280 Strehlow, Carl, Arrernte study 73 Strehlow, T G H 73 Stress Achagua 60 Arapaho 26 Arawak languages 60 Bakairi 183–184 Balkan linguistic area 122 Baure 60 Breton 167 Cariban languages 183–184, 185t Caucasian languages 194 Cayuga languages 543 Cheyenne 26 Chinantec 212 Cree 26 Dutch 309 English, Modern 328 Finnish (Suomi) 414 Hungarian, phonology 515 Ilocano 519 Iroquoian languages 543 Italian 551 Kaytetye 587 Korean 614 Kuikuro 183–184 Latvian 645 Lithuanian 646 Montagnais 26 Ojibwa 26 Panare 183–184 Polish, phonology 875 Proto-Algonquian 26 Punjabi 887 Romanian 901–902 Saami 912 Slovak 978 Slovene 983 Tariana 60 Thai 1059 Tohono O’odham 1075 Tupian languages 1106 Turkish 1113 Uralic languages 1131 Wakashan languages 1158 Warekena (Guarequena) 60
Waura´ 60 Yiddish 1204 Yukpa 183–184 Stress accents, Greek, Modern 466 Stressed schwa, Balkan linguistic area 122 Strict agreement markers, Standard Average European (SAE) languages 393–394 Stu´r, L’udovit, Slovak 980 Style, North American native language variation 758 Subanon languages classification 1001–1002, 1002t consonants 1003 syntax markers 1003–1004 see also South Philippine languages Subareas, South Asian languages 1000 Subgroups, genetic classification 246 Subjunctives, analytic, Balkan linguistic area 127, 128t Substrate theory, Creole origins 859 Subtiaba-Tlapanec languages 751 see also Oto-Mangean languages Sudan Adamawa-Ubangi languages 771 Dinka 293 Fulfulde 430 Kordofanian 770 Kordofanian languages 613 Nilo-Saharan languages 774 Sudre, Francois 76 Suffix(es) diachronic origins 287 in isolating language 222, 222t morphophonological alternations, in agglutinating languages see Finnish preference 288 prefixation vs. 288 Uzbek 1147 workers in 288 Sukhothai dialect, Thai 1059 Sulawesi Austronesian languages 99 Javanese 560 Sulka 841 see also Papuan languages Sum 282 see also Pashai languages Sumatra, Javanese 560 Sumbawa languages, Austronesian languages 99 Sumerian 929, 1022–1026 classification 249 clauses 1024 earliest sources 1022 habitual 1024 morphology 1023 noun phrases 1023 case markers 1023 genitive cases 1023 prefixes 1023 nouns 1023 compounding 1023 gender 1023 phonology 1022 consonants 1022–1023 vowels 1022–1023 possessives 1024 resources 1025 use of 1022 verbs 1024 adverbs 1024–1025 aspect categories 1024 clitics 1025 finite verbs 1025 irregular 1024 stative verbs 1024 tense categories 1024 word classes 1023 determiners 1023 see also Akkadian; Babylonian; Eblaite; Elamite; Semitic languages Summer Institute of Linguistics see SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) Sumo Tawahka see Sumu (Sumo Tawahka)
Index 1273 Sumu (Sumo Tawahka) classification 711 dialects 711 use of 711 see also Misumalpan languages Sunda see Sundanese (Sunda) Sundanese (Sunda) 99 see also Austronesian languages Suomi see Finnish (Suomi) Suoy 728 see also Pearic languages Superlatives, in introflecting language 52 Superstrate theory, Creole origins 860 Suriname Arawak languages 59 Dutch 307 Javanese 560 Surmic classification 773 use of 775f see also Nilo-Saharan languages Surui 1106t see also Tupian languages Susu 620 Sutta Pitaka, Pa¯li canonical texts 831–832 Svan, dialects 193 Sverdrup, Harald V 856 SVO Adamawa-Ubangi languages 3 African languages 5 Afrikaans 9 Akan 19 Arabic 47 Balkan linguistic area 131 Bantu, Southern 1019 Bantu languages 141–142 Basque 146 Benue-Congo languages 151 Coptic 39 Dinka 294 English 341 Esperanto 376 Fanakalo 412 Finnish (Suomi) 413 French 429 Gikuyu (Kikuyu) 451 Gur languages 473 Hausa 478 Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) 481 Italian 554 Karen languages 581 Kashmiri 583–584 Khasi languages 595–596 Khotanese 604 Kinyarwanda 607 Kru languages 624 Kwa languages 632 Lao 639–640 Luo 659 Malukan languages 690 Mambila 692 Mon 720 Munda languages 737 Norwegian 785 Papiamentu 835 Papuan languages 841 pidgins 862 Portuguese 884 Russenorsk 904 Sogdian 984 Thai 1059 Tok Pisin 1077 Torricelli languages 1078 Tungusic languages 1104 Turkish 1115–1116 Western Songai 991 West Papuan languages 1177–1178 Zulu 1215–1216 Swadesh, Morris, Oto-Mangean language classification 819 Swahili 1026–1030 agreement 1027 classifications 137, 253 concord 1027–1028
dialects 1026–1027 diminutives 1027 as first language 1026 Gikuyu, influence on 449–450 history 1026 location inversion structures 1029 as national language 1026 noun classes 1027 noun phrase 1028–1029 nouns 1027 possessives 1027t subject markers 1027–1028 suffixes 1028 syntax 1028 use of 1026 verbs 1027–1028 word order 1028–1029 see also Bantu languages; Gujarati; NigerCongo languages Swati 1017 South Africa 1018 Swaziland 1018 Zulu vs. 1215 see also Nguni languages Swat-Kohistani, phonology, sibilants 283 Swaziland official languages 1018 Southern Bantu languages 1017 Swati 1018 Sweden Estonian 377 Finnish 413 Saami 911 Swedish 1030 Urdu 1133 Swedish 1030–1033 classification 251–252 dialects 1032 new varieties 1032 noun phrases 1031 orthography alphabet 1030 runes 1030 participles 1031 perfect 1030 phonology 1030 consonants 1030 tonality 1030 vowels 1030 possessives 1031 subordinate clauses 1032 use of 1030 as verb-L2 1032 verbs 1030 word order 1032 see also Germanic languages; Icelandic; Norse, Old; Norwegian; Scandinavian languages Sweet, Henry, Later Modern English definition 343 Switzerland French 427 German 444 Italian 545 Romansh 893 Syllable(s) morphology 1011 Thai 1059 Syntactic patterns, Southeast Asian languages 1014 Syria Domari 295 Kurdish 538, 625 Syriac 58, 1033–1034 classification 250 lexicon 1034 morphology 1033 nouns 1033 origin/development 1033 perfect 1033 phonology 1033 consonants 1033 vowels 1033 pronouns 1033 religious uses 1033
root-and-pattern 1033 sentence structure 1034 use of 1033 verbs 1033 writing system 1033 see also Afroasiatic languages; Arabic; Aramaic; Hebrew; Modern Standard Arabic (MSA); Semitic Languages; Semitic languages Syriac Christianity 1033 see also Aramaic Syrian Orthodox Church, languages, Aramaic 58
T Taalmonument, Afrikaans 9, 9f Tadzhik see Tajik Persian Tagalog 1035–1038 Cebuano vs. 197 consonants 1036 derivational affixes 1037 diphthongs 1036 glottal stops 1036 grammar 1036 growth of use 1035–1036 influence on other languages 1037, 1038 iterative 1036–1037 loanwords, Spanish 1036 as official language 1035 origin/development 1035 phonology 1036, 1036t Samar-Leyte vs. 916 spelling 1036 as synthetic language 1036 use of 99, 1035 Philippines 783, 1035 verbs 1036 tenses 1036–1037 vowels 1036 see also Austronesian languages; Cebuano; Hiligaynon; Kapampangan; North Philippine languages; Samar-Leyte; South Philippine languages Tagoy 613 see also Kordofanian languages Tahitian 1038–1039 classification 250–251 as official language, French Polynesia 1039 phonemes 1039 use of 1038–1039 see also Hawaiian; Oceanic languages Tai Daeng see Red Tai (Tai Daeng) Tai-Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) languages classification 968 lexicostatistics 248 use of 105 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Tai languages 1039–1041 affiliations 1039 Tai-Kadai link 1039–1040 classification 1039 history 1040 loan words 1040 SOV 1040 subgroupings 1010t as tonal languages 1040 types 1040 use of 1039 VSO 1039 word order 1040 writing system 1040 see also Austro-Tai hypothesis; Southeast Asian languages; Thai Taiwan Austronesian languages 97, 105 Cebuano 197 Sino-Tibetan languages 968 Taiwanese classification 969 see also Hakka languages Tajik see Tajik Persian Tajiki see Tajik Persian
1274 Index Tajikistan Indo-Iranian languages 531 Kazakh 588 Kirghiz 610 Modern Persian 538, 850 Tajik Persian 1041 Uzbek 1145 Tajik Persian 1041–1044 classification 251–252 classifiers 1042 future 1043 gender 1042 history 1041 written language 1041 influence from other languages, Russian 1043 lexicon 1043 causatives 1043 conjunct verbs 1043 denominal verbs 1043 prefixes 1043 suffixes 1043 morphology 1042 noun phrase syntax 1042 orthography 1041 Cyrillic alphabet 1041–1042 vowels 1041–1042 perfect 1042 personal pronouns 1042 phonology 1041 consonants 1041 Uzbek vs. 1041 vowels 1041f, 1041–1042 postpositions 1042 progressive 1042 syntax 1043 use of 1041 Uzbekistan 1041, 1145 verbs 1042 see also Iranian languages; Persian, Modern; Persian, Old; Russian; Turkic languages; Uzbek Takelma 653 Takelma-Kalapuya 750 see also Penutian languages Takhaht see Nuuchahnulth Takic languages 1139t see also Uto-Aztecan languages Takpa 968–969 see also Bodish languages Talassa 613 see also Kadugli languages Talla 613 see also Kadugli languages Talla´n-Sechura 41 Talmud 483 Talodi 770 see also Kordofanian Tamambo 1044–1047 affixation 1046 classifiers 1047 compounding 1046 as first language 1044 grammar 1044 individuation 1047 lexicon 1046 orthography 1046 phonology 1046 possessive constructions 1047 reduplication 1046 serial verb constructions 1046 use of 1044 valency changing affixes 1046 word order 1046 see also Austronesian languages; Language endangerment Taman 775f Tamanaku 185f see also Cariban languages Tamang 968–969 see also Bodish languages Tamil 1047–1049 agreement 299t classification 251 consonants 298
converbs 995 dative subjects 997 grammar 1048–1049 influence on other languages, Malayalam 680–681 Malayalam vs. 682 nouns ablative 302 accusative 301–302 genitive 302 nominative case 301 origin/development 1047–1048 personal suffixes 305t phonology 1048 postpositions 1048–1049 pronouns 302–303, 303t religious influences 1047–1048 script see Tamil script tenses 304 use of, Singapore 679 see also Dravidian languages; Malayalam Tamil script 297, 1048 earliest examples 1047–1048 see also Malayalam Tangkic languages 250 see also Australian languages Tangsa (Naga) 968–969 see also Konyak languages Tani languages 968–969 see also Adi; Apatani; Sino-Tibetan languages Tanimuca see Retuara/Tanimuca Tanoan languages 750 external relationships 1049 future work 1050 grammatical features 1049 historical aspects 1049 locations 1049 nouns 1049–1050 phonology 1049 four-way stop contrast 1049–1050 SOV 1048–1049 speakers 1049 subgroups 1049 Uto-Aztecan language link 1140 verbs 1049–1050 word order 1049–1050 see also Hope-Tewa Tano languages 631 verbs 632 vowel harmony 632 see also Abure; Ahanta; Anufo; Anyi; Kwa languages Tanzania Cushitic languages 272–273 Luo 658 national languages 1026 Swahili 1026 Ta’oih 726–727 see also Katuic languages Taokas-Babuza 421 see also Formosan languages Taracahitan 1140 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Tarascan 748 see also Native American languages Targum see Judeo-Aramaic Targumim, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic 58 Tariana 1050–1052 adjectives 1051 causatives 1051 classification 252–253 classifiers 61, 1051 evidentiality 1051 genders 61, 1051 instrumental case 1051 locative case 1051 morphology 1051 nouns 1051 origin/development 1050 phonology 1050–1051 plurals 1051 as polysynthetic language 1050 predicate structure 60 pronominal suffix loss 60
serial verb constructions 1051 stress 60 switch-reference 1051 tenses 1051 Tucanoan languages vs. 1051 use of 1050 verbs 60, 1051 see also Arawak languages Tasmania 86 Tatar 1052–1055 contacts 1052–1053 Chaghatay 1053 Kuman 1053 Ottoman 1053 converbs 1054 dialects 1054 distinctive features 1053 grammar 1054 history 1052 lexicon 1054 location 1052 origin 1052 phonology 1053 consonants 1053–1054 vowels 1053 possessives 1054 related languages 1053 speakers 1052 use of 1052 written language 1053 see also Bashkir; Turkic languages Tatarstan, languages 1052 Tataviam 1140 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Tatuyo accent/tone 1096 case markers 1096 consonants 1094 personal pronouns 1098 speaker numbers 1092t verbs 1099–1100 compound verb roots 1100 see also Tucanoan languages Taulil 841 see also East New Britain languages Tavgy see Nganasan (Tavgy) Tboli case marking 1006–1007, 1007t morphosyntax 1006 negation 1007t phonology, vowel loss 1003 see also South Mindinao languages Tebriz 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian Tectiteco see Teko (Tectiteco) Tedim see Tiddim (Chin: Tedim) Tedim (Tiddim: Chin) 968–969 see also Kuki-Chin languages Tegali 613 see also Kordofanian languages Tegem 613 see also Kordofanian languages Teko (Tectiteco) 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Tektiteko see Teko (Tectiteco) Telugu 1055–1058 adjectives 1057 adverbs 1057 agreement 299, 300t classification 251 concord 1055–1056 consonants 1055t influence from other languages 1055, 1058 nouns 1056 case 1056 genitive 302 instrumental case 302 number 1056 plural suffixes 301 numerals 303, 1056 oblique forms 1056, 1056t personal suffixes 305t phonology 1055
Index 1275 postpositions 1056 pro-drop 1058 pronouns 302–303, 303t, 1055 honorifics 1056, 1056t script see Telugu script SOV 1058 syntax 1058 use of, India 1055 verbs 304, 1057 compounding 1058 conjugation classes 1058 inflected verbs 1057 nonfinite verbs 1057–1058 pronominal suffixes 1057 tense/mood 1057 vocabulary 1058 vowel harmony 1055 vowels 1056t vowel harmony 1055 word order 1058 writing see Telugu script see also Brahui; Dravidian languages; Malayalam Telugu script 297 Temein 773–774 see also Nilo-Saharan languages Temne 770 Krio, influences on 618 see also Atlantic Congo languages Temporal forms, Nuristani languages 787 Tense and aspect Arabic 47 Creoles 862 Cushitic languages 274–275, 275f Evenki 406 Hausa 478 Indo-Iranian languages 533 Kinyarwanda 606, 608 Pitjantjatjara 872–873 Southeast Asia 1014 Tense-aspect-modality (TAM) markers, Southeast Asian languages 1014 Tense markers, language diffusion 248 Tepehua see Totonacan languages Tepiman 1140 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Tepo-Plapo 624 see also Grebo languages Tequistlatecan 751 see also Hokan languages Tequistlateco 748 see also Native American languages Tereˆna 60 see also Arawak languages Ter Saami 911 see also Saami Te’utujiil 709t see also Mayan languages Tewa 1049 phonology 1049–1050 Texistepec 714 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages ‘Thaana,’ Dhivehi 285 Thai 1058–1060 classification 253 classifiers 1060 distribution 1058–1059 future work 1060 historical aspects 1059 Sukhothai dialect 1059 influence on other languages Khmer (Cambodian) 600 Lao 640 loanwords 1059 Khmer 1059 Pali 1059 Sanskrit 1059 as national language 1039 national language, Thailand 1058 noun phrase 1059 OSV 1059 Pa¯li, influences from 248 particles 1060 phonology 1059
stress 1059 syllables 1059 tones 1059 vowels 1059 regional dialects 1058 sociolinguistics 1060 SOV 1059 SVO 1059 syntax 1059 verbal predicates 1059–1060 word order 1014t see also Tai-Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) languages; Tai languages Thailand Aslian languages 94–95 Burmese 170 Karen languages 581 Khmer (Cambodian) 597 Khmuic languages 727 Lao 639 Malay 679 Mon 718, 727 Mon-Khmer languages 725 national languages 1039 Nyahkur 727 Palaung-Wa languages 727 Pa¯li 830 Sino-Tibetan languages 968 Tai-Kadai 105 Tai languages 1039 Thai 1058 Thamudic 932 see also Semitic languages Thao classification 421 research history 423 see also Formosan languages Tharrkari 570 Thavung-Phon Sung languages 728–729 see also Viet-Muong languages Theravada, languages see Pa¯li Thiin 570 Tho (Ta´y) 1039 see also Tai languages Thomann, Georges 623 Three-letter language identifiers 386 Grimes, Joseph E 386 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 386 Tibetan 1060–1063 classification 968–969 clauses 1062 concord 1061 dialects 1061 future 1061 grammar 1061 honorifics 1062 influence from other languages 1062–1063 lexical verbs 1061 noun phrases 1061 past-tense clauses 1062 phonology 1062 central dialects 1062 southern dialects 1062 western dialects 1062 present-tense clauses 1062 recent history 1062 sample sentence 1062 SOV 1062 tenses 1061–1062 use of 1060–1061 verbs verb phrases 1061 verbs of being 1061 vowel harmony 1062 word order 1062 words 1061 see also Bodish languages Tibeto-Burman languages classification 253 Karen languages 581 see also Sino-Tibetan languages Tiddim (Chin: Tedim) 968–969 see also Kuki-Chin languages
Tigre´ 929 use of 382–383 see also Ethiopian Semitic languages; Semitic languages Tigrinya 1063–1065 converbs 1064–1065 morphology 1063 nouns 1063–1064 verbs 1064 phonology 1063, 1064t SOV 1065 syntax 1065 use of 382–383, 929, 1063 see also Afroasiatic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Ethiopian Semitic languages; Semitic languages Tillamook 749 see also Salishan languages Timor-Altar-Pantar (TAP) languages classification 1087, 1176 verbal complex, word order 1176 see also Trans New Guinea languages Timote-Cuica see Arawak languages Timucua 749 see also Muskogean languages Tindale, Norman 438 Tipitaka 831–832 Tirahi classification 282 sibilants 283 see also Kohistani languages Tiriyo geographical distribution 185f reduplication 184 vowels 183–184 see also Cariban languages Tiro 613 see also Kordofanian languages Tirukkural 1047–1048 Tiv 253 see also Benue-Congo languages Tiwa 1049 phonology 1049–1050 Tiwi 1065–1068 classification 250 history 1065 language changes 1065 Modern Tiwi 1065–1066, 1067 morphology/syntax 90 New Tiwi 1065–1066, 1067 isolating verbs 1067 nouns 1067 phonology 1067 pronouns 1067 vocabulary 1067 word order 1067 Traditional Tiwi 1065–1066 adjectives 1066–1067 consonants 1066, 1066t nouns 1066–1067 plurals 1066–1067 as polysynthetic language 1066–1067 verb phrase 1066–1067 verbs 1066–1067 vowels 1066 see also Australian languages; Central Siberian Yupik; Creoles; Pidgins; Polysynthetic languages Tlachichilco Tepehua 1081 speaker numbers 1081–1082 see also Totonacan languages Tlapanekan, time depth 819 Tlapaneko-Mangean languages 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Tlapaneko-Sutiaba languages 819–821 see also Oto-Mangean languages Tlingit 252 see also Na-Dene languages Tocharian 1068–1071 Buddhism 1069 Celtic vs. 1070 classification, genetic classification 246 genders 1069–1070 Germanic languages vs. 1070
1276 Index Tocharian (continued) Indo-European languages vs. 1070 influences from other languages 1070 manuscripts 1068–1069 morphology 1069 nominal compounds 1070 nouns 1069–1070 numerals 1070 phonology 1069 Proto-Indo-European languages vs. 1069 reconstruction 246 Tocharian A (Osttocharisch) 1068 Tocharian B (Westtocharisch) 1068 verbs 1070 workers in 1068–1069 writing system 1069 see also Chinese; Indo-Aryan languages; IndoEuropean languages; Iranian languages; Sanskrit; Turkic languages Tocho 613 see also Kordofanian languages Toda 1071–1074 classification 251 concord 1072 consonants 298 definition 1071 as endangered language 1071 Malayalam vs. 682 modifiers 1072 nouns 1072 plural suffixes 301 numerals 1072 oblique forms 1073 personal suffixes 305 phonology 1071 consonants 1071–1072, 1072t phonemes 1071 vowels 1071–1072, 1072t pronouns 1072 sentences 1072 SOV 1072 verbs 1073 auxiliary verbs 1073 bases 1073 morphophonemic alternants 1073 suffixes 1073 tenses/modes 1073 vocabulary 1073 loanwords 1072 see also Dravidian languages Togo Ewe 408 Gur 770 Gur languages 472 Kwa languages 771 Mande 769–770 Yoruba 1207 Togo Mountain languages 631 concord 632 nouns 632 subgroups 631 vowel harmony 632 see also Adele; Animere; Kwa languages Tohono O’odham 1074–1076 classification 252 dialects 1074 ergative 1075 future 1075 imperfective 1075 influence from other languages 1074 kin terms 1075 morphology 1075 nouns 1075 orthography 1074 phonology 1075 consonants 1075 stress 1075 vowels 1075 possessives 1075 research 1074 syntax 1075 use of 1074 Mexico 1074 USA 1074
verbs 1075 VSO 1075 word order 1075 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Tojiki see Tajik Persian Tojolab’al 705–706 speaker numbers 707t see also Mayan languages Tok Pisin 1076–1078 classification 249t future 1077 influence from other languages 1077 German 858–859 lexemes 1077 lexicon 858–859 linguistic relations 1076 as national language 1076–1077 origin/development 1076 phonology 1077 SVO 1077 use of 1076–1077 Papua New Guinea 836, 1076–1077 see also Creoles; Manambu; Pidgins Tolai 1077 Tolkaappiyam 1047–1048 Tolkien, J R R 76 Tol languages 504 classification 506 see also Hokan languages Tolubi 613 see also Kadugli languages Tonal languages, Chadic languages 206 Tone Abun 1177 Akan 19, 632 Arawak languages 60 Arike´m 1106 Bantu languages 139–140 Burmese 172 Carapana 1096 Cherokee 543 Chinantec 213t Chinese 215, 217t Chorotegan 821 Danish 280 Desano 1096 Dinka 294 Dogon 294 Efik see Efik Ewe 408 Ga-Dangme 632 Gikuyu (Kikuyu) 450 Gur (Voltaic) languages 473 Hausa 478 Iroquoian languages 543 Japanese 558 Juru´na 1106 Kanuri 578 Ket 593 Kinyarwanda see Kinyarwanda Koyra Chiini 774 Kpelle 697–698 Krio 622 Kru languages 624 Kwa languages 632 Luganda 657 Macuna 1096 Mambila 692 Mandarin Chinese 223 Mande languages 697 Mano 697–698 Matbat 1177 Ma’ya 1177 Meyah 1177 Mohawk 543 Monde´ 1106 Mpur 1177 Munduruku´ 1106 Nilo-Saharan languages 774 Oromo 810 Oto-Mangean languages 821 Putonghua 215, 217t Ramara´ma 1106 Resı´garo 60
Retuara/Tanimuca 1096 Secoya 1096 Sembla 697–698 Shona languages 938 Siona 1096 Somali 987 Tatuyo 1096 Tereˆna 60 Tucanoan languages 1096 Tuparı´ 1106 Tupian languages 1106 Tuyuca 1096 Vietnamese 1150, 1150t Waimaja/Bara´ 1096 West Papuan languages 1177 Wolaitta 1180 Xipa´ya 1106 Yoruba 1208 Yuruti 1096 see also Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) Tone-accent languages 810 Tones Karen languages 581 Thai 1059 Tonga, Austronesian languages 102 Tongan 250–251 see also Oceanic languages Tonkawa 751 see also Native American languages Tononacan see Native American languages Topic Chinese, spoken 216 English, nonnative 361 Japanese 558 The Torah, Judaism 483–484 Torkmancay 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian Torres Strait Islander 79 Torricelli languages 1078–1080 classification 253 class systems 1078 concord 1078 diversity within 1078 history 1079 nominal inflexions 842 noun classes 842 phonetics 1078 vowels 1078 plurals 1078 SVO 1078 use of 1078 geographical distribution 840 Papua New Guinea 1078 verbs morphology 1078 serial verbs 1079 voice system 1078–1079 word order 1078, 1176 see also Arapesh (Bukiyip: Muhiang); Papuan languages Torwali agreement patterns 284 sibilants 283 speaker numbers 282 Totoguan˜ 1074 see also Tohono O’odham Totonac 653 Totonacan languages 748 applicative affixes 1083–1084 body part prefixes 1083 classification 252 imperfective 1083 inflectional affixes 1083 morphology 1083 nouns 1083 numerals 1083 object agreement 1084 phonology 1082 consonants 1082f vowels 1082 relationships 1081f syntax 1083 Tepehua 1080
Index 1277 Totonac 1080 use of 1080f Mexico 1080 verbs reciprocal verbs 1083 verbal derivation 1083 verbal inflexion 1083 VSO 1084 word order 1084 see also Native American languages Totontepec dependent verb forms 715 phonology 713 unstressed vowel loss 713 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages Totoro´ see Barbacoan languages Touo (Baniata) 841 classification 204 gender 205 numbers 205 phonology 205 use of 204 see also Central Solomons languages Towa 1049 phonology 1049–1050 see also Tanoan Traditional Tiwi see Tiwi Trager, George, Uto-Aztecan languages 1140 Trans New Guinea languages 840 classification 253, 1176 concord 842 conjunctions 1089 dictionaries 1085–1086 diversity 843 grammar 1087 grammars (books) 1085–1086 hypothesis 1086 cognate sets 1086, 1086t inflected verbs 1089 medial verbs 842 numbers 1089 OVS 1087 phonology 1087 nasals 1087 vowels 1087 predicates 1089 pronouns 1087–1089 semantics 1087 SOV 1087 subgroups 1086 suffixes 1089 use of 1085 geographical distribution 1088f speaker numbers 1085 verb root 1087 word order 1087 see also Angan languages; Asmat-Kamoro languages; Austronesian languages; AwyuDumut languages; Madang languages; Papuan languages; Proto Trans New Guinea language Transport, Later Modern English development 344 Tree diagrams, genetic classification 246 Tre´ma, French orthography 428 Triki languages classification 819–821 syllable onsets 821–822 see also Oto-Mangean languages Trinidad and Tobago, Hindi 495 Trique 751 see also Mixtecan languages Tsachila see Barbacoan languages Tsakonian dialect 465 Tsamosan 749 see also Salishan languages Ts’e-heng (Dioi) 1039 see also Tai languages Tshangla (Sharchopkha) 968–969 see also Bodish languages Tshivenda see Venda Tshwa 1018 Mozambique 1018 speaker numbers 1018
Zimbabwe 1018 see also Ronga Tsimshian 750 see also Penutian languages Tsonga 1018 Mozambique 1018 South Africa 1018 speaker numbers 1018 see also Ronga Tsotsi Taal 1090–1091 definitions 1090 development 1090 Tsou classification 421 research history 422–423 see also Formosan languages Tsouic languages 250–251 see also Austronesian languages; Formosan languages Tswana (Setswana) 1017 Botswana 1017–1018 noun classes 1018–1019 South Africa 1017–1018 see also Sotho-Tswana languages Tswa-Ronga languages 1017 see also Bantu languages, Southern Tuareg 477 Tuaregs, languages 152 Tubar 1140 see also Uto-Aztecan languages Tubatulabal 1140 classification 1139t see also Uto-Aztecan languages Tucano adjectives 1099 consonants 1094t morphemes 1096 noun classifiers 1098 speaker numbers 1092t syllable pattern 1095 Tucanoan languages 1091–1103 case markers 1096 classification 1091 classifiers 1097, 1098, 1098t, 1099 nouns see below consonants 1092 demonstrative adjectives 1099 evidentiality 1100 grammar 1096 interrelationship 1092 marriage aspects 1092 iterative 1099–1100 nasal spreading 1092, 1095–1096 noun classifiers 1097 animate 1098t inanimate 1098 noun modifiers 1098 adjectival verbs 1098 adjectives 1099 limiting adjectives 1098 nouns 1097 animate 1097 classifiers see above inanimate 1097 modifiers see above plurals 1097 OVS 1096 personal pronouns 1099 progressive 1100 sentence structure 1096 suprasegmentals 1095 accent 1096 morphemes 1096 nasal assimilation 1095 nasalization 1095 tone 1096 syllable patterns 1095 Tariana vs. 1051 use of 1091 verbs 1099 auxiliary verbs 1100 compound verb roots 1100 evidentiality 1100 future tense 1101
vowels 1092 word order 1096 see also Arawak languages; Tucanoan languages Tugbeni 517 Tukanoan 750 see also Native American languages Tule 224 see also Chibchan languages Tulu, Malayalam vs. 682 Tum 728–729 see also Cuoi languages Tumshuqese 541 see also Iranian languages Tundra see Yukaghir Tundra Nenets 761–762, 762–763 see also Nenets (Yurak) Tunebo borrowing from Spanish 651–652, 653 Tunebo 651–652, 653 see also Chibchan languages Tungus 614 Tungusic languages 1103–1105 adjectives 1104 Altaic hypothesis 653 classification 250, 1103 as endangered languages 1103 genetic affiliation 1103 morphology 1104, 1105t origin/development 1103 phonology 1104 consonants 1104, 1104t vowels 1104, 1104t SOV 1104 structure 1104 SVO 1104 Turkic-Mongol relationship 30 types 1103t use of 1103 number of speakers 1103t verbs 1104 writing systems 1103 see also Altaic languages; Evenki; Mongolia; Yakut Tunica 749 see also Muskogean languages Tunisia, Berber 152–153 Tuparı´ classification 1106t ideophones 1106–1107 tone system 1106 see also Tupian languages Tupian languages 750 adjectives 1106 augmentative 1106 case marking 1106 classification 1105 branches 1105–1106 classifiers 1108 core cases 1106 diminutives 1106 evidentiality 1108 ideophones 1106–1107 morphology 1106 noun classification 1108 nouns 1106 phonetics 1106 phonology 1106 stress 1106 tone system 1106 positional demonstratives 1106 postpositions 1106 SOV 1107–1108 syntax 1107–1108 verbs 1106 word classes 1106 word order 1107–1108 see also Akuntsu; Arike´m; Aru´a; Awetı´; Ayuru´; Cariban languages; Guaranı´; Macro-Jeˆ languages; Native American languages Tupi-Guarani 1105–1106 classification 1107t lexicon 1106
1278 Index Tupi-Guarani (continued) morphology 1106 core cases 1106 see also Tupian languages Turi 736 see also Munda languages Turkey Arabic 42 Aramaic 58 Armenian 68 Georgian 442 Indo-Iranian languages 531 Iranian languages 537 Kurdish 538, 625 official language 1112 Turkish 1112 Turkic languages 610, 1109–1112 Altaic hypothesis 653 classification 250, 1109 contacts 1110 development 1109 written sources 1109 features 1111 loanwords 1112 Mongol-Tungusic relationship 30 morphology 1111 Northwestern (Kipchak) branch 1109 possessives 1112 sound harmony phenomenon 1111 Southwestern (Oghuz) branch 1109 SOV 1111–1112 syntax 1111–1112 vowels 1111 word accent 1111 written varieties 1110 contact effects 1111 Karakhanid 1110 Old Kirghiz 1110 Old Uyghur 1110 scripts 1110 Volga Bulgar 1110 see also Altaic languages; Arabic; Azerbaijanian; Bashkir; Chuvash; Iranian languages; Kazakh; Kirghiz; Mongolia; Nivkh; Slavic languages; Tajik Persian; Tatar; Tocharian; Turkish; Tu¨rkmen; Uralic languages; Uyghur; Uzbek; Yakut Turkish 120, 1112–1116 auxiliary suffixes 1115 future 1114–1115 influence on other languages Abkhaz 2 Azerbaijanian 110–111 Hindi 495–496 New Iranian languages 538 morphology 1114 noun paradigm 1114 as official language, Turkey 1112 origin/development 1112 phonology 1113 consonants 1113, 1113t phonemes 1113 rules 1114 stress 1113 vowels 1113, 1113f, 1114, 1114t possessives 1116 postpositions 1113–1114 pro-drop 1116 progressive 1114–1115 related languages, Azerbaijanian 110–111 SOV 1115–1116 SVO 1115–1116 syntax 1115 use of 1112 verb paradigm 1114 vocabulary 1112–1113 see also Altaic languages; Arabic; Azerbaijanian; Balkan linguistic area; Turkic languages; Tu¨rkmen Tu¨rkmen 1116–1119 converbs 1119 dialects 1119 distinctive features 1117 grammar 1118
lexicon 1119 location 1116 origin/history 1117 phonology 1117 consonants 1118 vowels 1117–1118 related languages 1117 Azerbaijanian 110–111 use of 1112, 1116 written language 1117 Arabic script 1117 Cyrillic alphabet 1117 Roman script 1117 see also Altaic languages; Azerbaijanian; Persian, Modern; Russian; Turkic languages; Turkish; Uzbek; Yakut Turkmenistan Balochi 134 Kazakh 588 Uzbek 1145 Tuscarora 542 see also Iroquoian languages Tutelo 749 see also Siouan languages Tutonish 75 Tuvan 1200 Tuyuca accent/tone 1096 case markers 1097 consonants 1094t demonstrative adjectives 1099 evidentiality 1100 morphemes 1096 noun classifiers 1098 noun modifiers 1099 speaker numbers 1092t syllable pattern 1095 verbs auxiliary verbs 1095 evidentiality 1100 vowels 1092 see also Tucanoan languages Twi (Akan) Akan 17 Krio, influence on 620 Tzeltalan 705–706 speaker numbers 707t see also Mayan languages Tzotzil 705–706 long-range comparison 653 speaker numbers 707t see also Mayan languages Tz’utujiil 705–706 positionals 707 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages
U Ubykh phonemes 193 vowels 193t see also Caucasian languages Udi vowels 194, 194t see also Caucasian languages Udmurt (Votayk) classification 1129–1130 object marking 1132 verbs 1131 word order 1132 word stress 1131 see also Permic (Permian) languages Uganda Luganda 657 Luo 658 Swahili 1026 Ugaritic 932, 1121–1122 alphabet 1121 classification 250 see also Afroasiatic languages; Eblaite; Semitic languages
!Ui-Taa languages 601–602 see also Khoesaan languages Ukaan–Apes classification 151 see also Benue-Congo languages Ukraine Hungarian 514 Ukranian 1122 Ukranian 1122–1123 Belorussian vs. 147, 1122–1123 classification 251–252, 974–975 consonants 1122–1123 Cyrillic alphabet 1122 distinguishing features 1122 nominal cases 1123 Russian vs. 1122–1123 use of 1122 Ukraine 1122 Yiddish, influence on 1205 see also Belorussian; Russian; Slavic languages Ulster, Irish, development of 454 Ulwa 711 see also Misumalpan languages Umbrian language, Italic languages 555 Umbuygamu see Morrobalama Ume Saami 911 see also Saami Unami classification 24 origin/development 28 see also Algonquin languages UNESCO see Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages United Kingdom (UK) Gujarati 468 Urdu 1133 Upernavik 1172 see also West Greenlandic Upper Chehalis 749 see also Salishan languages Upper German 445 Ural-Altaic languages 30 Uralic languages 1129–1133 aspect 1131–1132 case suffixes 1131 classification 249, 1129–1130 definiteness 1131 gender 1131 morphology 1131 negation 1131 Nostratic theory 249, 653–654, 786 objects 1132 phonology 1130 consonant gradation 1130 consonantism 1130 diphthongs 1130 vocalism 1130 vowel harmony 1130 word stress 1131 plural markers 1131 postpositions 1131–1132 SOV 1132 subordinate sentences 1132 syntax 1131 use of geographical distribution 1129 Russia 1129–1130 verbs 1131 main verb phrases 1132 vowel harmony 1130 word order 1132 see also Altaic languages; Estonian; Finnish (Suomi); Hungarian; Language endangerment; Mongolia; Nenets (Yurak); Saami; Turkic languages; Yukaghir Urban centers, and language endangerment 325, 326 Urban sign languages 954 Urdu 1133–1139 classification 251–252, 522 codification/standardization 1136 conflict with Hindi 1134 dictionaries 1136 grammar 1135
Index 1279 Hindustani, divergence from 1135–1136 influence on other languages Burushaski 179 Hindustani 497 Kashmiri 582–583 Malayalam 680–681 Punjabi 889 Telugu 1058 lexical borrowing 1135 literature 1134, 1137 Islamic traditions 1137 Persian influences 1137 as national language, Pakistan 1133 number of speakers 522–523 as official language, Pakistan 885–886 origin/development 1133 as literary language 1133 Persian influences 1134 script 1134 written records 1133 popularization 1136 use of 1133 Bangladesh 522–523, 1133 India 522–523, 1133 Pakistan 522–523, 1133 vocabulary 1135 writing systems 524 see also Arabic; Dardic languages; Hindi; Hindustani; Indo-Aryan languages; Pashto Uribe, Jose´ Vincente, Embera´ studies 226 Urmia 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian Uru 752 see also Native American languages USA 1123–1129 African-American English 1125 American Creoles 1127 American English 1123 American Sign Language 1127 bilingualism debate 1125 Creoles 1127 Cupen˜o 270 Dutch 307 English 1123 Fijian 412 Finnish 413 Gullah 470 Hawaiian Creole English 1127 Inupiaq 535 Italian 545 Louisiana Creole French 656, 1127 Michif 709 minority immigrant languages 1127 Native American languages 1127 Omaha-Ponca 802 Spanish 1020, 1123, 1126 Tohono O’odham 1074 used at home 1124f see also African-American Vernacular English (AAVE); Algonquin Languages; Algonquin languages; Caddoan languages; Central Siberian Yupik; Creek; Creoles; Cupen˜o; English; Eskimo-Aleut languages; Hokan languages; Hopi; Inupiaq; Iroquoian languages; Keres; Lakota; Michif; Muskogean languages; Na-Dene languages; Nahuatl; Navajo; Omaha-Ponca; Oneida; Pidgins; Polysynthetic languages; Pomoan languages; Ritwan languages; Salishan languages; Sign language; Siouan languages; Tohono O’odham; Uto-Aztecan languages; Wakashan languages Uspanteko 705–706 speaker numbers 706t see also Mayan languages Uto-Aztecan languages 748 classification 1139 grammar 1140–1141 internal relationships 1140 phonology 1141 records/studies 1140 Tanoan language link 1140
texts 1140–1141 use of 1139 workers in 1140 see also Aztecan; Cupen˜o; Hopi; Nahuatl; Native American languages; Tohono O’odham Utoro 613 see also Kordofanian languages Uyghur 1142–1145 contacts 1143 dialects 1144 distinctive features 1143 evidentiality 1144 grammar 1144 lexicon 1144 location 1142 origin/history 1142 phonology 1143 vowels 1143–1144 possessives 1144 related languages 1143 Uzbek 1146 speakers 1142 use of 1142 Xinjiang 1142 written language 1143 Arabic script 1143 Cyrillic script 1143 Roman script 1143 see also Altaic languages; Kazakh; Kirghiz; Turkic languages; Uzbek Uyghur, Old 1110 see also Turkic languages Uzbek 1145–1148 contacts 1146 converbs 1147 dialects 1147 evidentiality 1147 grammar 1147 lexicon 1147 location 1145 Russian bilingualism 1145 origin/history 1145 phonology 1146 consonants 1147 sound harmony 1147 suffixes 1147 Tajik Persian vs. 1041 vowels 1146 related languages 1146 Kazakh 589 Uyghur 1146 use of 1145 vowel harmony 1147 written language 1146 Arabic script 1146 Cyrillic script 1146 Roman script 1146 see also Altaic languages; Kazakh; Tajik Persian; Turkic languages; Tu¨rkmen; Uyghur Uzbekistan Kazakh 588 Kirghiz 610 Russian 1145 Tajik 1145 Tajik Persian 1041 Uzbek 1145
V Vai, Krio, influences on 620 Valency Evenki 407 Romani 899 Tamambo 1046 Vanuatu Bislama 161 English 161 French 161 Vure¨s 1154 Van Wyk Louw, N P, Afrikaans 9–10 Variable order, postbases 202, 203
Variation theory, African-American Vernacular English development 337 Varma, A A RajaRaja, Malayalam 681 Vatican City, Italian 545 Vatteluttu 681 Vedas nouns 533 word order 534 see also Hinduism Venda 1017 see also Bantu languages, Southern Venetian see Italian Venezuela Andean languages 40 Arawak languages 59 Cariban languages 40 Chibchan languages 40 Guajiro 59 Veps 1129–1130 see also Finnic languages Verb(s) agreement, sign language 943f derivation, postbases 202 directional 1014 inflections in agglutinating languages 417 suffixes 221 introflecting languages, stems 50 modification 951 in polysynthetic languages 203 Tanoan languages 1049–1050 see also specific languages Verbal predicates, Thai 1059–1060 Verb-final languages 288 Verb-initial languages 288 Verb-medial languages 288 Verb-medial sentence type, Karen languages 581 Verificationality see Evidentiality Vernacular Hindustani 499 Verner’s Law 449t Versatility, Southeast Asian languages 1012 Viet-Muong languages 724 use of 728–729 see also Mon-Khmer languages Vietnam Bahnaric languages 725–726 Katuic languages 726–727 Khmuic languages 727 Mang languages 729 Mon-Khmer languages 725 Tai-Kadai languages 105 Tai languages 1039 Viet-Muong languages 728–729 Vietnamese 1149–1154 Chinese, influence from 248, 728–729, 1149 classification 250 consonants 1150, 1150t coverbs 1014 dictionaries 1152 grammars (books) 1152 grammaticalization 1012 historical origins 1149 orthography 1149–1150 as isolating language 291 phonology 1150 phrases and sentences 1152 regional varieties 1150 Central (Hue´) 1150 Northern (Hanoi) 1150 Southern (Hoˆ Chı´ Minh City) 1150 script 1149 sources 1152 syllable rhymes 1151, 1151t tones 1150, 1150t use of 728–729 word category and construction 1151 compounds 1151–1152 word order 1014t word structure 1150–1151 workers in 1149–1150 see also Mon-Khmer languages; Viet-Muong languages Viking Bund 392–393 Village-based sign languages 954
1280 Index Vinaya Pitaka, Pa¯li canonical texts 831–832 Vocabulario de la lengua Bicol 158 Vocabulario de la Lengua Bisaya 915 Vocabulary inspection, Native American languages 747 Vocalic melody, in introflecting language 51 Voiced stops, Quileute 211 Volapu¨k 76 Volga Bulgar 1110 see also Turkic languages Volga-Kama Sprachbund 392–393 Voltaic languages see Gur (Voltaic) languages Von der Gabeltenz, H C, Austronesian languages 98 Von le Coq, Albert, Tocharian 1068–1069 Votayk see Udmurt (Votayk) Votic classification 1129–1130 postposition 290 see also Finnic languages Vowel(s) harmony see Vowel harmony length, European linguistic area 397f mutation, in agglutinating languages 418 raising 122 rounded 396f see also specific languages Vowel harmony in agglutinating languages 417–418 Akan 19 Azerbaijanian 111 Bashkir 143–144 Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages 240 Dogon 294 Finnic languages 1130 Finnish (Suomi) 414, 417–418 Ga-Dangme 632 Gbe languages 632 Gur (Voltaic) languages 472 Hungarian 514–515, 1130 Kashmiri 583 Khanty 1130 Kinyarwanda 605 Kunama 773–774 Kwa languages 632 Luo 658–659 Macro-Jeˆ languages 667 Madurese 673 Mansi 1130 Mari languages 1130 Mordvin languages 1130 Nganasan (Tavgy) 1130 Nilo-Saharan languages 773–774 Nilotic languages 773–774 Nubian 773–774 Songai languages 773–774 Tano languages 632 Telugu 1055 Temein 773–774 Tibetan 1062 Togo Mountain languages 632 Turkish 1114 Uralic languages 1130 Uzbek 1147 Yoruba 1208 VSO Akkadian 21 Arabic 47 Berber languages 154 Chadic languages 207 Chinantecan languages 211 Egyptian 39 Finnish (Suomi) 413 Ge’ez 442 Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) 480–481 Maori 700 Mixe-Zoquean languages 715 Munda languages 737 Niuean 776 Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) 790 Oto-Mangean languages 822 Samar-Leyte 913 Scots Gaelic 927 Tai languages 1039 Tohono O’odham 1075
Totonacan languages 1084 Wakashan languages 1160 Welsh 1171 Yanan languages 508 Zapotecan languages 1214 ‘Vulgar Latin,’ 641 Vure¨s 1154 classifiers 1154 consonants 1154 as endangered language 1154 as nominative-accusative language 1154 phonetics 1154 possession marking 1154 use of, Vanuatu 1154 verb serialization 1154–1154 vowels 1154 word order 1154 see also Austronesian languages
W Wa 1155–1157 Bible translation 1155 classification 250 influence from other languages 1156, 1156t as isolating language 1156 literacy 1156 orthography 1155, 1155t personal pronouns 1156, 1156t prefixes 1156, 1156t syllable-initial consonants 1155, 1155t syntax 1156 use of 1155 vowel registers 1156t vowels 1155–1156, 1156t vowel registers 1155–1156 see also Austroasiatic languages; Mon-Khmer languages; Waic languages Wackernagel’s Law, Latin syntax 643 Wahl, Edgar de, artificial languages 77 Waic languages 727 classification 728 nomenclature 728 use of 728 see also Palaung-Wa languages Waimaja/Bara´ accent/tone 1096 consonants 1094 speaker numbers 1092t verbs 1099–1100 see also Tucanoan languages Waimiri-Atroari geographical distribution 185f phonology 183–184 see also Cariban languages Waiwai geographical distribution 185f phonology 183–184 see also Cariban languages Waja languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Wakashan languages 749 Chimakuan family 750 classification 1157 Northern group 1157 Southern group 1157 classifiers 1159–1160, 1160t compounding 1160 consonants 1158 diminutives 1159 glottalization 1158, 1159t Kwakiutlan branch 749–750 lenition 1158, 1159t morphology 1159 nominal phrase 1160 Nootkan branch 749–750 Northern vs. Southern groups 1158 person-number inflections 1160 phonology 1158 possession 1160 Proto-Wakashan 1158, 1158t reduplication 1159, 1159t stress assignment 1158
suffixes 1159, 1159t syllable structure 1158 syntax 1160 tense markers 1160 use of 1157 speaker numbers 1157–1158 vowels 1158 vowel epenthesis 1158–1159 VSO 1160 word order 1160 see also Areal linguistics; Native American languages; Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Wambaya 1161–1165 adjectives 1162–1163 case marking 1164 cases 1163, 1163t classification 250 clauses 1164 concord 1162 definition 1161 earliest records 1161–1162 ergative 1163 genders 1163 morphology 1162 nouns 1162–1163 numbers 1163 phonemes 1162, 1162t phonology 1162 possessives 1163 prefixes 1162 stops 1162 switch reference 1164 syntax 1164 use of 1161 verb-headed clauses 1163–1164 verbs 1162–1163 word order 1164 word structure 1162 see also Australian languages Wanano adjectival verbs 1099 consonants 1095 evidentiality 1100 speaker numbers 1092t verbs, evidentiality 1100 see also Tucanoan languages Wancho classification 968–969 see also Konyak languages Waray-Waray diminutives 915–916 future 915–916 progressive 915t see also Samar-Leyte Warekena (Guarequena) 60 see also Arawak languages Warlpiri 1165–1169 auxiliary complexes 1167, 1167t cases 1166–1167 clauses 1166, 1166t consonants 1165, 1165t dialects 1165 dictionaries 1165 as ergative languages 88 Hale, Ken 1165 imperfective 1166t iterative 1166 meaning/context 1167 counting system 1167t, 1168 kin terminology 1168 spatial orientation 1167–1168, 1167t mora counting rule 1166 morphology 1165 nouns 1166, 1167t phonology 1165 respect 1168 spatial cases 1166–1167, 1167t suffixes 1166 use of 1165 speaker numbers 1165 verbal clauses 1166 verbs 1166, 1166t vowels 1165 word structure 1165
Index 1281 see also Arrernte; Australian languages; Kaytetye; Pama-Nyungan languages; Pitjantjatjara; Sign Language Warnang 613 see also Kordofanian languages Warriyangka 570 Warupu (Barupu) 974 see also Skou languages Washo 750–751 see also Hokan languages Washu languages 504 classification 505 see also Hokan languages Wasteko 705–706 see also Mayan languages Waunana see Choco languages Waunme´u classification 224 use of 224 see also Choco languages Waura´ 60 see also Arawak languages Wayana geographical distribution 185f reduplication 184 vowels 183–184 see also Cariban languages Waygali 787 see also Nuristani languages Waziri metaphony, Pashto 845–846 Weak grade, in agglutinating languages 418, 418t Wedebo 624 see also Grebo languages Weinreich, Max, Yiddish development 1205 Welsh 1169–1172 alphabet 1169 classification 200, 251–252 demography 1169 dialects 1170t mutation 1170 periods 1169 phonemes 1169 consonant mutation 1170, 1170t consonants 1169–1170, 1170t diphthongs 1169–1170, 1170t vowels 1169–1170, 1170t stylistic variation 1171 syntax 1171 use of 1169 decline of 1169 geographic variation 1169 Patagonia 1169 revival 1169 speaker numbers 1169 vocabulary 1170 Celtic roots 1170 dialects 1170–1171 English loanwords 1170 VSO 1171 word order 1171 see also Breton; Brythonic Celtic; Celtic; Cornish; Pictish; Scots Gaelic Welsh Language Board 1169 West Bird’s Head (WBH) languages 1176 see also West Papuan languages West Bomberai languages classification 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Westermann, Diedrich Hermann Adamawa-Ubangi languages 2 Gur language studies 472 Kwa language classification 630 Mande language classification 696–697 Niger-Congo languages 768 Western Bwe 581 see also Karen languages Western Gaelic 454 Western Kru 624 Ivory Coast 624 Liberia 624 see also Kru languages Western Sahara, Spanish 1020 Western Songai, SVO 991 Western Yiddish 1206
West Germanic see Germanic languages West Greenlandic 1172–1176 autolexical theory 1173–1175 Bible translations 1175 classification 251, 1172 consonants 1172–1173, 1173t Danish, influences from 1175 discourse 1175 ergativity 1173–1175 lexicon 1175 morphology 1173 nouns 1173 phonetics/phonology 1172 roots 1173 semantics 1175 sociolinguistics 1175 stops 1172–1173 syntax 1173 transitivity 1173–1175 use of 1175 geographical distribution 1172, 1174f verbs 1173 vowels 1172–1173 see also Eskimo-Aleut languages; Greenlandic (Kalaallisut); Inupiaq West New Britain languages 841 see also Anem; Ata West Papuan languages 1176–1179 classification 253, 1176 contact with other languages 1177 nominal complex 1177 genders 1177 noun phrase 1177 numbers 1177 pronominal system 1177 SOV 1176 SVO 1177–1178 tone 1177 use of 1176 geographical distribution 1177f verbal complex 1176 negative adverbs 1176–1177 Tense-Mood-Aspect 1176 word order 1176 see also Abun; Austronesian languages; Papuan languages; Trans New Guinea languages West Saxon, Old English dialect 356 West Semitic languages see Semitic languages, West West Siberian Tatar 1052 Westtocharisch see Tocharian Wexler, Paul, Yiddish development 1205 White Tai (Tai Do´n) 1039 see also Tai languages Whorf, Benjamin Lee Hopi 511 Uto-Aztecan languages 1140 Wichita 749 see also Caddoan languages Wilkins, John, artificial languages 76 Will/have future tense, Balkan linguistic area 128, 129t Williamson, Kay, Mande language classification 696–697 Wintun 750 see also Penutian languages Wissel Lakes languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Wiyot classification 25 long-range comparisons 651 see also Algonquin languages Wobe 624 see also Guere languages Wolaitta 1179–1184 adjectives 1181 adverbs 1181 clauses 1183 complex clause 1183 simple declarative clause 1183 consonants 1179, 1180t diminutives 1180 family tree 1179f future 1182
imperfective 1182 nouns 1180, 1180t case 1180, 1181t definiteness 1180 derivation 1180, 1181t gender 1180, 1181t plurals 1180, 1180t, 1181t phonology 1179 possessives 1181–1182 pronouns 1181, 1182t gender 1181–1182, 1182t SOV 1183 syllable structure 1180 tone-accent 1180 use of 1179 verbs 1182 aspect 1182, 1182t imperative mood 1183, 1183t interrogatives 1182, 1183t modality 1182 negation 1182, 1182t subject agreement 1182, 1182t vowels 1179, 1180t see also Afroasiatic languages; Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA); Omotic languages Wolof 770 advanced tongue root (ATR) feature 1184–1185 classification 253 classifiers 1185–1186 consonants 1184–1185 genetic affiliation 1184 Sapir 1184 ideophones 1184–1185 influence on other languages, Krio 620 influences from other languages, French 1186–1186 morphology 1185 noun class 1185–1186 phonetics/phonology 1184 stops 1184–1185 syntax 1185 urban type 1186 use of 1184 verbs 1185–1186 vowels 1185f see also Atlantic Congo languages Woordenboek der Nederlandische taal (WNT) 308 Word(s) accent 1111 borrowing 980 order see Word order Word formation, diminutives see Diminutives Word order Afrikaans 9 Balkans see Balkan linguistic area language diffusion 248 morphological types 733–734 Tanoan languages 1049–1050 see also SOV; SVO; VSO Word stress Kaytetye 587 Polish, phonology 875 Romanian 901–902 Saami 912 Slovak 978 Uralic languages 1131 Yiddish 1204 World Englishes 363–371 ‘concentric circles’ model 364, 364f creativity 368 definition 363 literature 368 nativization 365 speech communities 364 see also Bilingualism; English; English, Modern World Esperanto Conference 375 Writing/written language Bashkir 143 Karen languages 581 sign language see Sign language Urdu 524 Written Mongol 723
1282 Index Wu languages 219 classification 969 speaker numbers 214t see also Chinese Wulfila see Gothic Wu-ming (Northern Zhuang) 1039 see also Tai languages Wurm, S A, Gamilaraay study 438 Wyld, Henry C, Later Modern English definition 343
X Xhosa 1017 aspect morphemes 1191 augmentative 1188 classification 253 clicks 1018 diminutives 1188t Fanagalo, influences on 411 ideophones 1197 intransitive 1197 transitive 1197 imperfective 1192 mood inflexion 1193 consecutive mood 1196 imperative mood 1196 indicative mood 1193 infinitive mood 1197 participle (situative) mood 1193 relative mood 1193 subjunctive mood 1194 temporal mood 1196 negative inflexion 1192 nouns 1187 agreement morphology 1188 classes 1187 compound 1188 derived nouns 1188 noun classes 1193 suffixes 1187 as official language, South Africa 1018 perfect 1192 possessives 1188 progressive 1191 speaker numbers 1018 verbal inflection 1191 subject/object agreement prefixes 1191 verbs 1189 causative suffix 1190 compound past tense 1192 derivation 1189 detransitivising affixes 1190 future tense 1192 perfect past tense 1192 present tense 1191 recent compound past tense 1192 remote compound past tense 1192 remote past tense 1192 tense inflexion 1191 transitivity 1189 unaccusative suffixes 1190 Zulu vs. 1215 see also Bantu languages; Bantu languages, Southern; Fanagalo; Nguni languages; Niger-Congo languages; Zulu Xiang languages classification 969 speaker numbers 214t see also Chinese Xinca 748 see also Native American languages Xinjiang 1142 Iranian languages 537 Xipa´ya classification 1106t ideophones 1106–1107 tone system 1106 see also Tupian languages Xitsonga South Africa 1187 see also Tonga
Xokle´ng 668 see also Jeˆ languages Xoy 112–113 see also Azerbaijanian !Xung languages 601–602 see also Khoesaan languages
Y Yaghan (Ya´mana) 41 Mapudungan languages 701 see also Andean languages Yaghnobi 541 see also Iranian languages Yahgan see Andean languages Yahudic see Judeo-Arabic Yakan 1004 see also South Philippine languages Yakut 1199–1202 contacts 1200 Evenki 1200 Yeniseian 1200 dialects 1201 grammar 1200 lexicon 1201 location 1199 Novgorodov, S A 1200 origin/history 1199 phonology 1200 vowels 1200 possessives 1200 related languages 1200 Khakas 1200 Tuvan 1200 sound harmony 1200 use of 1199 written language 1200 Cyrillic alphabet 1200 see also Altaic languages; Tungusic languages; Turkic languages; Tu¨rkmen Yalarnnga as ergative languages 88 see also Australian languages Yalunka 620 Ya´mana see Yaghan (Ya´mana) Yanan languages 750–751 classification 505 person markers 507 VSO 508 see also Hokan languages Yanito 1202–1203 classification 249t code switching 1202 diminutives 1202 influence from other languages Arabic 1202 English 1202 Hebrew 1202 Italian 1202 Spanish 1202 perfect 1202 use of 1202 Gibraltar 1202 see also Creoles; Pidgins; Spanish Yankunytjatjara see Pitjantjatjara Yareba languages 1087 see also Trans New Guinea languages Yateˆ classification 665, 666, 666t geographical distribution 666–667 inflectional morphology 667 vowels 667 see also Macro-Jeˆ languages Yawa classification 1176 word order 1176 see also West Papuan languages Yawalapiti 60 see also Arawak languages Yawarana 185f see also Cariban languages Yaz’va-Komi 1129–1130 see also Permic (Permian) languages
Yega 613 see also Kadugli languages Yeme*an 506 see also Hokan languages Yeniseian 1200 Yenisey-Samoyed see Enets (Yenisey-Samoyed) Yerwa see Kanuri Yeshvish see Judeo-English Yiddish 565, 567, 1203–1206 adverbs 1204 consonants 1203–1204 development 567 dialects 1206 Eastern 1206 Standard 1206 Western 1206 diminutives 1204 diphthongs 1203–1204 earliest documents 567 future 1204 history 1205 population movement 1205–1206 influence from other languages 1205 Aramaic 567, 1205 German 444, 1205 Hebrew 567, 1205 lexicon 1205 morphology 1204 noun genders 1204 obstruents 1204 orthography 1203 Hebrew alphabet 1203 oldest text 1206 phonology 1203 plurals 1204 pronouns reflexive 1205 subject 1205 scholarship 565 Standard 1206 syntax 1204 use of 566, 567, 1203 speaker numbers 567 verbs 1204 vowels 1203–1204 word order 1205 as word-second language 1204 word stress 1204 see also Germanic languages; Hebrew, Israeli; Jewish languages; Semitic languages Yidiny 88–89 morphology/syntax 90 see also Australian languages Yinglish see Judeo-English Yokutsan 750 see also Penutian languages Yoruba 1207–1210 assimilated low tone 1208 Bible translation 1207 consonants 1208 dialects 1209 earliest written records 1207 example 1208–1209 gender system 1208 genetic relationships 1207 grammars (books) 1207 high tone restrictions 1208 history 1207 influence on other languages Hausa 477 Krio 620 Kwa languages vs. 631 morphology 1208 noun classes 1208 number 1208 orthography 1207 Roman alphabet 1207 past/present actions 1208 phonetics/phonology 1208 possessive noun–noun constructions 1208 pronoun tone 1208 syntax 1208 use of 1207 Benin 1207
Index 1283 Zulu (continued) geographical distribution 1207f Nigeria 1207 teaching of 1209 Togo 1207 verbal constructions 1208 vowels 1208 co-occurence restrictions 1208 elision 1208 vowel harmony 1208 workers in 1207 see also Defoid Yoruboid languages 151 see also Benue-Congo languages Young, Thomas, Indo-European languages 528 Yucatecan 705–706 noun classifiers 708 speaker numbers 707t see also Mayan languages Yuchi 749 see also Muskogean languages Yue languages 218 classification 969 speaker numbers 214t see also Chinese Yugoslavia Slovak 977 Turkish 1112 Yukaghir 1210–1212 case features 1210–1211 classification 249 consonants 1210–1211 converbs 1211–1211 ‘focus marking,’ 1210–1211 history 1210 nasalization 1210–1211 SOV 1211–1211 syntax 1211–1211 use of 1210 see also Uralic languages Yukian 749 see also Muskogean languages Yukpa geographical distribution 185f stress 183–184 see also Cariban languages Yukuben 253 see also Benue-Congo languages Yuman languages 504, 750–751 classification 506 person markers 507 see also Hokan languages Yungur languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Yupik 373 history 371 Russian, influences from 373 syntax 373 use of 373 see also Eskimo-Aleut
Yuracare´ 41 see also Andean languages Yurak see Nenets (Yurak) Yurats 1129–1130 see also Samoyed languages Yurok classification 25 long-range comparisons 651 see also Algonquin languages Yurumaguı´ see Barbacoan languages Yuruti accent/tone 1096 consonants 1094t morphemes 1096 noun modifiers 1098 speaker numbers 1092t verbs 1101 see also Tucanoan languages Yuwaalaraay 439
Z Zaborski, A, Ethiopian linguistic area (ELA) 379 Zaire, languages, Adamawa-Ubangi languages 771 Zaiwa 968–969 see also Lolo-Burmese languages Zakataly 112 see also Azerbaijanian Zambia Fanagalo 411 Lozi 1017–1018 Nyanja 791 Shona 938 Zamenhof, Ludovic Lazar 375 Esperanto 76–77 Linguo internacia 375 Zande languages 3 see also Adamawa-Ubangi languages Zapotec 751 classification 1213 speaker numbers 1213 see also Zapotecan languages Zapotecan languages 751 agreement 1214 classification 1213 consonants 1213 documentation 1213 morphology 1213 noun classes 823 phonology 1213 ‘pied-piping with inversion,’ 1214 position hierarchy 1214 prefixes 1214 pronouns 1214 speaker numbers 1213 syllable onsets 821 syntax 1213 as tonal language 1213 verbs 1213
VSO 1214 word order 1214 see also Chatino Zarphatic see Judeo-French Zezuru 1017 see also Shona languages Zhejiang 969 see also Hui languages Zhongyuan classification 214 speaker numbers 214t see also Mandarin Zhuang-Dong see Tai-Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) Zimbabwe Fanagalo 411 Nyanja 791 Shona 938 Shona languages 1017 Southern Bantu languages 1017 Tshwa 1018 Venda 1017 Zimbabwean Ndebele 1018 Zimbabwean Ndebele 1018 official language 1018 Zimbabwe 1018 see also Nguni languages Zois, Sigismund, Slovene 981 Zoque 713 see also Mixe-Zoquean languages Zoroastrianism Avestan 107 Indo-Iranian languages 531–532 Pahlavi (Middle Persian) 538, 827 Zorque de Rayo´n see Mixe-Zoquean languages Zulu 1017 classification 137 clicks 1215–1216 comparative linguistics 1216 dialects 1216 Fanagalo, influence on 412 history 1216 morphology 1215 Ndebele vs. 1215 nouns 1215 noun classes 1017 as official language, South Africa 1018 phonology 1215 sociolinguistics 1216 SVO 1215–1216 Swati vs. 1215 syntax 1215 use of 1215 speaker numbers 1018 word order 1215–1216 Xhosa vs. 1215 see also Afrikaans; Bantu languages; Bantu languages, Southern; Fanagalo; Nguni languages; Xhosa Zuni 750 see also Penutian languages
Recommend Documents
CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD
This page intentionally left blank
CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
LANGUAG...
Encyclo - Hindu PRELIMS
10/2/03
9:33 am
Page i
A CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA of
HINDUISM
Encyclo - Hindu PRELIMS
10/2/...
CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS
This page intentionally left blank
CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIOLINGUISTIC...
The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics
Yadolah Dodge
The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics
With 247 Tables
123
...
CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS
This page intentionally left blank
CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIOLINGUISTIC...
Concise Encyclopedia of Robotics
Other great robotics titles from TAB Electronics: Build Your Own Remote-Controlled R...
Concise Encyclopedia of Robotics
Other great robotics titles from TAB Electronics: Build Your Own Remote-Controlled R...
A CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA of
ISLAM
other books in the same series A A A A A
Concise Concise Concise Concise Concise
E...
Concise Encyclopedia of Robotics
Other great robotics titles from TAB Electronics: Build Your Own Remote-Controlled R...
The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics
Yadolah Dodge
The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics
With 247 Tables
123
...
Sign In
Our partners will collect data and use cookies for ad personalization and measurement. Learn how we and our ad partner Google, collect and use data. Agree & close
