corrections Rilly by Jakobi

master
4nubianstudies 3 years ago
parent 9110522ed4
commit b470865b84

@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ The present paper deals with personal markers that can be identified in Meroitic
[^1]: For the definitions of the key terms in the Theory of Enunciative Operations, see https://feglossary.sil.org/page/definitions-key-terms-theory-enunciative-operations?language=en.
In addition, when the situation of uttering is clear and verbal affixes are present, they often vary from one text to another and are distorted by assimilative phenomena, so that it is extremely difficult to isolate the personal markers and assign them an accurate value. For example, in funerary inscriptions, a textual category that makes up a third of the corpus, the situation of uttering is clear: These texts are prayers to the gods of the afterlife, uttered by a fictive enunciator who probably represents the funerary priest or the family of the deceased. He invokes the gods at the beginning and beseeches them in the last sentences to provide the deceased with water and food. The final verb is expectedly a optative or imperative form. It is not preceded by a 2nd person plural pronoun, but it includes a prefixed element *pso-, psi-* (or many other variants) and two suffixes. The first is *-x* or *-xe* (“verbal dative”) and is located immediately after the verbal stem. The second suffix is a compound *-kte, -kete, -ketese, -kese,* which can be reduced to *-te* as a result of assimilation with the first suffix. Until Fritz Hintze published his *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* no scholar managed to find which of these complex affixes marked the person of the verb. Thanks to his morphological study of the verb in funerary benedictions,[^2] it is now clear that the final compound suffix is the marker of the 2nd person plural on the verb. Further analyses of old data can provide better insights into other personal markers, particularly the 3rd person singular and plural pronouns and possibly the first person singular subject marker, as can be seen in the following sections. Furthermore, some textual material recently discovered can be used to identify new personal markers, namely the 2nd person singular and plural possessive pronouns and the 2nd person singular subject pronoun.
In addition, when the situation of uttering is clear and verbal affixes are present, they often vary from one text to another and are distorted by assimilative phenomena, so that it is extremely difficult to isolate the personal markers and assign them an accurate value. For example, in funerary inscriptions, a textual category that makes up a third of the corpus, the situation of uttering is clear: These texts are prayers to the gods of the afterlife, uttered by a fictive enunciator who probably represents the funerary priest or the family of the deceased. He invokes the gods at the beginning and beseeches them in the last sentences to provide the deceased with water and food. The final verb is expectedly an optative or imperative form. It is not preceded by a 2nd person plural pronoun, but it includes a prefixed element *pso-, psi-* (or many other variants) and two suffixes. The first is *-x* or *-xe* (“verbal dative”) and is located immediately after the verbal stem. The second suffix is a compound *-kte, -kete, -ketese, -kese,* which can be reduced to *-te* as a result of assimilation with the first suffix. Until Fritz Hintze published his *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* no scholar managed to find which of these complex affixes marked the person of the verb. Thanks to his morphological study of the verb in funerary benedictions,[^2] it is now clear that the final compound suffix is the marker of the 2nd person plural on the verb. Further analyses of old data can provide better insights into other personal markers, particularly the 3rd person singular and plural pronouns and possibly the first person singular subject marker, as can be seen in the following sections. Furthermore, some textual material recently discovered can be used to identify new personal markers, namely the 2nd person singular and plural possessive pronouns and the 2nd person singular subject pronoun.
[^2]: Hintze, *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* pp. 6387. Nevertheless, he regards the 2nd person plural as an address to the visitors of the tomb. The interpretation of Inge Hofmann in her *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* p. 194, according to which the prayer is addressed to the gods of the afterlife, is much more convincing. See Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* pp. 163166, for a detailed review of the numerous hypotheses that were advanced since the decipherment of the scripts.
@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Morphological issues in Meroitic cannot be addressed without taking into account
**~~Figure 1. The Meroitic alphasyllabary~~**
The script includes nineteen syllabic signs. Fifteen of them have the value “consonant + /a/.” The default vowel /a/ can be modified by adding one of the three vocalic signs *e, i,* and *o.* Like in English, the sign e has three values: /e/, /ə/ (schwa), and zero. The zero value is used to write consonant clusters or final consonants, for instance *qore* "ruler,” pronounced /kʷur/. The sign *o* is used for /u/ and /o/. Four additional syllabic signs have a fixed vocalic value: three of them represent “consonant + *e*” (*ne, se, te,* with the three values of *e*), one represents “consonant + *o*” (*to*). For initial vowels, there is a single sign transliterated a, which represents /a/, /u/, and probably /o/ and /ə/. Initial /e/ and /i/ were written *e* and *i* until the first century CE. In later times, they were written *ye* and *yi* with a dummy *y,* which was not pronounced. Finally, the texts include a word-divider, made of two dots like our modern colon, which is used (more or less regularly) between words or more commonly between the different clauses of a sentence.
The script includes nineteen syllabic signs. Fifteen of them have the value “consonant + /a/.” The default vowel /a/ can be modified by adding one of the three vocalic signs *e, i,* and *o.* Like in English, the sign *e* has three values: /e/, /ə/ (schwa), and zero. The zero value is used to write consonant clusters or final consonants, for instance *qore* "ruler,” pronounced /kʷur/. The sign *o* is used for /u/ and /o/. Four additional syllabic signs have a fixed vocalic value: three of them represent “consonant + *e*” (*ne, se, te,* with the three values of *e*), one represents “consonant + *o*” (*to*). For initial vowels, there is a single sign transliterated *a,* which represents /a/, /u/, and probably /o/ and /ə/. Initial /e/ and /i/ were written *e* and *i* until the first century CE. In later times, they were written *ye* and *yi* with a dummy *y,* which was not pronounced. Finally, the texts include a word-divider, made of two dots like our modern colon, which is used (more or less regularly) between words or more commonly between the different clauses of a sentence.
The sound values of the Meroitic signs are generally known,[^x4] but there remains a few unclear points. Until recently, it was supposed that the sign 𐦭, transliterated formerly *ḫ,* and *x* according to the revised conventions,[^4] had only the value [χ], a velar fricative like Egyptian *ḫ.* A second sign, which can replace *x* in several variant spellings, is *h,* formerly *ẖ*. I suggested that *h* was a labialized version of *x,* in IPA [χʷ], because it mainly occurs before or after labiovelar vowels [o] or [u]. These two values [χ] and [χʷ] are evidenced by the use of *x* and *h* in Meroitic transcriptions of Egyptian words. The same distribution can be observed between *k* and *q,* the latter being a labialized velar consonant [kʷ]. However, in the Old Nubian alphabet, the Meroitic sign 𐦭 *x* was borrowed, not for the velar fricative consonant [χ], for which the Coptic sign ϩ was used, but for the velar nasal consonant /ŋ/, written ⳟ. Furthermore, in several Egyptian transcriptions of Meroitic royal names that include *x* or *h,* the scribes used a digraph *nḫ.*[^5] My impression is therefore that the signs *x* and *h* had a double set of values: [χ] and [χʷ] in loanwords from Egyptian and [ŋ], and [ŋʷ] in native words. This assumption is supported by strong arguments but still needs to be checked word by word.
@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ In an early analysis of these sentences,[^x11] I interpreted this “dative infi
{{< gloss "(19b)" >}}
{g} *ke*,[1sg.s]({sc})|*rek-el-a*,buy-[appl-fin]({sc})|*bana*,children|*ditlhako*,shoes|
{r} “I am buying shoes.”
{r} “I am buying shoes for the children.”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(19c)" >}}
@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ The unexpected location of *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* in the verbal complex can be com
{{< gloss "(22b)" >}}
{g} *á*,[1sg]({sc})|*bá*,[asp]({sc})|*dámì-ɔ̄*,egg-[acc]({sc})|*tàm-īd̪ì*,eat.[ipfv-vnm]({sc})|
{r} “I am eating an egg.”
{r} “I am eating eggs.”
{{< /gloss >}}
In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this suffix is *-(i)j.* A related marker *-j-* is found in Midob.[^y2] In Kordofan Nubian, a similar suffix *-c* is attested along with others suffixes, such as *-Vr,* which is much more frequent. Recent publications showed that the Nubian suffixes function according to the same ergative pattern as the Ama suffix.[^31] Example (23) illustrates the use of the suffix to mark subject plurality with intransitive verbs, whereas examples (24)(25) show the suffix marking object plurality with transitive verbs.[^ex23]
@ -323,9 +323,9 @@ In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this suffix is *-(i)j.* A related marker *-j-* is foun
{r} “I am milking the cows.”
{{< /gloss >}}
It is noteworthy that, unlike in the Ama examples above, the plural marking operated by the suffix *-(i)j* is redundant, since plurality is already marked by the subject pronoun *ter* “they” in (23) and the plural nominal suffix *-guu* in (25). In Ama, apart from rare instances of replacive patterns such as *wīd̪ɛ́ŋ* “child”/*dŕīŋ* “children,” and a plural suffix *-gí/-ŋì* which can be attached to kinship terms, plurality in unmarked in nouns. This makes it necessary, either to mark it by determiners (“several,” “many,” etc.) or to encode it in the verb by a specific marker, as showed in (20b) and (21b) above.
It is noteworthy that, unlike in the Ama examples above, the plural marking operated by the suffix *-(i)j* is redundant, since plurality is already marked by the subject pronoun *ter* “they” in (23) and the plural nominal suffix *-guu* in (25). In Ama, apart from rare instances of replacive patterns such as *wīd̪ɛ́ŋ* “child”/*dŕīŋ* “children,” and a plural suffix *-gí/-ŋì* which can be attached to kinship terms, plurality is unmarked in nouns. This makes it necessary, either to mark it by determiners (“several,” “many,” etc.) or to encode it in the verb by a specific marker, as showed in (20b) and (21b) above.
Considering that the nominal plural suffixes that can be found in the NES languages are so diverse that no protoform can be reconstructed, it is plausible that Proto-NES had no plural nominal markers, but only a few replacive patterns and collective nouns with singulatives forms marked by a suffix *\*-tV*.[^x15] It was therefore necessary to encode the plurals of the participants in the verbal compound. Proto-Nubian seems to have been in this regard close to its ancestor Proto-NES.[^x16] Later on, for unknown reasons — but areal influence probably played a major role in it — each Nubian group worked out its own plural markers for all the nouns. This novelty of course competed with the earlier plural marking by verbal suffixes. However, both of them survived to this day, but they often follow economy principles. Khalil notes that “the *j*-suffix appears sporadically in the intransitive clause” and that “In the transitive clause […], when the object noun phrase is modified by a numeral or a quantifier such as *mallee* [many] or *minkellee* [how many], the plural marker on the object noun phrase becomes optional and subsequently the suffixation of *-j* becomes optional, too.”[^x17]
Considering that the nominal plural suffixes that can be found in the NES languages are so diverse that no protoform can be reconstructed, it is plausible that Proto-NES had no plural nominal markers, but only a few replacive patterns and collective nouns with singulatives forms marked by a suffix *\*-tV*.[^x15] It was therefore necessary to encode the plurals of the participants in the verbal compound. Proto-Nubian seems to have been in this regard close to its ancestor Proto-NES.[^x16] Later on, for unknown reasons — but areal influence probably played a major role in it — each Nubian group worked out its own plural markers for all the nouns. This novelty of course competed with the earlier plural marking by verbal suffixes. However, both of them survived to this day, but they often follow economy principles. Khalil notes that “the *j*-suffix appears sporadically in the intransitive clause” and that “[i]n the transitive clause […], when the object noun phrase is modified by a numeral or a quantifier such as *mallee* [many] or *minkellee* [how many], the plural marker on the object noun phrase becomes optional and subsequently the suffixation of *-j* becomes optional, too.”[^x17]
[^x15]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 350.
[^x16]: Ibid., p. 272.
@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ A third use of verbal plural markers in NES languages is to encode in ditransiti
{{< gloss "(26)" >}}
{r} **Ama**
{g} *àɪ̀*,[1sg]({sc})|*bā*,[ver]({sc})|*əm̄ōr-ì*,friend-[dat]({sc})|*āmɪɛ̄r̄*,pen|*t̪ɛɡ̄-ɛn̄ɪ̀*,give-[du]({sc})|
{g} *ɪ̀*,[1sg]({sc})|*bā*,[ver]({sc})|*ə̄mōr-ì*,friend-[dat]({sc})|*āmɪ̄ɛ̄r*,pen|*t̪ɛ̄g-ɛ̄nɪ̀*,give-[du]({sc})|
{r} “I gave a pen to two friends.”
{{< /gloss >}}
@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ Here, the verbal number marker refers to the beneficiary (“friend”) and not
{{< gloss "(27)" >}}
{r} **Nobiin**
{g} *ay*,[1sg]({sc})|*torbar-ka*,farmer-[acc]({sc})|*aŋŋaree-nci-ga*,bed-[pl-acc]({sc})|*kaay-a-tis*,make-*a*-[appl.prt1.1sg]({sc})|
{r} “I made the farmers a bed.”
{r} “I made the farmer beds.”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(28)" >}}
@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ In (29), the singular suffix *-x* is added to the stem *l-* “give.” It refer
### The Verbal Plural Marker in NES Languages and in Meroitic {#ii34}
The Meroitic plural suffix *-bx(e)* shares three significant features with the verbal number markers in Ama and Nobiin: its direct adjunction to the stem within the verbal compound; its function as a plural marker of direct/indirect object; and its dependency on the hierarchy between participants of the action (cf. n. 59). Nonetheless, some important divergences can be observed. First of all, the Meroitic plural suffix is not a single morpheme like Ama *-(ī)d̪ì* and Nobiin *-(i)j* (where /i/ is a epenthetic vowel) but the plural form of a singular suffix *-x(e).* In languages where verbal number is an operative category, the most frequent situation contrasts unmarked singular and marked plural. Nonetheless, the growing literature on verbal number/pluractionality records some languages where there is an opposition between marked verbal singular and marked verbal plural. In her study of verbal number in Karko, a Kordofan Nubian language, Jakobi gives some instances of such verbs (**Table 1**).
The Meroitic plural suffix *-bx(e)* shares three significant features with the verbal number markers in Ama and Nobiin: its direct adjunction to the stem within the verbal compound; its function as a plural marker of direct/indirect object; and its dependency on the hierarchy between participants of the action (cf. n. 59). Nonetheless, some important divergences can be observed. First of all, the Meroitic plural suffix is not a single morpheme like Ama *-(ī)d̪ì* and Nobiin *-(i)j* (where /i/ is a epenthetic vowel) but the plural form of a singular suffix *-x(e).* In languages where verbal number is an operative category, the most frequent situation contrasts unmarked singular and marked plural. Nonetheless, the growing literature on verbal number/pluractionality records some languages where there is an opposition between marked verbal singular and marked or unmarked verbal plural. In her study of verbal number in Karko, a Kordofan Nubian language, Jakobi gives some instances of such verbs (**Table 1**).
| Gloss | Sg. Object | Pl. Object |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ The Meroitic suffix *-bx(e)* is therefore located in the right place, but, contr
{r} “Go [pl]({sc}) to the market frequently!”
{{< /gloss >}}
It may, however, be mentioned that in Nubian languages, few instances of the use of the same morpheme for the frequentative (plurality of events) and the verbal number (plurality of participants) are attested. Nobiin and Old Nubian are the only Nubian languages where *-(i)j* is attested as both a plural event and participant marker, as shown in (33).[^x20] Still, it is uncertain whether this was also the case in Proto-Nubian. In (34) from Karko, the plurality of participants is indicated by the vowel *ɛ̀* in the verbal stem *ʃɛ̀-* (the singular stem is *ʃù-*), whereas the plurality of events is marked independently by the suffix *-tɛ̀g.* It may happen that a verb exhibits three different stems in Karko: one for a singular participant, one for a plural participant, and one for plurality of action.[^x21] A conspicuous instance is the verb “call,” which is *òg-* with singular object, *ògór* for plural object, and *òʃór* for plural action, i.e., a distributive meaning “call one by one.” The suffix *-(V)ʃ* is a frequent number marker in Karko[^y4] and other Kordofan Nubian languages, and is doubtlessly a reflex of Proto-Nubian suffix *\*-(i)j*. Another verbal number marker, the most frequent, is *-Vr,* with a vowel that is subject to vowel harmony. It is obvious that *òʃór* is an assimilated compound derived from *\*og-ʃ-Vr.* The two verbal plural suffixes *-(V)ʃ* and *-Vr* are used successively in the same stem to express plurality of object and plurality of events respectively. A similar distribution of these two verbal extensions is paralleled in Andaandi, where *-(i)j* is used for frequentatives, whereas the suffix *-ir* is used to mark the plurality of participants (only objects in this language).[^38] The markers *-(i)j* and *-ir* are clearly the MattokkiAndaandi cognates of Kordofan Nubian *-(V)j* and *-Vr,* so that their use as specialized verbal plural markers might go back to Proto-Nubian.
It may, however, be mentioned that in Nubian languages, few instances of the use of the same morpheme for the frequentative (plurality of events) and the verbal number (plurality of participants) are attested. Nobiin and Old Nubian are the only Nubian languages where *-(i)j* is attested as both a plural event and participant marker, as shown in (33).[^x20] Still, it is uncertain whether this was also the case in Proto-Nubian. In (34) from Karko, the plurality of participants is indicated by the vowel *ɛ̀* in the verbal stem *ʃɛ̀-* (the singular stem is *ʃù-*), whereas the plurality of events is marked independently by the suffix *-ʈɛ̀g.* It may happen that a verb exhibits three different stems in Karko: one for a singular participant, one for a plural participant, and one for plurality of action.[^x21] A conspicuous instance is the verb “call,” which is *òg-* with singular object, *ògór* for plural object, and *òʃór* for plural action, i.e., a distributive meaning “call one by one.” The suffix *-(V)ʃ* is a frequent number marker in Karko[^y4] and other Kordofan Nubian languages, and is doubtlessly a reflex of Proto-Nubian suffix *\*-(i)j*. Another verbal number marker, the most frequent, is *-Vr,* with a vowel that is subject to vowel harmony. It is obvious that *òʃór* is an assimilated compound derived from *\*og-ʃ-Vr.* The two verbal plural suffixes *-(V)ʃ* and *-Vr* are used successively in the same stem to express plurality of object and plurality of events respectively. A similar distribution of these two verbal extensions is paralleled in Andaandi, where *-(i)j* is used for frequentatives, whereas the suffix *-ir* is used to mark the plurality of participants (only objects in this language).[^38] The markers *-(i)j* and *-ir* are clearly the MattokkiAndaandi cognates of Kordofan Nubian *-(V)j* and *-Vr,* so that their use as specialized verbal plural markers might go back to Proto-Nubian.
[^38]: See Jakobi, Ibrahim & Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle,” §2, with further references, particularly Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§2880f, 3031f.
[^y4]: Ibid., p. 128.
@ -1195,7 +1195,7 @@ Eide, Tormod, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce & László Török, eds. *![F
Eide, Tormod, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce & László Török, eds. *![Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Between the 8th Century BC and the 6th AD, vol. III: From the First to the Sixth Century AD.](bibeed1f28f-04a2-4b0a-8968-b77203337933)* Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1998.
El-Guzuuli, El-Shafie. ![“The Uses and Orthography of the Verb 'Say' in Andaandi.”](bib9d925214-829a-4417-9779-7b2707d97b1b) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 91107. [doi]({sc}): [10.5070/D62110010](https://doi.org/10.5070/D62110010).
El-Guzuuli, El-Shafie. ![“The Uses and Orthography of the Verb 'Say' in Andaandi (Nile Nubian).”](bib9d925214-829a-4417-9779-7b2707d97b1b) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 91107. [doi]({sc}): [10.5070/D62110010](https://doi.org/10.5070/D62110010).
El-Nazir, Mustafa. *Major Word Categories in Mararit.* MA Thesis, University of Cologne, 2016.

Loading…
Cancel
Save