Paper 6
Contents |
- 1. Introduction
- 2. GPA Verb Forms and the System of Aspect
- 3. Non-singulative (≡GPR) Forms
- 4. Stative/Qualitative Verbs
- 5. Participial Forms
- 6. Derived Verb Forms
- 7. Systems of Number and Gender
- 8. Pronominal Systems
- 9. Lexicon
- Bibliography
- Bibliographical Abbreviations
- Footnotes
1. Introduction
1.1 From a Semitic perspective the initially most striking characteristic of the Berber verbal system is the similarity between the conjugations of Akkadian GPA and GPR patterns iprus vs iparras, and those of the very common Berber pattern ifrus vs ifarres, as cited for example by Moscati at al.1 For as can be seen from Table 1, with the exception of the 1s form the Berber subject pronominal prefixes can readily be reconciled with those of the Semitic languages. On the other hand the suffixed morphemes of pronoun/number are more of a problem (Table 2) ; for instance, whereas phonemes n and m of the Berber 2p and 3p suffixes are to some extent reminiscent of their GPE-form equivalents in the Semitic languages (bracketed n in the table), and final t of the 2fp and 3fp forms, although absent from any Semitic language, is explicable in the general context of the marking of the feminine in Berber, morphemes əḍ2 and ġ of the 2s and 1s forms are not paralleled in the equivalent Semitic GP forms. However, as the same morphemes also occur in Berber verbs of quality it is not impossible that analogy may have operated to map these morphemes from the latter onto the former in substitution for, or in addition to, the original Semitic morphemes. For verbs of quality refer to Section 4 below.
Table 1 Prefixed Pronoun Morphemes
Be | Ak | Ug | BHb | AA | LAr | Ge | Bd | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3ms | yə | i | y | yi | yi | ya | yə | i |
3fs | tə | (ta) | t | ti | ti | ta | tə | ti |
2ms | tə | ta | t | ti | ti | ta | tə | ti |
2fs | ||||||||
1s | - | a | ’a/i | ’e | ’a | ’a | ’ə | ’a |
3mp | ə | i | y/t | yi | yi | ya | yə | i |
3fp | t | ti | ||||||
2mp | tə | ta | t | ti | ti | ta | tə | ti |
2fp | ||||||||
1p | nə | ni | n | ni | ni | na | nə | ni |
Table 2 Suffixed Morphemes of Number and Gender
Be | Ak | Ug | BHb | AA | LAr | Ge | Bd | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3ms | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
3fs | - | (-) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
2ms | əḍ | - | - | - | - | - | - | a |
2fs | ī | ? | ī | īn | ī | ī | i | |
1s | ġ | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
3mp | ən | ū | ? | ū(n) | ū(n) | ū(n) | ū | na |
3fp | ənt | ā | ? | nā | ān | na | ā | |
2mp | əm | ā | ? | ū(n) | ū(n) | ū(n) | ū | na |
2fp | əmt | ? | nā | ān | na | ā | ||
1p | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
1.2 Study MPSVS3 explores the conjecture that subject pronouns prefixed to the verb were an innovation in the Semitic language family. In ACSE4,this hypothesis is supported by evidence from Egyptian and, again in MPSVS, algorithms are proposed to suggest how Semitic prefixing verb forms and Egyptian śdm.f and śdm.n.f forms could have evolved from a common pre-Semitic original lacking subject pronouns.
1.3 This hypothesis, rejecting as it does the conjecture that prefixing verb forms descend from a supposed common ‘Afroasiatic’ original,5 entails that every language displaying verb forms with Semitic-type prefixed subject pronouns must, if not Semitic, either incorporate a Semitic component or have borrowed from some Semitic language. For instance, in BdSL6 it is argued that ‘Cushitic’ language Beḍawiē is an example of the former and that Cushitic languages displaying only a small number of prefixing verb forms, such as the Agaw-language Awngi, are examples of the latter. Thus if the ‘common Afroasiatic’ hypothesis for the origin of the prefixing verb form is incorrect - as the linguistic, climatic and genetic data presented in TAF would suggest - than at least some of the similarities between Berber and Semitic verb forms can be most readily accounted for by proposing that Berber and the Semitic languages share a common history, at least in part ; expressed more directly, that Berber is to some degree a Semitic language.
1.4 But if this is so, how does Berber come to have its current distribution, separated geographically and linguistically from the ‘original’ Semitic-speaking areas by Egypt?7 On the basis of language, climate, N. African rock art showing chariots, and the evidence of Egyptian history, the likliest ‘window of opportunity’ for ancestors of the Berbers to have migrated into N. Africa from Western Asia would appear to have been the Hyksos period and thereafter, i.e. at around 1700 BCE8 But on the other hand the DNA and linguistic evidence suggest that the Berbers almost certainly originate in a number of distinct ethnic groups, of which Semites would have been only one.9 Thus if the conjectured Semitic origin of the Berber language is correct it would appear that Semites were able to impose important features of their language on the whole of the region, perhaps much as a relatively small number of Arabs were later able to do after the rise of Islam.10
2. GPA Verb Forms and the System of Aspect
2.1 The initially impressive match between Berber and Akkadian verb forms masks the fact that Berber not only exhibits an extensive range of ‘habituative’ GP verb patterns other than ifarres (see Section 3) but also that generic GPA form ifrus embraces from one to three morphologically distinct forms, the details (not to say terminology) varying from dialect to dialect. For example, Kabyle GPA forms can be analysed along the dimensions ‘preterite vs preterite negative vs aorist’, where stem ḥess ‘listen’ is unchanged in all three forms but krez ‘work’ displays two patterns, (3ms) yekrez (≡ ifrus) serving to express the ‘preterite’ and ‘aorist’, and (ur) yekriz which is the ‘preterite negative’. Then again, in verbs such as ali ‘go up’ the preterite and preterite negative forms are identical (yuli) but the aorist is yali.11 Preterite and aorist are argued by some to originate in distinct forms, a position to some extent supported by their differing synchronic functions.12
2.2 Several investigators consider the Berber verb essentially to reflect a 3-term aspect system, of which the 3ms forms of ‘regular’ Kabyle triradical root krz are :13
Aorist | yekrez |
Preterite | yekrez |
Habituative | ikerrez |
The functions of these forms are defined by Naït-Zerrad as follows:14
- The aorist "in general takes the sense of an injunctive and/or optative but may also express a sequence of actions or processes in narration" (p36). In addition, when preceded by particle ad, "it expresses a wish, a condition, an exhortation, a threat or merely the future." (p37).
- The preterite "expresses a process achieved, realised or completed" (p38).
- The habituative (Naït-Zerrad’s aorist intensive) "...represents an action or process which is in progress" (p39).
2.3 In Section 2 of ACSE it is argued that the various functions of GPA- and GPE-form prefixing verbs in the Semitic languages can without serious difficulty be analysed as originating in the aspect elements <singulative> and <non-singulative> proposed for Common Semitic in ACSE Section 1. The functions of the Berber ‘aorist’ and ‘habituative’ forms can fairly readily be reconciled with <singulative> and <non-singulative> respectively, but ‘preterite’, to the extent that it is analysable as expressing an element <resultative>, appears at first sight to conflict with the proposals in ACSE. But <resultative> is taken to be diachronically secondary to <singulative> in Semitic (ACSE §1.5) and the same may also be true of Berber, such that the ‘aorist’ at some point came to be distinguished from ‘preterite’ by becoming restricted to expressing non-declarative components of element <singulative>, along with consecutive sequences. As noted above, this analysis is supported by the fact that many Berber verb types have identical aorist and preterite forms, although it must be said that verb types with aorist and preterite forms distinguished by apophony is characterisitc of a further substantial set.15
2.4 The situation in Kabyle appears to be matched in varying degrees in other Berber dialects. For example in Tamazight ‘unablauted’ verbs all three forms are identical whereas in ‘ablauted’ stems the aorist matches the preterite negative but not the preterite proper.16
2.5 Should the conjecture of a common origin for the non-declarative functions of the Berber aorist and the Semitic jussive be valid then the fact that a prefixing verb form is used to deny the past in Ugaritic, Hebrew, Akkadian and Classical Arabic could be taken to suggest that the Berber preterite negative may also share a common origin with the aorist, and that differences in vocalisation, although remaining to be explained, may be secondary rather than primary.17 Therefore as a working hypothesis the Berber preterite, aorist and preterite negative forms will be taken to originate in the Common Semitic GPA form expressing aspect element <singulative>.
3. Non-singulative (≡GPR) Forms
3.1 Advocates of the hypothesis that the aorist and preterite forms were originally distinct see the aorist intensive (form ikerrez and its equivalents) as a secondary formation and therefore perhaps not diachronically relateable to Akkadian iparras. On the other hand, like iparras, in terms of the hypothesis explored in ACSE Section 3, ikerrez is analysable as a GPR form expressing <non-singulative> aspect. But Akkadian iparras is there argued to originate in an older form with reduplicated stem, which latter appear to be rare in Akkadian (ACSE §3.5), in contrast to Berber, where reduplicated stems are common. This could suggest that the history of the Berber GPR form might more parallel that of the N. Ethiosemitic GPR form, which in all probability originates in a prefixing form of type *yiqáber, where the shift in stress from an earlier yáqburu eventually resulted in gemination of the second radical (ACSE §3.2).
3.2 But the range of ≡GPR form types expressing <non-singulative> aspect in Berber is considerably greater than in any Semitic language, for pattern yekrez vs ikerrez, although one of the two most common, is only one of many. In essence, the majority of verbs generate their aorist intensive by preposing a (superordinate) dental morpheme T1 to the stem, where in Kabyle T1 = {t, ṭ, ṭṭ}, typically accompanied by apophony of the stem vowels in the case of ‘irregular’ verbs.18 Among these, Nait-Zerrad’s Type 8 (on which see further below) is as common as Type 1. Kabyle verb types whose aorist-intensive forms do not incorporate prefixed T1 are confined for the most part to those listed in Table 3 below, although only 40% of these do not also have an alternative in T1. In each case the first total (A) in Table 3 is the number of verbs without a variant in T1 and the second total (B) is that of all forms of the particular type, with or without T1.19 The morpheme strings are 3ms throughout, the subject pronoun being ye when prefixed to a consonant cluster (yekrez) and i when prefixed to a single consonant (ikerrez).
Table 3 Verb Types with GPR Form Lacking Morpheme T1
Type | ≡GPR | ≡GPA | A | B |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ikerrez | yekrez | 432 | 757 |
2 | yeggar | iger | 10 | 19 |
5 | yesskan | yessken | 6 | 14 |
9 | yetteftif | yetteftef | 33 | 355 |
14 | iderri | yedri | 27 | 60 |
34 | yejlujjul | yejlujul | 17 | 160 |
122 | igemm | igem | 9 | 11 |
126 | ibeddu | yebdu | 104 | 115 |
3.3 In Ayt Ayache, Naït-Zerrad’s Type 1 comprises mainly Berber roots together with a relatively small number of Arabic loans, where phonological rules determine which of the latter can be Type 1 (RGT p177). In the Ayt Ayache data Type 14 verbs are included with Type 1, and Type 2 comprises some of Abedel-Massih’s roots 371-397 (RGT p279/280, also p178), which latter appear to be almost exclusively Berber. Type 5 and Type 122 verbs are not discussed in RGT, nor are reduplicates (Types 9 and 34).
3.4 With the partial exception of Types 122 and 126 the Kabyle verbs in Table 3 have identical preterite and aorist forms and are thus ‘regular’.20 On the basis of their stem patterns these verb types can be grouped together roughly as follows:
Type 1 can be grouped (weakly) with type 5 (strong triradical root).
Type 2 can be grouped with Type 122 (biradical root).
Type 9 can be grouped (weakly) with type 34 (reduplicated root).
Type 14 can be grouped with type 126 (III-weak).
3.5 Berber biradical stems divide between those which are ‘pure’ and those where ‘consonant pressure’ is applied so that one or other radical is in effect geminate. Pure and geminate types are listed in Tables 4 and 5 respectively, where GPA(A) and GPA(P) denote aorist and preterite forms respectively. With the exception of Types 2 and 122 (Table 3) the associated ≡ GPR forms all utilise prefix T1.21
Table 4 Pure Biradical Stems
Type | GPA(A) | GPA(P) | ≡GPR | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
2 | iger | iger | yeggar | 18 |
21 | iġil | iġil | yeṭġil | 5 |
30 | inuj | inuj | yeṭnuj(u) | 44 |
43 | iqam | iqam | yeṭqam(a) | 50 |
79 | ilal | ilul | yeṭlal(a) | 5 |
83 | imil | imal | yeṭmil | 6 |
12222 | isew | yeswa | itess | 12 |
143 | ijab | ijuba | yetjab(a(y)) | 2 |
Table 5 Geminating Biradicals
Type | GPA(A) | GPA(P) | ≡GPR | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
3 | yeffer | yeffer | iteffer | 71 |
4 | iḥess | iḥess | yetḥessis | 22 |
22 | iġill | iġill | yeṭġill | 2 |
23 | yeqqim | yeqqim | yeṭġim(i) | 5 |
31 | yennum | yennum | yeṭnumu | 24 |
32 | ibudd | ibudd | yeṭbudd(u(y)) | 47 |
44 | yekkaw | yekkaw | yeṭkaw | 32 |
45 | iqadd | iqadd | yeṭqadda | 2 |
80 | yennam | yennum | yeṭnam | 12 |
81 | imass | imuss | yeṭmassa | 6 |
84 | iqiss | iqass | yeṭqiss(i) | 11 |
117 | ibibb | ibubb | yeṭbibb(i) | 2 |
121 | yemmet | yemmut | yeṭmeṭṭat | 1 |
124 | iġeẓẓ | iġeẓẓa | yeṭṭeġẓaẓ | 1 |
3.6 It will be seen that certain ≡GPR forms in Tables 4 and 5 incorporate a final vowel. This vowel is sometimes integral to the form, as for example Kabyle yeṭšuḥu (Type 30), but is more commonly optional, e.g. yeṭnuj(u), also Type 30 (Table 4). The value of this vowel is normally, but by no means always, that of the preceding stem vowel,23 thus:
ešudd | vs | yetšuddu | (type 32) | |
eḍill | vs | yeṭḍilli | (type 84) | |
efaz | vs | yeṭfaza | (type 43) |
Another common phenomenon in the Kabyle verb is final y, either added directly to an ≡GPR stem terminating in a vowel, as for example yebri vs iberri/yeṭṭebray (Type 14), or added to a final vowel of the type discussed above, as for example yeṭbudd(u(y)) (Type 32).
3.7 In the Cushitic-Semitic language Beḍawiē, originally ‘reflexive’ forms incorporating a t-based morpheme have commonly replaced original GPE forms24 and it must be suspected that something similar has occurred in Berber. The ubiquity of Kabyle <non-singulative> forms with prefixed T1 is instanced by Type 8, pattern iwelleh vs yeT1wellih (MCK p71), which with 753 examples is as common as Type 1, although it would appear from the Ayt Ayache data (see below) that Type 8 in fact mainly comprises Arabic loans and includes only a few Berber roots.25 Also very common is Kabyle Type 9 (355 examples), which generally exhibits prefixed T1 and is frequently either quadriradical, for example yennezgem vs yeṭnezgim (200+ examples) or a reduplicated biradical (yebbeḥbeḥ vs yeṭbeḥbiḥ (130+ examples).
3.8 For Ayt Ayache, approximately 150 Berber roots with T1 are listed in RGT, dividing almost equally between transitive and intransitive, in contrast to GPR forms of type ikerrez, of which 72% are transitive. Arabic loans comprise about 55% of all Ayt Ayache roots taking T1 (RGT p262-282) and these constitute the vast majority of Arabic roots of all morphological types, those without T1 being very much the exception (§3.3 above). Most Arabic roots in Ayt Ayache are (in Naït-Zerrad’s terms) either Type 8 or Type 76.26
4. Stative/Qualitative Verbs
4.1 Occurring in Kabyle and Tuareg, but apparently uncommon elsewhere, is a class of verbs termed ‘stative/qualitative’ (Nait-Zerrad’s Types 151 to 169). These verbs have common preterite and preterite negative forms which, for mellul ‘be white’, are conjugated as shown in Table 6, accompanied for comparison by the Akkadian permansive and Egyptian old perfective paradigms.27 There is little difficulty in reconciling the singular forms of the Berber, Akkadian and Egyptian paradigms, but the Kabyle plural paradigm has reduced to a single form and, if comparison with the Akkadian and Egyptian paradigms is valid, Tuareg has substituted the suffixes of the regular verb in its plural forms.
Table 6 Stative / Qualitative Verb Paradigms
Kabyle | Tuareg | Akkadian | Egyptian | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1s | mellul-eġ | mellul-eġ | qabrā-ku | sdm-kwì |
2ms | mellul-eḍ | mellul-ed | qabrā-ta | sdm-tì |
2fs | qabrā-ti | |||
3ms | mellul | mellul | qabir | sdm-(w) |
3fs | mellul-et | ? | qabr-at | sdm-tì |
1p | mellul-it | mellul | qabrā-nu | sdm-wyn |
2mp | mellul-it | mellul-em | qabrā-tunu | sdm-tìwny |
2fp | mellul-met | qabrā-tina | ||
3mp | mellul-it | mellul-en | qabr-ū | sdm-(w) |
3fp | qabr-ā | sdm-tì |
5. Participial Forms
5.1 Berber participial forms may be ‘preterite’, ‘aorist’ or ‘habituative’ and display patterns of apophony comparable with those of the verb generally, as for example Kabyle (Type 122) ‘aorist’ participle ye-sw-en, ‘preterite’ ye-sw-an and ‘habtiuative’ i-tess-en (MCK p185). Prefixes ye- and i- are identical to those of 3ms forms of the verb, and may perhaps have been introduced into the participle by analogy. Depending on dialect, the participles are to some extent declinable for gender and number.28 In dialects with plural forms, morpheme -(v)n is added to the initial -(v)n, as for example ‘Central Moroccan’ kerz-n-in (MCK p22) ; this morpheme is of course reminiscent, for example, of Hebrew and Arabic masculine plurals in -īm and -ūn / -īn.
5.2 A Berber participle is typically used where the subject of a main clause is relativised or interrogated, as for example argaz i-dda-n ‘the man who has left’ (GdB p88). Thus the initial suffixed –(v)n is reminiscent of the n-based morpheme affixed to Assyrian (‘subjunctive’) forms in relative constructions, although this parallel is more likely to be coincidence than attributable to any diachronic relationship. Indeed, note the general absence of compatibility between the Berber and Semitic participial forms.
6. Derived Verb Forms
6.1 Berber deriving morphemes are prefixed to their stem,29 so that in this respect also, Berber is more closely related to Common Semitic and Egyptian than to mainstream Cushitic, Omotic and Chadic, where deriving morphemes are suffixed to their stem. Both morphologically and functionally Berber deriving morphemes are those common in both Sigmatic and non-Sigmatic languages (TAF §6.1), namely S, M and T2, where generally, in Kabyle:30
S = {s, sse, ssu}
M = {m, my(e), myu}
T2 = {ṭw(a/i), ṭṭ(e/u), ṭ}31
6.2 In Kabyle the S-form deriving morpheme is not infrequently š or šš rather than s, and occasionally also jj or zz. S-forms typically differentiate <singulative> and <non-singulative> by apophony, as for example (3ms) yesdukel (SPA) vs yesdukul (SPB). However quite frequently suffix (v)y is introduced, either in addition to or instead of apophony, where v = {a, i, u} ; for example yesdull vs yesdulluy. Final y substitutes for apophony particularly where the associated SPA form ends in a vowel, as for example yesfafa vs yesfafay.32
6.3 The foregoing summary is also good for T2-forms, except that suffix (v)y seems usually to substitute for apophony, rather than being in addition to it. In some instances the deriving morpheme is simply t, preposed directly to the stem, as for example yetbeḥḥer (TPA) vs yetbeḥḥir (TPB), compared with say yeṭṭuderreq vs yeṭṭuderraq.
6.4 M-forms expressing <non-singulative> aspect typically display the structure T1.M.א.en, where א denotes the stem, as for example yeṭṭemšenšalen vs yemšenšal (MPA).33 Morpheme -en is of course reminiscent of morpheme –un proposed as the marker of the GPE form in Common Semitic,34 but quite apart from the fact that Semitic <singulative> and <non-singulative> derived forms are generally distinguished by apophony, Berber -en precedes the suffixed subject-pronominal elements, as for example teṭṭembeḥḥat-en-em (2mp) vs yembeḥḥat (3s), where the latter is the equivalent MPA form. There would of course be no difficulty in proposing a hypothesis to account for such forms, particularly as the equivalent 3ms <non-singulative> form (yeṭṭembeḥḥaten) is rather more reminiscent of the structure proposed for Common Semitic GPE-forms. A number of M-forms have n rather than m as their deriving phoneme and their <non-singulative> forms further differ from the majority in that they generally (but not always) lack morpheme en, as for example yenhezz (MPA) vs yeṭṭenhazz (MPB).
6.5 As noted above, morpheme T1 is phonetically identical to T2 and, at least in Ayt Ayache, <non-singulative> G-forms incorporating morpheme T are distinguished from the (passive) T-form only by the presence in the latter of phoneme u, thus stem ttslil (≡GPR) vs ttuslil (≡GPR passive), ‘rinse’ vs ‘be rinsed’ ; the same is true of Ayt Hasan, where the passive morpheme is tia.35 This could be taken to suggest that the two forms have a common origin, as is almost certainly the case in Semito-Cushitic Beḍawiē, where the reflexive and passive <non-singulative> forms are identical.36 An alternative explanation is offered by Lipiński, who compares the Berber morpheme with Egyptian passive morpheme tw, even though the latter is suffixed to its stem rather than prefixed.37
6.6 Thus, despite the many detail differences between the Berber and Semitic derived verb forms, the corespodences at the more general level are quite encouraging.
7. Systems of Number and Gender
7.1 Number (Nominal)
7.1.1 Masculine plurals are formed either by changing the vowel pattern of the singular or by changing the vowel pattern and suffixing an n-based morpheme (compare the plural form of the participle in §5.1). Of the first type Sadiqi cites the masculine forms asrdun (s) vs isrdan (p) ‘mule’ (GdB p109) and of the second type adar (s) vs idarn (p) ‘foot’ and awal (s) vs awaliwn (p) ‘word’ (p110),38 where in the first two examples initial i- is a further marker of plurality. Lipiński (OCG §31.28) also cites broken plurals marked by final –a, for example zlaf vs zlufa ‘rush’. Feminine broken plurals are on the pattern t-asrdun-t (s) vs t-isrdan (p) ‘female mules’ and feminine sound plurals have t-amkkar-t (s) vs t-imkkar-in ‘(p) female thief’, where final –t in the singular is replaced by –in.39
7.1.2 Lipiński (OCG §31.10) argues that the Semitic masculine sound plural was originally (nominative) ūm (or ūn), where the consonant is taken to represent mimation/nunation, reducing in Akkadian and Egyptian to –ū. Berber masculine plural morpheme –(v)n can readily be related to Semitic –(V)n or –(V)m - but compare the Akkadian (nominative) sound plural ānu (OCG §31.12), which could also suggest a possible origin for the Berber form. The feminine sound plural may be a consequence of extending the masculine sound plural morpheme to feminine forms and abandoning original feminine plural morpheme -āt.
7.1.3 The list of nouns in RGT (p96ff) suggests that singular nouns with initial a- predominate and cases where a- is followed by a consonant cluster may well reflect metathesis of the original initial vowel; for example akddam ‘labourer’, a Berber form of Arabic kaddām. If this is a general diachronic principle in Berber it may then be that the initial i- of the plural forms is also a secondary development, so that sound plurals were perhaps originally marked only by final –(v)n.
7.2 ‘Construct’ State
7.2.1 Singular masculine nouns such as a-srdun and a-dar are described as being in the ‘free’ state (GdB p109) and are paralleled by what are termed ‘construct’ forms u-srdun and u-dar. The latter forms (and their feminine equivalents) are used:
- When the noun is subject and follows its verb, as for example iffġ u-rgaz ‘the man left’.
- In genitive constructions, for example taddart u-rgaz ‘the house of the man’.40
- When the noun follows a numeral or a preposition.41
7.2.2 Although at first sight the initial vowel of the masculine noun might appear to be related to the definite article in Hebrew or Arabic, in principle there is no definite article in Berber (GdB p142/3). It may be that this vowel is an ancient feature, for Lipiński argues (OCG §32.1) that the noun states reflect the fact that Berber is an ergative language, marking ‘agent case’ (u) and ‘patient case (a < i) in word-initial position, and as such reflecting the ‘diptotic’ case system in Semitic (OCG §32.2). But the obvious problem with this conjecture is that it is difficult to perceive any sense of ‘agent’ in the second and third applications of the construct state, even allowing for secondary developments in use.
7.3 Gender
7.3.1 Feminine gender in Berber is marked by prefixing and suffixing morpheme t, as ; arba ‘boy’ vs t-arba-t ‘girl’ (GdB p112). Final –t is probably the Sigmatic feminine marker (see TAF §6.3) but initial t- is a Berber innovation which on the face of it appears to serve no useful purpose. However, on Lipiński’s hypothesis that the noun-state prefixes reflect original ergative case markers, feminine t- may have been copied into word-initial position to reinforce the putative case markers.
8. Pronominal Systems
8.1 Independent Personal Pronouns
8.1.1 Independent personal pronouns for three Berber dialects are set out in Table 7, along with the equivalent Babylonian, Arabic and Egyptian forms.42 Although some Berber forms clearly descend from common Sigmatic originals the details of their wider correspondences are complex. The Berber ls forms can readily be related to the equivalent Babylonian and Egyptian forms, whereas the lp forms are closer to W. Semitic, Arabic naḥnu being an example ; the 1fp forms appear to be a Berber innovation, and probably early, although they do not occur in all dialects (MCK p27). Sequence nt in the Berber 3s and 3p forms is clearly not Semitic, but compare the equivalent sequence in the Egyptian 3s and 3p forms - albeit that nt occurs in all Egyptian independent pronouns other than ls and lp. The Berber second person forms (excluding the Ait Ayache 2s morphemes43) at first sight appear to be based on suffixed pronouns,44 as also is the case in all Egyptian forms except ls and lp, although the Berber forms may originate in combined suffixed and attenuated independent pronouns. Thus as well as displaying a number of Semitic features it is possible that the Berber system has to some extent been influenced by the Egyptian system (or even vice versa), and by some N. African aboriginal language.
Table 7 Selected Independent Personal Pronouns
Person | Kabyle | Ait Hassan | Ait Ayache | Tuareg | Babylonian | Arabic | Egyptian |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1s | nekk(i)(ni) | nkk-in | nkk-(in) | nk | anāku | ‘ana | ink |
2ms | kečč(i)(ni) | kiyy-in | šgg | kay | atta | ‘anta | nt-k |
2fs | kemm(i)(ni) | kmm-in | šmm | km | atti | ‘anti | nt-č |
3ms | neṭṭa(n) | ntt-a | ntt-a | nt-a | šū | huwa | nt-f |
3fs | neṭṭat | ntt-at | ntt-at | šī | hiya | nt-s | |
1mp | nekn-i | nukkn-i | nqnn-i | nkkan-i | nīnu | naḥnu | in-n |
1fp | nekken-ti | nkkan-ti | |||||
2mp | ken-wi | kun-nimi | qnni | kaw-ni | attunu | ‘antum | nt-čn |
2fp | kenn-emti | kun-imti | qnninti | kama-ti | attina | ‘antunna | |
3mp | nu(i)t-ni | nut-ni | nit-ni | nta-ni | šunu | hum | nt-sn |
3fp | nu(i)t-enti | nut-nti | nit-nti | nta-nti | šinu | hunna |
8.2 Direct Object Pronouns
8.2.1 Direct object pronouns for the dialects/languages utilised in Table 7 are set out in Table 8.45 Most of the Berber forms are self-evidently Sigmatic (for proposed non-Sigmatic forms see Table 3 in TAF §6.2.8), so that none can be identified as specifically Semitic. However, note the 2fs forms and the Tuareg 2p forms, which appear to suggest m as some kind of feminine marker not occurring elsewhere in Sigmatic. Ait Hassan and Ait Ayache 1p form –aġ seems at first glance not to be Sigmatic, but alternative Kabyle form (a)naġ suggests that the equivalent independent 1p pronoun may be a source for these forms, although the differences between the suffixed and independent forms would remain to be accounted for.46 Tuareg 1p –na may reflect the original Berber form or could have been taken from Arabic.
Table 8 Selected Direct Object Pronouns
Person | Kabyle | Ait Hassan | Ait Ayache | Tuareg | Babylonian | Arabic | Egyptian |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1s | -yi | -yyi | -i | -iyi | -nī | -nī | -i |
2ms | -k | -k | -š | -k | -ka | -ka | -k |
2fs | -kem | -km | -šm | -m | -ki | -ki | -č |
3ms | -t | -t | -t | -s/-t | -šu | -hu | -f |
3fs | -t | -tt | -tt | -ša | -hā | -s | |
1p | -(a)ġ/-(a)naġ | -aġ | -aġ | -na | -na | -nā | -n |
2mp | -kwen | -kn | -qn | -wm | -kun | -kum | -čn |
2fp | -kwent | -knt | -qnt | -wmt | -kin | -kunna | |
3mp | -ten | -yyin | -tn | -sn/-tn | -šun | -hum | -sn |
3fp | -tent | -yyint | -tnt | -snt/-tnt | -šin | -hunna |
8.3 Demonstrative Pronouns
8.3.1 Independent demonstrative pronouns for three Berber dialects along with selected other languages are set out in Table 9.47 These data suggest prefixed t- as a common and presumably Sigmatic element in the feminine forms, and perhaps w- or u- in masculine forms. An n-based morpheme also forms part of the Akkadian, Beḍawiē and Egyptian near deictics but, in contrast, forms part of the Berber far deictics. Note also the n-element in Beḍawiē masculine and Egyptian plural far deictics although, on the basis of the Akkadian forms, all these may result from a shift l → n.
Table 9 Independent Demonstrative Pronouns
Ait Hassan | Ait Ayache | Tuareg | Beḍawiē (Nominative) | Akkadian | Arabic | Egyptian | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Near | |||||||
ms | wa(d) | wa | ūn | annū(m) | (hā)dā | pw, pwy, pn | |
fs | ta(d) | ta | tūn | annītu(m) | (hā)dihi | tw , twy, tn | |
mp | wi(d) | wi | ān | ann(i)ūtu(m) | (hā)’ulā’i | nw, nn | |
fp | ti(d) | ti | tān | ann(i)ātu(m) | |||
Far | |||||||
ms | wan(hut) | wann | wu/wa | bēn | ullū(m) | dālika | pf, pfy |
fs | tan(hut) | tann | tu/ta | bēt | ullītu(m) | tilka | tf |
mp | win(hut) | winn | win | balīn | ullūtu(m) | ‘ulā’ika | nf |
fp | tin(hut) | tinn | tin | balīt | ull(i)ātu(m) |
8.3.2 Optional element d in the Ait Hassan near deictics is reminiscent of Semitic dental-based elements (OCG p328/9), but how widespread is this morpheme in Berber and can it be shown not to be an Arabic loan?48 Ait Ayache has a variant form –ddġ for the suffixed demonstrative, but is the dd element related to the Ait Hassan morpheme?
9. Lexicon
9.1 Swadesh Listing
9.1.1 A Swadesh analysis based on around 170 items in the Kabyle lexicon yielded 44 (about 26%) that with greater or lesser confidence can be associated with equivalents in the Semitic languages, and 26 (15%) with items in the Egyptian lexicon ; these totals are skewed somewhat by the fact that 12 (7%) of the relevant items are in effect Sigmatic and thus common to both Semitic and Egyptian. When the weaker correlates are excluded the totals effectively reduce to 18% Semitic and 10% Egyptian. Of course a problem is to distinguish originally Sigmatic/Common Semitic/Egyptian words from possible Punic (?) or relatively late Arabic loans. But a potentially useful check on the latter is where a Kabyle word has a Tuareg equivalent (as listed in J-M Dallet’s Dictionnaire Kabyle-Français [DKF]), the latter dialect being generally assumed to have incorporated fewer Arabic loans than the former.
9.1.2 Among Kabyle items taken to be more strongly correlated with Sigmatic equivalents are iles ‘tongue’ (also Tuareg) vs Semitic *lišān vs Egyptian ns ; aman ‘water’ vs Semitic *ma’u vs Egyptian mw ; yemma ‘mother’ (Tuareg ma) vs Semitic *’umm vs Egyptian mwt. Among items with an apparently Semitic correlate are Kabyle summ ‘suck’ (Tuareg sūmem) vs Semitic *mṣṣ ; jen ‘sleep’ (Tuareg egen) vs Semitic *yšn. Although there are so far no compelling direct Berber-Egyptian correlates, among possible matches are iġes ‘bone’ (Tuareg iṛes) vs Egyptian qs ; aḍaṛ ‘foot’ (Tuareg aḍer) vs Egyptian rd ; dwi ‘push’ vs Egyptian wdi.
9.2 Verb Forms Common to Kabyle and Tuareg
9.2.1 Introduction
9.2.1 A listing of verbs common to Kabyle and Tuareg, based on the entries in DKF and the classification of Kabyle verbs in MCK, yielded totals for the various Kabyle patterns identified by Nait-Zerad as shown in Table 10, ignoring types with only one attested example ; the ≡GPA forms cited are Kabyle. The assumption underlying this exercise was that verbs common to both dialects are more likely to be original to Berber rather than loans from Arabic or elsewhere ; note that only a few of these verbs are assigned an Arabic correlate in DKF. Semitic (and Egyptian) correlates have been proposed for certain of these forms, the more convincing examples being shown in Table 11.
Table 10 Verb Types Common to Kabyle and Tuareg
Type | ≡GPA | Total | Type | ≡GPA | Total | Type | ≡GPA | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | yekrez | 58 | 34 | yejlujjul | 14 | 108 | yursun | 2 |
2 | iger | 12 | 39 | yeġġunžer | 4 | 112 | yulwu | 2 |
3 | yeddez | 21 | 54 | yeffudi | 3 | 122 | igem | 7 |
8 | inežžes | 3 | 58 | yuGal | 2 | 123 | yerr | 13 |
9 | yetteftef | 11 | 63 | yader | 7 | 126 | yebdu | 13 |
12 | yefferkekk | 4 | 66 | yawi | 2 | 130 | yiġlil | 3 |
14 | yedri | 10 | 71 | yagad | 2 | 137 | yili | 2 |
30 | iluġ | 2 | 80 | yennam | 3 | 156 | yiwzil | 3 |
32 | isumm | 2 | 87 | yenkikez | 4 | 159 | yiswir | 2 |
9.2.2 These common verb types comprise only a small subset of the total number of types in Kabyle, so that, at the present time, postulated correspondences between Berber and Semitic verbs cannot formally be separated from chance. On a more positive note, just over half the verbs in Table 10 are of types where there is a ≡GPR option without phoneme T1 (see Table 1). Whether this is also due to chance or whether these ≡GPR patterns are older and thus more likely to occur in older correlates seems impossible to say.
Table 11 Kabyle/Tuareg Verbs with Apparent Semitic Cognates
Semitic | Kabyle | Type | Sense |
---|---|---|---|
Strong Roots | |||
Hb (prs) | yebrez | 1 | separate ; divide |
Ar (frj) | yefrej | 1 | cut off ; separate |
Ge (kmr) | yejmer | 1 | gather ; accumulate |
Ar (kmš) | yečmez | 1 | scratch |
Ar (qrḍ) | yeġwed | 1 | cut |
Ar (jrm) | yerġem | 1 | injure |
Ar (dás) | yeddez | 3 | pound ; crush |
Hb (mrḥ) | yemri | 14 | rub |
Hb (rgá) | iluġ | 30 | b disturbed ; disturb |
Ar (hdl) | yader | 63 | lower ; descend |
Ar (ḥnf) | yanef | 63 | bend sideways ; turn aside |
Hb (ḥsr) | yaṣar | 63 | lose ; b lacking |
Hb (láṭ) | yellaẓ | 80 | swallow greedily ; b hungry |
Hb (rkš) | yenkikez | 87 | keep moving ; move |
Ar (šár) | yissin | 125 | know |
Hb (rkb) | yerku | 126 | rot |
Ar (rḥḍ) | yirid | 130 | wash ; b washed |
Hb (7áṣl) | yaẓay | 153 | b sluggish ; b slow |
I-n Roots | |||
Ar (nkz) | iġez | 2 | hollow out ; bore into |
Hb (ntr) | eččer | 3 | get up ; spring up |
Ar (nqá) | yerki | 14 | soak |
Hamzated Roots | |||
Ar (àkd) | yaġ | 70 | take |
Hb (dàg) | yagad | 71 | b afraid ; fear |
Hb (sbà) | isew | 122 | drink |
Se (àkl) | yečč | 123 | eat |
Geminate Roots | |||
Hb (gll) | ičwer | 2 | b rolled ; roll ay |
Ar (mdd) | imed | 2 | enlarge ; spread |
Ar (ḍbb) | yeṭṭef | 3 | seize ; tk hold of |
Ar (mzz) | isumm | 32 | suck |
Hb (dmm) | ssusem | 34 | keep silent |
Ar (tff) | isusef | 35 | spit |
Hb (hll) | yeflali | 58 | appear |
Ar (qll) | yeqqaR | 80 | b dry |
Ar (áḍḍ) | iġeẓẓ | 119 | bite |
Ar (rḍḍ) | yeṛẓ | 123 | crush ; shatter |
Hb (bdd) | yebḍu | 126 | divide |
Hb (rdd) | yendu | 126 | beat out ; b beaten |
I-Weak Roots | |||
Hb (yšn) | ijen | 2 | sleep |
Eg (wčs) | eččes | 3 | lift up |
II-Weak Roots | |||
Ar (kwn) | yuġal | 60 | become |
Se (ṣwm) | yuẓum | 108 | fast |
Se (mwt) | yemmet | 121 | die |
III-y Roots | |||
Ge (nṣy) | yenšew | 1 | b plucked ; pull out |
Ar (ndy) | yenži | 14 | b moist ; drip |
Hb (ály) | yali | 74 | climb ; ascend |
Hb (nky) | ineġ | 122 | smite ; kill |
Hb (kry) | iṛeġ | 122 | burn |
Hb (pṣy) | yefsu | 126 | open ; infasten |
Se (šny) | yičniw | 130 | (double) ; b a twin |
III-w Roots | |||
Hb (ṣbw) | išuff | 32 | b swollen |
Doubly-Weak Roots | |||
Se (àty) | yečč | 123 | come ; come fm |
yas | 140 | come | |
Quadriradicals | |||
Eg (nwdw) | yennegneg | 9 | swing ; swing away |
Ar (qrqá) | yeṛṛekṛek | 9 | crackle ; crack |
Ge (ḥnks) | yeġġunžer | 39 | b hooked ; b lame |
9.2.2 Correlates of Semitic Strong Verbs
9.2.3 From the discussion in Sections 2 and 3, it comes as no surprise that Kabyle Type 1 verbs (yekrez vs ikerrez) are prominent among the correlates in Table 11. However note that roots with a Semitic/Egyptian correlate incorporating a pharyngeal consonant tend to be absent from the Type 1 subset, such that where a Semitic correlate with a pharyngeal is postulated, as for example Hb mrḥ ‘rub’ or Ar ḥnf ‘bend’, the proposed Kabyle equivalents yemri (vs imerri) and yanef (vs yeṭṭanef) are formed on roots which in Semitic terms would be ‘weak’ ; the former is Type 14 and the latter Type 63, where the a of yanef may be a trace of the original pharyngeal. As will be seen from Table 11, other Kabyle verb types are conjectured to be equivalent to Semitic strong-roots with a pharyngeal in second position. Note also Hb rkb ‘rot’ correlating with Kabyle yerku vs irekku (Type 126), where final root consonant b appears to have reduced to u.
9.2.4 Semitic verbs with r1 = n have a ‘weak’ GPE paradigm in certain Semitic languages49 and there is evidence for the relative weakness of this consonant in Kabyle also, for example eččer vs yeṭṭenčer (Type 3) perhaps equivalent to Hb ntr ‘spring up’.50
9.2.3 Correlates of Semitic Weak Verbs
9.2.5 As will be seen from Table 11, Kabyle/Tuareg verbs with apparent Semitic correlates on weak roots are drawn from various Kabyle verb types. Of these, Types 14 and 126 have a final vowel, not dissimilar to the final vowel in the GPA forms of Semitic III-weak verbs; for example yenži vs inežži ‘drip’ (Type 14) equivalent perhaps to Ar rdy, and yefsu vs ifessu ‘stretch’ (Type 126) perhaps equivalent to Hb pṣy ‘open, part’. Associated with these is yali ‘climb’, equivalent to Hb ály, but whose ≡GPR form is yeṭṭali (Type 74) ; note also Type 122, as for example ineġ vs ineqq ‘kill’ possibly equivalent to Hb nky, assuming the final weak radical to have been lost.
9.2.6 Table 11 contains fewer examples of equivalents to I-weak and II-weak roots. There are two examples of the former of which ijen vs yejjan, apparently equivalent to Hb yšn ‘sleep’, is Type 2. Note also iččes vs iteččes (Type 3) perhaps equivalent to Eg wčs ‘lift up’. Of the three Kabyle verbs with II-weak equivalents, yuẓum vs yeṭṭuẓum ‘fast’ (Type 108), equivalent to Semitic ṣwm, appears to preserve traces of the medial w/u although this is not true of the other two examples yuġal ‘be, become’ (Type 60), perhaps equivalent to Arabic kwn and yemmet ‘die’ (Type 121) equivalent to Semitic mwt.
9.2.4 Correlates of Semitic Hamzated and Geminate Roots
9.2.7 Table 11 lists four Kabyke verbs with possible correlates in Semitic hamzated verbs, but of these perhaps only aġ (Tuareg aheṛ) vs yeṭṭaġ ‘take’ (Type 70), equivalent to Semitic àkd, is reasonably secure. Type 71 form yagad (vs yeṭṭagwad) ‘be afraid’, possibly equivalent to Hebrew dàg, is encouraging but is not supported by its Tuareg equivalent ūksaḍ.
9.2.8 Other than strong roots, Kabyle verbs with geminate Semitic equivalents form the largest block in the table. The data is somewhat weakened by the fact that the Kabyle forms are drawn from a range of different types, of which only Type 2 (e.g. imed vs yemmad ‘spread’) and Type 126 (e.g. yebḍu vs ibeṭṭu ‘divide’) occur more than once. Nonetheless there are persuasive examples among the remainder, for instance isumm vs yettsummu ‘suck’ (Type 32) equivalent perhaps to Ar mzz and yeqqaṛ vs yeṭġaṛ ‘be dry’ (Type 80) equivalent to Hb qll.
9.2.5 Quadradicals
9.2.9 Quadriradicals are generally more common in Berber than in Semitic and occur principally as Type 9. As Table 3 shows, the vast majority of Type 9 verbs have a T1-based ≡GPR form, in contrast to the examples cited in Table 11. Compare also Berber yefferkekk (Type 12) and Arabic frqá, both ‘crack’.
Bibliography
ABDEL-MASSIH, E.T., A Reference Grammar of Tamazight, Ann Arbor 1971.
BASSET, A., La langue berbère (Handbook of African Languages 1), 2nd ed., London 1952.
BRIGHT, J., A History of Israel, London 1966.
COHEN, D., La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique; études de syntaxe historique, Leuven 1984.
DALLET, J-M, Dictionnaire Kabyle-Français, Paris 1982
GARDINER, A., Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed revised., Oxford 1988.
GESENIUS, W. & E. KAUTZSCH, Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English edition by A.E. Cowley, Oxford 1910 (reprint: 1966).
LIPIŃSKI, E., Outline of a Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, 2nd Edition, Leuven 2001.
MOSCATI, S., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, Wiesbaden 1964 (reprint: 1969 & 1980).
NAÏT-ZERRAD, K., Manual de Conjugaison Kabyle, Paris 1994.
SODEN, W. VON, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, Roma 1952; Ergänzungsheft, Roma 1969.
SADIQI, F., Grammaire du Berbère, Pans 1997.
Bibliographical Abbreviations
ACSE | Aspect in Common Semitic and Egyptian |
BdSL | Beḍawiē as a Semitic Language |
DKF | DALLET, J-M, Dictionnaire Kabyle-Français |
EG | GARDINER, A., Egyptian Grammar |
ESVS | COHEN, D., La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique |
GAG | SODEN, W. VON, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik |
GdB | SADIQI, F., Grammaire du Berbère |
ICGSL | MOSCATI, S. et al, An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages |
MCK | NAÏT-ZERRAD, K., Manual de Conjugaison Kabyle |
MPSVS | Towards a Morphology of the pre-Semitic Verbal System |
OCG | LIPIŃSKI, E., Outline of a Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages |
LLB | BASSET, A., La langue berbère |
RGT | ABDEL-MASSIH, E.T., A Reference Grammar of Tamazight |
TAF | The Afroasiatic Fallacy |
Footnotes
1 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages [ICGSL], §16.30. See also the tables in E. Lipiński, Semitic Languages, Outline of a comparative Grammar [OCG] (2001) p388-390.
2 The precise phonological structure of this morpheme varies from dialect to dialect.
3 Towards a Morphology of the pre-Semitic Verbal System. For abbreviations see under Bibliographical Abbreviations.
4 Aspect in Common Semitic and Egyptian.
5 The concept of a common Afroasiatic language is challenged in study The Afroasiatic Fallacy (TAF).
6 Beḍawie : A Semitic Language?
7 A common opinion of course is that the ‘Afroasiatic’ languages originate in Africa, implying that the Semites moved out of Africa, rather than Berbers moving in. This conjecture is founded on the initially attractive but essentially simplistic notion that there are more Afroasiatic languages in Africa than in Asia, but is almost impossible to reconcile with the DNA evidence (see particularly TAF sections 4, 5 and 7.3).
8 On the limited evidence of personal names it seems to be agreed that the Hyksos were Amorites (or specifically Canaanites). See J. Bright, A History of Israel (1966) p53-58.
9 Among Y-chromosome haplogroups attested in N.W Africa are R-P25, which appears to reflect the migration of ice age peoples from Iberia, E-M81, which appears to originate in the DNA of groups migrating north across the Sahara during the post-ice age pluvial period, and J-M267, which is prominent among Semitic speakers ; this last of course is at least partly a consequence of post-Islamic migration into N. Africa. Among apparently non-Afroasiatic features in Berber are the number system (in part) and the prepositions : for numerals see A. Basset, La Langue Berber [LLB] (1952) p28 and for prepositions see F. Sadiqi, Grammaire du Berbère [GdB] (1997) p102.
10 This hypothesis (like any other) must then address the question of why, after 3000 plus years, at least some Berber dialects should remain to a lesser or greater degree mutually intelligible. The likeliest answer may be that before Islam Berber was a lingua franca across most of N. Africa, comprising different dialects rather like Aramaic in Asia.
11 This study relies to a considerable extent on the work of K. Naït-Zerrad, Manuel de Conjugaison Kabyle [MCK], 1994, which in turn draws on J-M Dallet’s Dictionnaire Kabyle-Français [DKF] (1982).
12 See for example D. Cohen, La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique; études de syntaxe historique [ESVS] (1984), p80/81.
13 Naït-Zerrad analyses Kabyle verb forms into 176 different types which he divides into three main groups based on their patterning of consonants and vowels.
- Types 1 to 62 are ‘regular’, where the preterite and aorist GPA forms are identical. The vowel patterns of the associated ‘habituative’ may or may not follow those of the aorist and preterite.
- Types 63 to 150 are ‘irregular’ in that their preterite and aorist forms are distinguished by various patterns of apophony. The vowel patterns of the ‘aorist-intensive’ (habituative) match those of the aorist rather than the preterite.
- Types 151 to 176 are ‘verbs of quality’. Aside from their semantic distinctness, this group is characterised by preterite forms lacking prefixed subject pronouns and having only a single plural form, common to all persons. Formally these preterites are GS forms.
14 MCK p36-39. See also Basset, LLB p12ff.
15 For a sample of Kabyle forms see Section 9. Cohen (ESVS p80/81) proposes that ‘preterite’ and ‘aorist’ originally expressed the elements <complete> and <incomplete> respectively, which approximate to <singulative> and <non-singulative>. But from the point of view of the system of aspect explored in ACSE the Berber aorist is a poor morphological fit with the GPE form postulated for <non-singulative> in Semitic and Egyptian.
16 See E. T. Abdel-Massih, A Reference Grammar of Tamazight [RGT] (1971) p199. These statements are true for Ait Ayache and (apparently) for Ait Hassan, but to what extent they are generally applicable in Tamazight and other dialects is unclear to the author.
17 Basset (LLB p15) observes that ‘the imperative and the aorist always have the same theme. Deviations are rare and accidental’.
18 The membership of set T1 varies from dialect to dialect. For example, in Ayt Ayache (RGT p176) it appears to comprise only the single element tt. The designation T1 is used to distinguish these morphemes from the set of passive morphemes T2, on which see Section 6. The structuralist term ‘morph’ might be more appropriate here than ‘morpheme’.
19 The classification in MCK is based strictly on the patterning of consonants and vowels, without reference to the underlying morphology. Thus certain types include both G-forms and derived forms. For the purposes of this discussion the latter have been deleted from any total cited.
20 Type 122 aorist igem has preterite yegwa ; type 126 has yebdu and yebda.
21 From this and other evidence it must be suspected that Berber to some extent utilises morpheme T1 to generate ≡GPR forms of greater morphological ‘substance’.
22 The stem sew utilised as a paradigm in MCK p185 is not typical. Most type 122 verbs geminate the second radical in their ≡GPR forms, for example igem vs igemm, or occasionally the first, as imel vs yimmal. The vowel of the GPA(P) form is normally a or i but MCK does not indicate which is used in any particular case; yeswa, like itess, must be structurally untypical.
23 In Ayt Ayache, a final vowel is characteristic of Abdel-Massih’s types B.ii.1 and B.ii.2 (RGT p258-60 and 278-80). Abdel-Massih is very sparing in his use of vowels in ≡GPR forms, so that there is no vowel harmony and the final vowel is always a.
24 For the Beḍawiē reflexive (TP) form see BdSL §8.5.
25 In some cases Kabyle Type 8 originates in an Arabic D-form, as for example bḥet (Type 1) vs beḥḥet (Type 8), but this seems not generally to be so, thus leaving open the question of the origin of the Type 8 <singulative> (preterite) form.
26 See RGT p177 and 267, roots 116 to 315. Of these roots 35% are of Kabyle type 1, 34% of type 8 and the remainder type 76. Type 76 forms its aorist-intensive on the pattern (3ms) yețḥadar (MCK 139), equivalent to pattern B.i.1.b in RGT.
27 Berber data from MCK p23/4. It is unclear whether these forms can have ‘present’ meaning, i.e. ‘I am white’, etc. Recall that the 1s and 2s forms of the regular verb appear to have adopted pronominal suffixes of the stative form. The ‘aorist’ of these verbs is typologically GPA (3ms imlul). Paradigms in MCK p214-233. For the Egyptian paradigm see Gardiner, EG §309.
28 See for example Basset LLB p22 and MCK p21-23. The Kabyle forms in MCK generally parallel those of Ayt Hasan (GdB p88). These forms receive only passing mention in RGT.
29 D-forms also occur in Berber (Kabyle Type 8) but are they original or are they the consequence of innovation from Arabic?
30 The notation T2 is employed to distinguish the deriving morpheme from T1, the marker of non-singularity, even though they are phonologically and probably diachronically identical.
31 For details see MCK p48 (S), p51 (M) and p54 (T2). Compare RGT p179-81 and GdB §2.3 (p94ff).
32 S-form of Kabyle Type 52 (MCK p115).
33 Type 50 in MCK.
34 See §4.2 of ACSE.
35 RGT p181 ; GdB §2.2.4, p91.
36 See BdSL, §8.5.
37 OCG §41.20, p404. Lipiński goes on to compare Beḍawiē 1s TPA form atōmān which is formed on biconsonantal stem men ‘shave’, but fails to note that this ō is a common feature of Beḍawiē biconsonantals incorporating a deriving morpheme, occurring also in the equivalent SPA and NPA forms ; see Tables 8.2 and 8.5 in BdSL. Admittedly, the origin of these forms remains unexplained, but as ō is absent from the equivalent triconsonantal forms it must be a feature that has developed in consequence of the biconsonantal nature of the relevant stems. A better explanation for Egyptian śdm.tw.f is that it reflects non-Sigmatic suffixed deriving morpheme –t (see TAF §6.1.1)
38 Compare RGT p94, which terms these ‘broken’ and ‘sound’ plurals respectively, although in Semitic terms the latter are simultaneously broken and sound.
39 GdB p109/110, RGT p96.
40 The Berber genitive construction is of the form n-regens – n-rectum, in conformity with the Semitic languages and Egyptian but in contrast to most Cushitic languages.
41 RGT p122ff; compare GdB p114.
42 Sources : MCK p27 (Kabyle), GdB p130 (Ait Hassan), RGT p35 (Ait Ayache – compare the Ait Seghrouchen forms on p77), OCG §36.2 (all others). For other dialects see again MCK p27.
43 The shift /k/ > /š/ appears to be a feature of some Berber dialects, at least in some environments. Compare OCG §18.6.
44 But cf. TAF §6.2.3.
45 Sources : MCK p28 (Kabyle), GdB p133 (Ait Hassan), RGT p49 (Ait Ayache – compare the Ait Seghrouchen forms on p79), OCG §36.2 (all others).
46 The Ait Seghrouchen form is –ak, which offers a degree of support for the conjecture offered here.
47 Sources : GdB p138 (Ait Hassan), RGT p69 (Ait Ayache – the Ait Seghrouchen forms (p81) are identical)), Gardiner EG §110 (Egyptian), Lipiński, OCG 326 (Tuareg), von Soden GAG §45 (Akkadian). For variant Semitic forms see OCG §36.32ff. In Semitic, a demonstrative pronoun may either precede or follow its noun, depending on the language (OCG §36.36). For Egyptian, note also the abbreviated ‘near’ forms pà, tà and nà. When qualifying nouns, Ait Ayache (at least) utilises variant forms suffixed to their noun, although these would appear to originate in the independent forms (RGT 69).
48 A d-based element is not mentioned by Basset.
49 See for example W. Gesenius & E. Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, p520.
50 Note that the Tuareg form is enčer (DKF p412)
|