First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history Presented at the 33rd Colloquium on African Languages and Linguistics at Leiden, August 25-27, 2003 Oliver Stegen SIL Department of Linguistics P.O.Box 1369 AFB, George Square Dodoma Edinburgh EH8 9LL Tanzania Scotland [email protected] Abstract: This paper undertakes first steps in solving the puzzle that Rangi (F.33) is “not obviously unambiguously related to any other East African group” (Nurse 1999:11). Well over seven hundred Common Bantu cognates in Rangi, including more than three hundred Proto-Bantu cognates, have been compiled for a detailed study especially of consonant phonemes and tones. The main findings, partly confirming Guthrie (1967), Hinnebusch et al (1981) and Masele & Nurse (2003), are spirantization of *p and *t in high vowel contexts over against general spirantization of *b and *d. The tonal data suggests that Rangi is fully distinctive with regular correspondences for Proto-Bantu *LL and *LH over against opaque correspondences for *HL and *HH which constitutes a similar development to other Bantu F languages. In addition, loanwords from neighbouring Cushitic languages are compiled, and the relevant oral traditions are summarized. In conclusion, Rangi is considered to be an early off-split of the predecessor language of other Bantu F languages with considerable subsequent influence particularly from both non-Bantu and Bantu G languages.

1. INTRODUCTION This paper takes as its starting point Nurse’s (1999:11) statement that Rangi is “not obviously unambiguously related to any other East African group”. Rangi, Bantu F.33 according to Guthrie’s classification (1967 II:48), is spoken by approximately 350,000 people in the Kondoa District of Northern Central Tanzania1. It is an interesting case in that it is surrounded entirely by non-Bantu languages, as there are: the Cushitic languages of the Burunge, Alagwa and Gorowa, the Khoisan language of the Sandawe, and the Nilotic languages of the Datooga and the Maasai. The Irangi highlands, with its highest peak Ntomoko reaching 7,300 feet above sea-level, protude eastwards from the Rift Valley escarpment and constitute a prominent mark at the cross-roads between century-old migration routes both in North-South and in East-West direction. Influences on the Rangi language from a lot more than a single source are to be expected. In order to further historical linguistics, Walsh (2002) recommends that linguists do “more of the same” (i.e. continue lexico-statistical and comparative studies), that they “dig deeper” (i.e. conduct stratigraphic studies revealing sequences of linguistic contact and change), and that they undertake intensive studies of lexical domains. While I will not be able to cover all of these recommendations in a single paper, I have been

1

First and foremost, my thanks go to all the Rangi who gave of their time to discuss their mother tongue with me. While they are too numerous to be mentioned by name, representative recipients of my gratitude are Mama Bahati of Ausia (now Dodoma), Samweli Ramadhani of Kalamba (now Kondoa), Rajabu Isangu of Mnenya, and Peter Patrick of Itololo (now Kondoa). This study was made possible under permit nos. C 42314 and C 21903 by invitation respectively from the Diocese of Central Tanganyika and the Diocese of Kondoa to both of whom I am most grateful. For providing further information, comments and other support, I want to thank Roger Blench, Helen Eaton, Roland Kießling, Masangu Matondo, Ron Moe, Maarten Mous, Derek Nurse, Thilo Schadeberg, and Martin Walsh. The usual disclaimers apply, of course.

1

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history inspired by them in my first steps of reconstructing Rangi language history. In the following, I will make use of the comparative method, include aspects of language contact, and refer to oral history.

2. COMPARATIVE METHOD Where detailed language data are lacking, lexico-statistics can be a first step forward in historical linguistics. What is possible with only 92 lexical items has been exemplified in Bastin et al (1999). While I would have liked to apply that particular method to the Rangi language, I did not have access to the necessary software. Moreover, it is doubtful whether in a case like Rangi, lexico-statistics will be able to untangle the overlay of multiple language contacts and shifts. The percentages supplied for Rangi by Nurse (1979:69) all range between 50% and 59%. As Masele & Nurse (2003:122) remark, “there is a very strong correlation between the lexicostatistical figures and geographical position”, casting doubt on degrees of historical relatedness which are computed solely by lexicostatistics. In the following, the development of Rangi consonants and tones from Proto-Bantu will be traced. With regard to vowels, it is sufficient for present purposes to say that Rangi retained the seven vowel system of the / , , , , , , / type; phonetically long vowels are phonemic in some contexts but the result of compensatory lengthening in others.

2.1 Consonants The Rangi consonant phonemes are displayed in table 1 as taken from Stegen (2002:131). Table 1: Consonant phoneme chart labial dental-alveolar voicing + + plosives oral prenas. fricatives nasals liquids ,

palatal -

velar +

-

glottal -

+

The available sources for discussing Rangi phoneme development from Proto-Bantu are scarce. An obvious starting point is Guthrie 1967 which, as for all Bantu languages covered, gives a succinct overview: “F.33 Langi (Irangi) (1Q) *C1: *p/*b > f/v; *mp > ph; *t > t (but _* , _* > t ); *d > l (but _*e, _*i, _* > r); *k/*g > k/∅; *nk > kh; *c, *nc > s; *j/*nj > /n ; *C2 as *C1, but *p > h; tones: no tonal distinctiveness” (Guthrie 1967 II:48)

Another source is Hinnebusch et al (1981:34) from where I took the details of table 2. This is concerned primarily with Bantu spirantization which is best defined as “turn[ing] all nonnasal noncontinuants into continuants before the two high vowels (*i, *u) of the original seven-vowel system” (Masele & Nurse 2004:124). The symbol # indicates the absence of regular spirantization. Table 2: Spirantization in West Tanzania / Langi (based on Nurse 1979a) *p /_

PB Consonants: Environments: [...] i. Langi

*t /_

*k /_

*B /_

*l /_

*G /_

i

u

i

u

i

u

i

u

i

u

i

u

f

f

c

c

#

#

v

v

r

r

#

#

Some discrepancies between Guthrie and Hinnebusch et al include: whether the processes *p > f and *b > v are general, or due to spirantization before high vowels, and whether allophonic *d > r is triggered by high vowels or by front vowels. A further comparison with the Rangi consonant phoneme inventory, as given in table 1, reveals that no synchronic evidence for aspirated versus non-aspirated voiceless stops, as postulated by Guthrie, has been observed. An even more detailed picture of spirantization in Rangi is expanded in Masele & Nurse (2003:125), the relevant sections of which are reproduced in table 3. The symbol ° indicates irregular reflexes, and where doublet reflexes are separated by /, the first one is the more frequent.

August 2003

2

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history Table 3: Reflexes of Proto-Bantu consonants in Rangi according to Masele & Nurse PB

*pa

*pi

*pu

*ba

*bi

*bu

*ta

*ti

*tu

F33

°h/p

f

f

v/∅

v/∅

∅/v

t

c/°r

c

PB

*da

*di

*du

*ka

*ki

*ku

*ga

*gi

*gu

F33

l/r

r

r/d

k

k/c

k/°f

∅/v

g

∅/v

Over against table 2, a high number of doublet reflexes is given in table 3. This is probably due to diachronic effects, i.e. a lexical item entering the Rangi language at an early stage could have undergone different sound changes from an item entering later. Consequently, some criteria will have to be established to keep sound changes from different strata apart. In the following, I will give a detailed discussion of each reconstructed Proto-Bantu phoneme and its realization in Rangi. Appendix B gives the full list of items on which this discussion is based. These items expand the number of available Bantu cognates in Rangi from sixty-five as given in Guthrie (1967) to well over seven hundred, and have been collected during my stay in Rangi country since 19972. In section 2.1.1, I will only consider those 300+ lexical items which also have cognates in Bantu A and/or B.3 Sound change generalizations based on these should have a higher probability of reflecting an earlier stage, i.e. representing Proto-Bantu stems. Generalizations based on the remaining 400+ lexical items, insofar as they deviate from the earlier generalizations, will be discussed in section 2.1.2 and are supposed to be later developments and/or regional innovations.

2.1.1 Consonant development from Proto-Bantu *p - In both C1 and C2 position, *p in Rangi is realized as /h/ before / , , , , / (cf. nos. 2478, 2534, 2353, 2589, 2657, 2799, 3002). Spirantization to /f/ before high vowels / , / is regularly attested as in nos. 1725, 2556, 2568, 2667, 2681 etc. Exceptional realization as /p/, as shown in (1), can be explained as borrowing from Swahili (G.42). 1)

a. b.

*-panga *-pat

bush-knife receive

In addition, *p is retained as /p/ when preceded by the noun class prefix of noun classes 9 or 10, a nasal. 2)

a. b. c.

*-peke *-pongo *-pUkU

seed bushbuck rat species

(?)4

These generalizations are not very stable, however, as can be seen by the relatively high number of exceptions. For example, there are also instances of spirantization before non-high vowels, as shown in (3). 3)

a. b. c.

*-pIt *-pot *-kUpa

go ahead twist tick

(go to condole) (fold)

Finally, one instance of *p is deleted in C2 position, and one item shows /h/ before /u/ in C1 position and realization as /v/ in C2 position, albeit with a semantic shift.

2

These include approximately 2,700 lexical items collected during personal language learning up to June 2000, and an additional 1,600 items which were transcribed during two lexicographic elicitation seminars in late 2002 which included the collection of specialized vocabulary.

3

Even more reliable criteria are available in the BLR3 database at [http://linguistics.africamusseum.be]. Unfortunately, I was not able to access that database in time for inclusion in this paper.

4

As in appendix A, missing tonal information is indicated by (?), and deviating Rangi meanings are given in brackets.

August 2003

3

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history 4)

a. b.

*-pip *-puup

suck blow

-

(fan)

*mp - Apart from cross-morpheme occurrences as shown in (2), no instances of *mp have been observed in the corpus. *b - The usual realization of *b in Rangi is /v/ before / , , , , / (cf. nos. 14, 139, 219, 244, 355, 629, 1865, 3396), and deletion before / , / (cf. nos. 253, 274, 316, 338, but no suitable examples for C2 position). Retention as /b/ after the nasal prefix of noun classes 9 or 10 is wide-spread (cf. nos. 170, 258, 303, 4961). Exceptions are few and include intervocalic retention as /b/ (5a-c), realization as /w/ (5d), and realization as /mp/ (5e). Of these, (5a,c) also involve irregular retention of /d/, and (5b) is a loan from Swahili. 5)

a. b. c. d. e.

*-badUd *-bono *-dobo *-bId *-tabi

split, burst open castor-oil plant fish-hook call, tell branch

-

(open eyes)

-

*mb - Reflexes of *mb in Rangi occur only in C2 position, and are retained as /mb/ without exception in the corpus. *t - Usually, *t is retained as /t/ before / , , , , / in Rangi (cf. nos. 2741, 2825, 2881, 2972, 3023), yet spirantizes to / / before high vowels /i, u/ (cf. nos. 1963, 2911, 3101). Where *t is realized as /s/, this could be explained with spirantization of *t to *c before entering Rangi (see examples under *c below). Of these, (6b,c) are loans from Swahili. 6)

a. b. c. d.

*-tikU *-tima *-tindIk *-tuud

day well, pool accompany swell

(?)

Two instances of realization as /r/ presuppose a voicing of *t to *d before entering Rangi. Of these, (7b) also features a voicing of *k to *g (attested for other Bantu F languages in Guthrie’s common set number 1778a). 7)

a. b.

*-tUdI *-tUkUt

dust perspire, be hot

(sweat, heat)

*nt - The only instance of *nt in the corpus is retained as /nt/ (cf. no. 3005). *d - In C1 position, *d is realized as /r/ before / , , , / (cf. nos. 882, 940, 1025, 1267), and as /l/ before / , , / (cf. nos. 795, 1100, 1177). Retention as /d/ after the nasal prefix of noun classes 9 or 10 is attested (cf. nos. 900, 1149, 1175). In C2 position, the distribution of /r/ and /l/ is summarized in table 4. Blank spaces indicate gaps in the corpus. It is concluded that not only following but also preceding / , , / trigger realization as /r/ whereas preceding / / does not.

August 2003

4

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history Table 4: Distribution of /r/ and /l/ as intervocalic *d V2 V1 r r r r r r r r r r r l l r l l r l l l r l

r

r

The only exception to the table is shown in (8), yet features a semantic shift. 8)

a.

*-tada

platform, granary

(batchelor’s hut)

Most exceptions from the /r, l/ realization occur in C2 position, including retention as /d/, realizaton as /nd/ and / /, and deletion. Of these, (9b) has an irregular retention of /b/, (9e) has an agentive version reconstructed with *nd, (9g) has a more local variant reconstructed as *-tIj (no. 2901), and (9h) has an irregular realization of *t as /s/. 9)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

*-deg *-badUd *-dedu *-cid *-pIdUk *-kodI *-tiid *-tuud

avoid split, burst open beard grind turn over captive run away swell

-

(open eyes)

-

(tame, domesticate)

*nd - Apart from cross-morpeme instances due to retentions of *d as /d/ following the nasal prefix of noun classes 9 or 10, *nd occurs in this corpus in C2 position only and is retained as /nd/ without exception. *c - The vast majority of *c cases is realized as /s/ in Rangi (cf. nos. 418, 522, 562, 620, 664, 756, 2348, 3405). The only exception is retention as / / of which five instances were observed. Of these, (10a) features an irregular realization of *d as /nd/, (10b,c) are loans from Swahili, and (10c,d,e) involve semantic shifts. 10)

a. b. c. d. e.

*-cid *-cUn *-cung *-kac *-kUcU

grind take off skin look after paddle, swim parrot

-

(herd cattle) (liquid) (turaco)

*nc - The only instance of *nc is realized as /s/, yet it also exhibits a vowel shift. 11)

a.

*-nce

all

-

*j - First, it has to be remarked that the BLR2 database no longer maintains the distinction between *j and *y as did Guthrie (1967). This decision is corroborated in Rangi in that most intervocalic realizations of *j are deleted (cf. nos. 3169, 3284, 3534, 3616, 6142), yet realized as / / after the nasal prefix of noun classes 9 or 10 (cf. nos. 1555, 1593, 1607, 3350). Exceptions include intervocalic realizations as / / (12a-c), realizations as /j/ (12d-e), and amalgamation with nasal prefix to / / (12f-g). Of these, (12a,b) could be explained with the double occurrence of *j in *jij.

August 2003

5

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history 12)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

*-jij *-jijI *-jUba *-jed *-jend *-jingU *-jUndo

come water sun measure walk, travel, go cooking pot hammer

(?) (God) -

*nj - The only instance of *nj in the corpus (no. 1329) is realized as /

/.

*k - In almost all cases, *k is retained as /k/ in Rangi in both C1 and C2 position (cf. nos. 418, 1662, 1755, 1798, 1861, 2003, 2138, 2642, 3444). The only two exceptions feature spirantization to / /, and deletion, probably due to previous voicing to *g. 13)

a. b.

*-ket *-tUkUt

cut perspire, be hot

-

(crop trees) (sweat, heat)

*nk - The only occurrence of *nk in the corpus is realized as /nk/ (cf. no. 3577). *g - Usually, *g is deleted completely (cf. nos. 139, 258, 900, 1284, 1355, 1490, 2568), or featuring glides due to adjacent high vowels. There is one instance of retention as /g/ after the nasal prefix of noun classes 9 or 10 (cf. no. 1429), and that is a loan from Swahili. Realization as /h/ occurs predominantly in C2 position and might involve dialectal variation which is definitely attested for (14d,e). 14)

a. b. c. d. e.

*-bUga *-deg *-mUag *-dUgU *-gI

threshing-floor avoid scatter relative egg

(?)

(?)

Other deviations from the generalized deletion are infrequent and include retention as /g/ (15a-b), realization as /j/ (15c-d), realization as /k/ (15e), realization as / / (15f), and realization as / / (15g). Of these, (15a) might be a loan from Swahili, (15e) is a dubious cognate, and (15f) exhibits Meinhof’s Rule which is otherwise unattested in Rangi. 15)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

*-gab *-ganda *-gendo *-geni *-gonga *-gUngU *-bUgo

divide cloth journey stranger, visitor spear egg tsetse fly

*ng - All instances of *ng occur in C2 position and are retained as /

(shirt) (?)

(?) /.

*m - Without exception, *m is realized as /m/ in Rangi. *n - The realization of *n in Rangi is /n/. The only exception is shown in (16) where *n is realized as / /. 16)

a.

*-toni

drop

*ny - There are only three instances of *ny in the corpus, two of which retain / /, and one is realized as /nj/.

August 2003

6

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history 17)

a. b. c.

*-nyama *-nyoota *-nyo

meat thirst drink

(?)

* - There are no instances of * in the reduced corpus. As we have considered only cognates also occuring in Bantu A and/or Bantu B, the result should closely reflect early developments in Rangi from Proto-Bantu stems. A high percentage of the few exceptions from generalizations observed could be explained as loans or be identified as later developments due to other irregular correspondences, semantic shifts or alternative regional innovations. As all nasals and prenasalized plosives have been retained, Table 5 summarizes only the realization of Proto-Bantu plosives in Rangi. Results in brackets have been infered where concrete examples were lacking in the corpus. Table 5: Proto-Bantu reflexes in Rangi /_

/_

/_

/_

/_

/_

/_

/N_

*p

f

h

(h)

h

h

h

f

p

*b

v

v

v

v

∅

∅

v

b

t

t

t

t

t

*t

(t)

*d

r

r

r

l

l

l

r

d

*c

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

*j

∅

∅

∅

∅

∅

∅

(∅)

*k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

*g

(∅)

(∅)

∅

∅

∅

∅

∅

g

Differences to Guthrie’s (1967) summary include notably the elimination of /ph/ and /kh/, the high vowel dependent split of *p into /f/ and /h/, the deletion of *b before non-high back vowels, the realization of *d as /r/ before /u/, and the deletion of *j. With regard to Hinnebusch et al’s (1981), the spirantization rules for Rangi have been only partially confirmed. While they continue to hold for *p and *t, the spirantization of both *b and *d is not confined to the environment of high vowels. Specifically the statement that Rangi “shares the shift *l > r / _ HV with Chaga / Dawida” (Hinnebusch et al 1981:32) may no longer be a factor in potentially aligning Rangi with Bantu E languages. Comparison with Masele & Nurse (2003) in general confirms the more frequent of their doublet reflexes. Only exception is *gi for which they have retained /g/. While our reduced corpus does not contain an instance of *gi, almost all instances in the full corpus attest deletion of *g (cf. nos. 902, 3292, 5237), or realization as /h/ (cf. no. 1041, 1368, 2555). The only retention as /g/ (no. 1377) is due to preceding nasal prefix.

2.1.2 Later developments When looking at the full corpus, i.e. including those lexical stems which do not have cognates in Bantu A and/or B, many generalizations observed for development from Proto-Bantu can be observed again. Consequently, the main concern in tracing later developments should be only the deviations from those developments discussed in section 2.1.1. In a second step, too much to be delat with in this paper, it can be attempted to identify the sources of these deviations among Bantu languages in the vicinity. Presumably, those Bantu languages contributing to exceptions in the Rangi language are less likely to share an immediately common development. Where deviations already occur within the reduced corpus, these would reflect an origin not straight from Proto-Bantu, but via another language. Some exceptions are easily attributed, e.g. the retention of *p as /p/ from Swahili. In the following, sound change developments based on the full corpus but deviating from those based on the reduced corpus will be discussed one by one. Spirantization of *p to /f/ before non-high vowels has already been reported in (3), which is repeated in (18a-c). Additional evidence for this development is shown in (18d-g). Of these, (18g) features lenition and subsequent deletion of *k as has been discussed in (7b).

August 2003

7

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history 18)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

*-pIt *-pot *-kUpa *-jogUp *-pad *-pakUd *-pekIc

go ahead twist tick fear go up take out drill

(go to condole) (fold)

(rise moon) (snatch)

The realization of *b as /mp/ as reported in (5e) has a more regional variant *mb (cf. no. 8422); further evidence for a change from *mb to /mp/ is given in (19). Of these, (19c) also has the irregular reflex /n/ for *d. 19)

a. b. c.

*-camba *-comba *-damb

ewe lamb fish lick

For spirantization of *t to /s/ as reported in (6), only two more instances were found in the full corpus. 20)

a. b.

*-tantatU *-tinde

six stubbly grass

(?)

There are some exceptions to the general development of *d, e.g. realization as /r/ before / , , /. 21)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

*-dago *-datU *-dongo *-gUdUbe *-kodomIdo *-pada *-tada

mat sandal ten pig throat, gullet baldness platform, granary

(?) (?)

(batchelor’s hut)

The three cases of retention of *d already reported are supplemented by further evidence in (22d-h). 22)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

*-badUd *-dobo *-dedu *-dada *-digi *-dodo *-dUmb *-dUndU

split, burst open fish-hook beard palm-tree string little, small praise hill

-

(open eyes)

-

Finally, there are some irregular reflexes of *k, e.g. spirantization to /f/ before / , / (23a-c), spirantization to / / before high vowels (23d-f), and deletion due to prior lenition to *g (23f-j). Note that (23f) features both of the latter two changes. Also, (23h) has a regional variant *-pUag which would fit the sound changes in rangi better, yet has the meaning ‘to pound’. 23)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

*-caku *-kengede *-kuut *-ket *-kIedU *-kukam *-pekIc *-puak *-tokUt *-tUkUt

calf of leg bell rub cut delay kneel drill suffer from diarrhoea boil up perspire, be hot

August 2003

-

(crop trees)

(sweat, heat)

8

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history In order to trace all of these irregular reflexes in Rangi, comparably detailed studies would have to be undertaken in those Bantu languages which could serve as potential sources like Nyiramba (F.31), Nyaturu (F.32) and Gogo (G.11).

2.2 Tones The area of tone is not often taken into account in comparative Bantu studies, probably due to the fact that reliable tonal data is much harder to find than segmental data. Based on Guthrie (1967), Carter (1973) set up a tonal typology of Bantu languages. Despite reports to the contrary, nominal tone in the Rangi language is fully distinctive, as has also been demonstrated in Stegen (2002:132-133).5 After a brief overview, the diachronic derivation of each tone will be discussed. It is a dominant feature of Rangi tonology that certain nouns can be realized with high or low tone, depending on context. This phenomenon can span several syllables as shown in (24). In particular, nouns will be contrasted in isolation versus when followed by a demonstrative. 24)

a. b. c. d.

versus versus versus versus

‘(this) cockroach’ ‘(this) locust’ ‘(this) seed-line’ ‘(this) sorrow’

This observation led to the postulation of a phrase-final H deletion rule and subsequently to the analysis of (24a) as underlyingly LH, (24b) as HH and so forth. While nominal CV-stems exhibit two tonal groups, and CVCV-stems four, CVVCV-stems can exhibit still more than four6, indicating that the mora, and not the syllable, is the tone-bearing unit in Rangi. Table 6 displays the possible underlying tones for each syllabic structure. Note that underlying -HL patterns surface with a high-mid tone sequence in isolation. Table 6: Rangi nominal tone groups syllable isolation demonstrative structure context context CV CVCV

! CVVCV ! !

gloss

underlying tone

‘(this) spider’ ‘(this) ground’ ‘(this) warthog’ ‘(this) rhinoceros’ ‘(this) seed’ ‘(this) scar’ ‘(this) hammer’ ‘(this) pot’ ‘(this) house’ ‘(this) cave’ ‘(this) hair’ ‘(this) dream’

-L -H -LL -LH -HH -HL -LLL -LLH -LHL -HHH -HHL -HLL

Having shown that Rangi is tonally fully distinctive, the next task consists in establishing correspondences between Rangi tones and Proto-Bantu tones. In appendix B, all lexical items for which tonal information was available can be found. Again, only those items with cognates in Bantu A and/or B were consulted. The different tonal groups will be discussed in turn. Table 7 shows the distribution of monosyllabic stems. Of seven low-toned Rangi nouns, six are low in Proto-Bantu also; of eight high-toned Rangi nouns, seven are high in Proto-Bantu. This suggests a direct correspondence between Proto-Bantu and Rangi tones. Table 7: monosyllabic Rangi nouns and their tonal correspondences PB *L

PB *H

Rangi -l

6

1

Rangi -l ≈ -h

1

7

5

Rangi verbs, however, seem to have lost their lexical tone.

6

The absence of tonal patterns LHH and HLH might be accidental or due to structural restrictions, e.g. OCP in the case of HLH.

August 2003

9

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history For practical purposes, bisyllabic noun stems will be subsumed into one table, regardless of phonemic length in V1 position. The four patterns -LL, -LH, -HL, -HH correspond to Guthrie’s *IA, *IB, *IIA, *IIB. The only example of underlying -LHL pattern, shown in (25), has been counted among the -HL pattern. 25)

a.

!

father

*-tààtá

In addition to the four regular patterns, a fifth one had to be established, viz underlyingly -HLL which only occurs with long vowels in V1 position and surfaces as falling-low sequence in Rangi. Table 8 summarizes the tonal corespondences between bisyllabic Rangi nouns and their Proto-Bantu counterparts. Table 8: bisyllabic Rangi nouns and their tonal correspondences PB *LL

PB *LH

PB *HL

PB *HH

total

32

1

1

1

35

Rangi -ll ≈ -lh

1

4

3

1

9

Rangi -hm ≈ -hh

2

3

12

6

23

Rangi -fl

2

1

6

5

14

Rangi -ll ≈ -hh

1

2

26

6

35

38

11

48

19

116

Rangi -ll

total

For all-low Rangi nouns, the picture is clearest: 32 out of 35 correspond tonally directly to their ProtoBantu cognate. As tendencies, one-to-one correspondences can also be observed for the underlying LH, HL and HLL patterns. For the falling-low pattern, some deviations can be explained as Swahili loanwords ( " , " , " , " , " ). As Swahili has lost its tonal distinctiveness, accenting instead the penultimate syllable, many Swahili loanwords in Rangi receive the falling-low pattern in imitation of the Swahili accent. The majority of the underlying HH pattern in Rangi, however, does not correspond to Proto-Bantu *HH but to *HL. It may be a peculiar coincidence that Proto-Bantu *LL and *HL patterns are much more numerous than *LH and *HH (38 and 48 over against 11 and 19 items respectively). In summary, it can be said that *HL and *HH do not find one-to-one correspondences in Rangi but split to form the three classes HL, HLL, and HH. When looking for an explanation for this, the high number of *HL being re-interpreted as underlyingly HH in Rangi, viz 26 items, featured prominently. Of the closest Bantu neighbours, the F.20 languages are reported as “tonally distinct, but with reduction in two-syllable stems” (Carter, 1973:49); and in Sukuma (F.21), this reduction explicitly involves the conflation of *HL and *HH (idem:37). By contrast, in G.10 languages, including Gogo, the first syllable of bisyllabic nouns is tonally not distinct; whereas in G.20 languages, including Pare, only the first syllable of bisyllabic nouns is reported as tonally distinct, and E.60 languages, including Chagga, are inferred to be tonally fully distinctive. This is taken as an indication that Rangi tonology bears closer affinity to Bantu F than to Bantu E or G languages. Particularly the noncorrespondence of underlying HL and HH in Rangi could find an explanation in the conflation of Proto-Bantu *HL and *HH into one tonal class in Sukuma and other Bantu F languages.

2.3 Non-phonological areas of comparison Masele & Nurse (2003:127) report a “significant innovation in the tense-aspect pattern” which is restricted to F.21, the Dakama dialect of F.22, F.24 and F.32. They explain this innovation as follows: “The original Bantu system was likely one in which pre-stem markers (here /aa/ or /a/) indicated tense whereas suffixes marked aspect. In this new system the pre-stem marker simply represents past, while the aspectual suffixes (with some minimal help from tone) have been recycled to refer to different degrees of past.” (Masele & Nurse 2003:128)

In table 9, I have added the Rangi data to their table of innovated past tenses in Bantu F. Table 9: Comparison of past tenses between Rangi and other Bantu F languages

Far Past

core Bantu F

Rangi

prefixes-àa-stem-a

prefixes-á-stem-á(g)a

August 2003

10

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history Hesternal Past

prefixes-á-stem-íle

prefixes-a-stem-á

Hodiernal Past

prefixes-á-stem-aga

prefixes-a-stem-ire

Immediate Past

prefixes-á-stem-a

prefixes-áá-stem-a

Disregarding tone, the same verb structures for these four past tenses are attested in Rangi, only in other order. Turning to inflectional markers, Stegen (2002:139) reported for Rangi that “the reciprocal suffix -an has merged semantically with the reflexive marker -í-”. This merger, according to Nurse (in an email to the author of 18.01.2002), is a geographically limited innovation shared with other Bantu F languages like Sukuma and Nyamwezi. Finally, according to Maho (1999:216, 303-304), the F.30 languages use noun class markers 12/19 for diminutives which distinguishes them from other Bantu F languages (12/13) and Bantu G languages (7/8, 12/8 or 12/13). Of course, this subsection constitutes only a sketch of morphological comparison. At this stage, the descriptive gaps in Eastern Bantu languages make widespread comparisons difficult at best.

3. CONTACT WITH CUSHITIC No account of Rangi language history would be complete without mentioning the influence of Cushitic on Rangi lexis. In (26), Rangi words are displayed which find their origin in the neighbouring Cushitic languages of Burunge or Alagwa or its predecessor. Cushitic data, reconstructed for Proto-Westrift, has kindly been supplied by Roland Kießling7. 26)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. v. w.

#

$

-

% -

puuntsu (ALBU) ‘iyóo (ALBU) daangú (ALBU) sa (ALBU) tsaxasaa (ALBU) bo/is daqway faanqu deeqwaa (IRGO) damaa faamfee’u gwereta buusa (IRGOAL) kutiya kutukuutáy maangee makaa manahaa ma/aangu qwaama slakaat tsuuntsuuqimo tsaqam

wether (PWR); ram (Rangi) mother blunt knife; short sword because of; for salt to do donkey seven razor blade (PWR); circumcision knife (Rangi) calf poisonous snake he-goat maize cobs mole puppies brother-in-law beast/wild animal big winged termites trees (kind of) cattle enclosure to hunt bird (kind of) to drip (PWR); blood (Rangi)

Some of these Cushitic loanwords are found in other Eastern Bantu languages as well, e.g. reflexes of daqway, faanqu, damaa, gwereta, slakaat, or tsaqam. Others, by contrast, seem to have entered only into Rangi. Stratigraphic studies could make hypotheses about which items entered which Bantu language at what time. In order to trace individual Cushitic items through Bantu languages though, a much more comprehensive study than is possible in this paper will have to be undertaken. For the history of Eastern Bantu languages in 7

Where the Cushitic item is not found in all four languages which constitute Westrift Cushitic, this is indicated in brackets, abbreviating IR (Iraqw), GO (Gorowa), AL (Alagwa), and BU (Burunge). Shifts in meaning are also indicated, with PWR standing for Proto-Westrift.

August 2003

11

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history Tanzania, it would be a tremendous asset to compile as many Cushitic loanwords in each language as possible. Such compilations would enable comparisons how each Bantu language adjusted those loanwords to its particular phonological system, and result in deductions which languages followed the same principles in such adjustments. Moreover, Cushitic loanwords could be categorized according to semantic domain; this might lead to discoveries about which cultural aspects were of particular relevance in the interaction between Cushitic and Bantu. In the absence of comprehensive dictionaries for Bantu languages such as Gogo or Nilamba, both of which contain a number of Cushitic loanwords, such insights are still shrouded in the mists of the future.

4. EVIDENCE FROM ORAL HISTORY Although Walsh (2002:5) warns that “[h]istorical linguistic hypotheses often challenge rather than confirm oral traditions”, such traditions have their place, if only to be explained in light of their language’s history. What is more, if not only stories of origin are taken into account but also reports of how the Rangi relate to other Bantu groups, a picture might emerge telling of different strands of influences on the Rangi language. Two sources which explicitly include Rangi oral history are Masare (1970) and Kesby (1982). The former gives an account of joking relationships which the Rangi entertain with a number of other people groups of Tanzania; the latter basically consists of a comparative ethnography from 1900 to 1960. Summarizing these two sources while taking my own observations into account, the following picture emerges: With regard to migration stories, these can be categorized into two strands, one relating an origin from the North mentioning Ethiopia and the river Nile, and the second relating an origin from the West mentioning the area of modern-day Nyamwezi country to the South of Lake Victoria. Kesby (1982) presumes the Rangi to be an ethnic mix between Bantu and Cushites, resulting in these two migration stories. The Haubi Valley in the Irangi highlands is by all considered to be the cradle of the Rangi people. Bantu people groups which are mentioned as companions of the Rangi during their migration prior to arriving in Haubi include the Mbugwe (F.34), the Ngulu (G.34) and the Chagga (E.62). There are stories of cattle raids involving the Gogo (G.11) and the Hehe (G.62). Old trading relations now defunct are reported with the Mbugwe, the Bondei (G.24) and the Makua (P.31). Especially the salt trade with the Mbugwe led Kesby (1982) to presume that the Mbugwe originate from Rangi salt-searching parties, i.e. in a South-to-North movement rather than vice versa. According to various oral traditions, the Rangi expelled the Nyaturu (F.32) from Kondoa settlement. With most of these various groups, the Rangi are not united through a common history but through inter-marriage and mutually beneficial interaction. Among my own Rangi acquaintances, there are mixed marriages with Gogo, Chagga, Ngulu, and Kimbu (F.24) as well as with non-Bantu like Burunge, Alagwa, Iraqw and Maasai. The majority of these use not only Tanzania’s national language Swahili but also the Rangi language in their home. Kesby’s hypothesis of the Rangi’s ethnic mix is corroborated by a story which I was told in the village of Bonga in the Southern part of the Haubi Valley. According to that story, the Irangi highlands were populated by the “relatives of the Iraqw” during “the time of the Portuguese”.8 Then, some “newcomers” came from the West who were more successful farmers than the locals. Consequently, twelve elders from Baura, a settlement to the West of Haubi, approached these newcomers and formed an affiliation with them. This amalgamated group of newcomers and locals started to settle in the Eastern part of the Haubi Valley, naming their new location “Irangi”. With time, more and more others also joined this allegedly very successful group. Of course, the story as such is not more credible than any of the others previously mentioned. We should not presume a single group to have “founded the Rangi”. Rather, a scenario can be imagined in which small Bantu groups of different background came to settle in the then predominantly Cushitic Irangi highlands. As an emerging group of mixed Bantu and Cushitic ancestry adopted and developed their particular brand of a Bantu language, the question is from which area the main Bantu influence on this group came. The majority of oral traditions seems to favour an origin from the West with various minor influences from the North-East, the East, and the South. In a similar way, Masele & Nurse (2003) summarize Ehret’s historical scenario of Bantu F.9 “By A.D. 300 Ehret thinks the ancestors of F33 and F34 had also left the initial area and settled in more or less their current locale. More relevant to us, Ehret (1998:197) sees the ancestors of the

8

This should not be taken as actual memory of the times of the Portuguese (1505-1698) but only as an indication that the source of this story is believed to be very old.

9

I was not able to access Ehret (1998) in time for detailed consideration in this paper.

August 2003

12

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history core F peoples as still forming one community as late as A.D. 500 and living along the Southern shore of Lake Victoria.” (Masele & Nurse, 2003:132)

5. CONCLUSION My conclusion from all the above observations is that Rangi is an early off-split of the predecessor language of other Bantu F languages. This conclusion, I base not only nor even foremost on those parts of the oral tradition which favour a migration origin from the West but on the development of Rangi consonant phonemes from Proto-Bantu and especially on the tonal development where Proto-Bantu *LL and *LH tone patterns find regular correspondences in Rangi whereas *HL and *HH, like in other Bantu F languages, do not. I consider morphological evidence not yet to be comprehensive enough even though smaller details also suggest a Bantu F affiliation for Rangi. Numerous other influences have had their bearing on the Rangi language, both from non-Bantu and from Bantu G sources to the East and South. All of these influences, however, seem to constitute additional layers on top of a basically Bantu F foundation. In that, I agree with Masele & Nurse that “[t]he evolution of the Zone F languages [...] cannot be adequately or solely represented by a linear model based on divergence, such as the family tree diagram suggests” (Masele & Nurse 2003:132), but needs to “recognize the contribution made to any one language, or set of languages, by progressive accretions from different sources” (idem:133). In order to further untangle the different strands of Rangi language history, detailed stratigraphic studies are called for. Those lexical items which deviate from Rangi’s regular sound and tone correspondences with Proto-Bantu will have to be compared to their cognates in other Bantu languages in the vicinity. In view of the lack of detailed dictionaries of Tanzanian Bantu languages which contain both tonal and etymological data, such dictionaries will have to be compiled. The paths of Cushitic loanwords in Eastern Bantu languages will have to be traced. The field is ripe; let there be workers in the harvest!

References Bantu Working Group. 1998. Bantu Lexical Reconstructions 2, Tervuren: Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale, downloaded from [http://www.cbold.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr]. Bastin, Yvonne, André Coupez & Michael Mann. 1999. Continuity and Divergence in the Bantu languages: perspectives from a lexicostatistic study, Annales Sciences Humaines, Vol. 162, Tervuren: Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale. Carter, Hazel. 1973. “Tonal data in comparative Bantu”, African Language Studies 14, pp.36-52. Ehret, Christopher. 1998. An African Classical Age, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Guthrie, Malcolm. 1967-71. Comparative Bantu, Volumes I-IV, Farnborough: Gregg. Hinnebusch, Thomas, Derek Nurse & Martin Mould. 1981. Studies in the Classification of Eastern Bantu Languages, SUGIA Beiheft 3, Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Kesby, John. 1982. Progress and the past among the Rangi of Tanzania, 2 volumes, Newhaven/Connecticut: Human Relations Area Files. Maho, Jouni. 1999. A Comparative Study of Bantu Noun Classes, Orientala et Africana Gothoburgensia 13, Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Masare, A. 1970. “Utani Relationships: The Rangi”, manuscript, University of Dar es Salaam. Masele, B.F.Y.P & Derek Nurse. 2003. “Stratigraphy and Prehistory: Bantu Zone F”, in: Henning Andersen (ed.) Language Contacts in Prehistory - Studies in Stratigraphy, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nurse, Derek. 1979. “Description of sample Bantu languages of Tanzania”, African Languages 5/1, pp.1-150 (entire issue). Nurse, Derek. 1999. “Towards a Historical Classification of East African Bantu Languages”, in: Jean-Marie Hombert & Larry Hyman (eds.) Bantu Historical Linguistics, Stanford: CSLI, pp.1-41. Nurse, Derek. Email to the author dated 18.01.2002.

August 2003

13

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history Stegen, Oliver. 2002. “Derivational processes in Rangi”, Studies in African Linguistics 31 (1/2), pp.129-153. Walsh, Martin. 2002. “Languages, Cultures and Environments: Historical Linguistics between the African Great Lakes and the Western Indian Ocean”, paper presented to the Second Platina Workshop, Arusha, Tanzania, 17-19 October 2002.

Appendix A The full list of common Bantu cognates in Rangi (24 pages) is available from the author upon request.

Appendix B Rangi -CV -l < *L (H) BLR2 no. Rangi 290

tone ll

gloss spider

364

ll

white hair

773

ll

stomach

1983

ll

firewood

&

firewood

3005

ll

person

&

person

7241

ll

in-law

#&

3403

ll

daytime

'

Rangi -CV -h < *H (L) BLR2 no. Rangi 562

tone ll;lh

gloss ground

PB '

2881

ll;lh

tree

3030

ll;lh

ear

6231

ll;lh

saliva

6431

hh

where?

7984

l;h

few

((&

9207

ll;lh

bow

&

2667

ll;lh

bladder

PB & &

PB-gloss spider

&

white hair

&

abdomen

relation by marriage daytime

PB-gloss ground tree

&

ear

&

saliva where? little, small bow

&

stomach

PB & &

PB-gloss rib

(&

shoulder

Rangi -CV(V)CV -ll < *LL (LH, HH, HL) BLR2 no. Rangi tone 52 lll

gloss rib

139

lll

shoulder

369

lll

pubic hair

551

lll

sand

'(&

757

lll

fart

' & &

897

ll

beard

(&

&

wind per anum beard

897

lll

chin

(&

&

chin

927

lll

vegetable

(&

&

985

lll

birdlime

&

#&

1003

lll

root

&

1025

lll

lake

&

August 2003

& & &

hair on body &

sand

sticky saliva birdlime root

&

pool 14

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history

1076

lll

heavy

& #&

heavy

1077

lll

weight

& #&

weight

1329

lll

palm

&

1332

ll

doctor

&

1348

lll

trickle

(&

1355

lll

tooth

(& #&

tooth

1359

lll

guest

(& &

stranger

1450

ll

back

#&

1485

lll

evening

& #&

evening

1489

ll

hill

&

&

hill

1490

ll

leg

&

&

leg

1505

lll

&

1509

lll

barren woman field

1555

ll

hunger

1593

ll

path

1607

ll

elephant

#&

1628

ll

hammer

&

1963

lll

occiput

#& &

2186

lll

snot

&

2187

lll

oesophagus

& #&

2600

lll

blind person

#&

3002

lll

mud

#& (&

mud

258

l

buffalo

#& #

buffalo

613

ll

lion

1614

lll

God

August 2003

&

palm of hand &

medicineman

&

stream

#&

back

&

&

&

&

&

&

barren woman garden hunger

&

path &

elephant #&

hammer occiput

& &

'

nasal mucus throat blind person

lion &

sun

15

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history

Rangi -CV(V)CV -lh < *LH (HL, LL, HH) BLR2 no. Rangi tone 1175 l;r 1621 l;r

gloss relative

3043

PB &

PB-gloss relative

groundnut

&

groundnut

ll;lh

sleep

& #

sleep

3488

ll;lh

pot

746

ll;lh

calabash

2720

lll;llh

hut

&

3203

ll;lh

child

&

900

l;r

bird

1725

lll;llh

tray

&

pot

'

&

jar, calabash platform, (granary) child

(& (&

bird paddle

Rangi -CV(V)CV -hh < *HL (HH, LH, LL) BLR2 no. Rangi tone 917 lhh

gloss disability

1728

hh

headpad

1798

hh

monkey

2110

hh

tortoise

2132

lhh

bone

2348

lhh

twins

' &

twins

2568

hh

kidney

#&

kidney

2642

hh

rat

2677

lhh

foam

3364

hh

song

3396

rh

thief

&

thief

6149

lhh

darkness

& &

darkness

1325

rh

clothes

1903

lhh

leftover

2003

lhh

elder

old person

2004

lhh

elder sibling

older brother

2046

hh

dove

pigeon

2071

hh

tick

tick

2146

rh

mother

2806

rh

father

& &

father

3082

lhh

basket

&

basket

1993

hh

turaco

&' &

parrot

4961

hh

tsetse-fly

& #&

tsetse-fly

Rangi -CVVCV -fl < *HL (HH, LH, LL) BLR2 no. Rangi tone 1720 fl 2256 lfl

gloss fowl

2713

branch

lfl

bigness

August 2003

PB (

PB-gloss disability

& &

headpad &

monkey sp.

&

tortoise

&

bone

&

kind of rat

#&

foam

#&

song, dance

cloth # #

crust

& &

mother

PB & ( (& &

PB-gloss guinea-fowl bigness branch

16

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history

# &

2977

lfl

drop

spot

3619

fl

iron

7055

fl

thirst

610

fl

well

1149

fl

dream

1325

lfl

shirt

cloth

2657

lhfl

buzzard

kind of eagle

2849

lfl

date-palm

1685

fl

older brother

242

lfl

carcass

1429

fl

drum

#&

Rangi -CV(V)CV -ll ≈ -hh < *HH (HL, LL, LH) BLR2 no. Rangi tone gloss 1845 neck ll;hh

PB

&

iron

$##& & '

thirst well, pool

## #

(

dream

(

palm-tree

& &

older brother

&

& &

#

corpse drum

PB-gloss neck

1861

lll;lhh

shell

#

skin

1861

lll;lhh

rope

#

rope

1865

lll;lhh

navel

#

navel

1904

ll;hh

chicken

# #

chicken

2133

ll;hh

short

short

2134

lll;lhh

shortness

shortness

6335

ll;rh

near

near

28

lll;lhh

mark

303

ll;hh

goat

368

ll;hh

rain

973

lll;lhh

tongue

1050

lll;lhh

spirit

1183

lll;lhh

husband

(&

husband

1662

lll;lhh

ember

&

ember

1670

lll;lhh

fierceness

&

fierceness

1793

lll;lhh

tail

&

tail

2138

lll;lhh

oil

&

oil

2478

ll;hh

cold

2519

lll;lhh

handle

&

handle

2741

lll;lhh

bottom

#&

buttock

2895

lll;lhh

heart

&

heart

2895

lll;lhh

liver

&

liver

2913

lll;lhh

rainy season

2917

lll;lhh

night

2926

lll;lhh

stalk

2972

lll;lhh

breast

3153

ll;rh

finger

August 2003

&

spot

&

goat &

rain

&

tongue &

( #&

spirit

cold

&

cold weather &

night

& #

#& &

base of tree trunk breast finger

17

First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history

&

3169

ll;rh

year

3284

ll;rh

moon

3350

ll;hh

bee

&

bee

3405

ll;rh

eye

'#&

eye

3464

lll;lhh

name

3536

ll;hh

snake

6074

ll;rh

taboo

6810

ll;hh

bushbuck

222

lll;lhh

pot

1448

ll;hh

spear

August 2003

year

( &

moon

& #

name &

snake

#& #& & #&

taboo #&

goat pot spear

18