Dec 11, 2006 - Mbundu (Kimbundu) English-Portuguese dictionary with grammar ... A tonal grammar of kinyarwanda: an autosegmental and metrical analysis.
On the (non?)reality of homophony avoidance: an examination of Bantu person paradigms Thera Crane Linguistics 215 – Morphology Final Paper 11 December 2006
1 1.1
Introduction Paradigmatic contrast and homophony avoidance as forces in language change The role of the paradigm in stimulating and inhibiting phonological change has been a
much-discussed and contentious topic in linguistics. Opposing forces of paradigm uniformity and paradigm contrast are often assumed to be at play in language change. Various names for and descriptions of the paradigmatic contrast principle have been proposed. Rebrus and Törkenczy (2005:264) formulate their “contrast” constraint as follows: (1) CON: The surface realizations of morphologically distinct members mi…mn of a paradigm x must be phonetically distinct. Numerous cases have been cited in which phonological neutralizations appear to have been avoided specifically in those contexts in which they would create paradigm-internal homophony (cf. e.g. Blevins 2006 for a broad survey; Malkiel 1968 for Romance; Crosswhite 1999 for Bulgarian and Russian; Kenstowicz 2005 for Russian, Bulgarian, Chi-Mwi:ni, and Arabic; Rebrus and Törkenczy 2005 for Hungarian). Others (cf. e.g. Timberlake 2006 in Inkelas 2006; Andrew Garrett, p.c.) have been skeptical of these claims, arguing that such an approach to explaining lack of sound change is overly teleological (but cf. Blevins 2006:4), and fails to take into account a large number of cases in which homophony is not avoided, or sound change is inhibited where no ambiguity would result. 1.2
Goal of this paper This paper investigates cases of homophony in the Bantu verbal subject- and object-
marking paradigms – where homophony-avoidance forces, if they exist, would be expected to be active – in an attempt to provide further positive or negative evidence for the paradigmatic contrast principle.
Crane 2 1.3
The Bantu person paradigm Bantu languages are well known for their agglutinating verbal template, which (optionally
or obligatorily) marks, among other things, subject, object, valency, tense, aspect, and mood. We will be particularly interested in the subject and object prefixes (hereafter SP and OP); in typical Bantu languages these appear on the verb as follows (adapted from Hyman 2003): (2)
(3) PI- SP-
NEG
TP-
AP-
OP-
STEM…
1
The subject and object prefix paradigm for persons and the various noun classes is, in general, highly articulated, as seen in the following example from Kwanyama (adapted from Halme 2006:74): (4) PERSON/ CLASS 1sg 1pl 2sg 2pl 3sg (cl 1) 3pl (cl 2) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Reflexive
VERBAL PREFIX (VP) ndi/i tu u mu a, ku va u di li a, ku shi i i di lu/li ka
VP TONE H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
OBJECT PREFIX (OP) nge (enclitic) tu ku mu mu va u di li a shi i i di lu/li ka
OP TONE H H L H L H H H H H H H H H H H
u ku pa ku mu
H H H H H
u ku
H H
li
?
PI = preinitial morpheme; AP = aspect prefix; NEG = negative; TP = tense prefix; AP = object prefix 1
Crane 3 1.3.1 The Bantu person paradigm historically The person SP and OP paradigms have been reconstructed for Proto-Bantu as follows: (5) SP
1SG *N-
1PL *t!-
OP
*-N-
*-t!"-
2SG *!-
2PL *m!-
3SG (CL 1) *!"-, *#-2
3PL (CL 2) *bá
*-k!*-m!"*-m!*-ba(6) (based on Polak-Bynon 1986:373 and Schadeberg 2003:151)
As seen in (5), the SP distinction between 2sg and 3sg, and the OP distinction between 2pl and 3sg, are entirely dependent on tone. 1.4
Tone in Bantu (briefly) Tone plays a large and complex role in most Bantu languages. Tonal contrasts can be
lexical, grammatical, or prosodic. 2
Homophony avoidance in the Bantu SP and OP person paradigms The Bantu SP and OP person paradigms, in which several forms were historically
distinguished only through tonal information (see section 1.3.1 above), are a perfect example of an environment in which anti-homophony effects might be expected to manifest themselves. In this section, I attempt a preliminary investigation of a wide sample of Bantu languages to see if this is in fact the case. 2.1
Predictions If homophony avoidance is, in fact, an active feature in paradigms and can inhibit sound
change, we might expect the following to be true for a majority of Bantu languages: i.
Tonal contrasts will be maintained in the SP and OP person paradigms, particularly in the case of 2sg/3sg SPs and 2pl/3sg OPs. ii. If the SP and OP tonal contrasts have been lost, forms that would have been ambiguous as a result will be otherwise differentiated.3 iii. More variation will be found in the forms that Proto-Bantu differentiated only with a tonal distinction iv. If change has occurred, it will be mostly found in the second-person forms, since their referents are less likely to be explicitly mentioned in surrounding discourse; hence, the possibility for ambiguity is greater. “The class 1 [SP] *!"- resembles the [pronominal prefix]; the [OP] *#- is used in the Optative and related tenses. This allomorphy evades homophony beetween forms of 2sg and class 1 since tonal distinctions between different [SPs] and verb roots are neutralized in the Optative.” (Schadeberg 2003: 151). 3 Speculations about the chronological ordering and source of such changes are fascinating but beyond the scope of this paper. 2
Crane 4 2.2
Methodology To investigate the strength of “homophony avoidance” in the Bantu person paradigms, I
collected information from as many grammars of Bantu languages as possible. Languages are classified according to their “Guthrie” numbers, named for Malcolm Guthrie, whose Bantu language classification is still the most widely used. Each language has a code consisting of a letter (for the language “zone”) followed by a number (with the first digit representing the language “group” and subsequent digits specific to the particular language).4 It should be noted that Guthrie’s classification is geographical, rather than genetic; for an attempt at a historical classification of the languages, see Nurse and Philippson (2003b). I started by searching for references on each of the roughly nine hundred language and dialect names given in Maho (2003), occasionally consulting the online Ethnologue (Gordon 2005) for alternate language names, and making a special effort to find at least one language from each group. I then collected full SP and OP paradigms, as well as tonal information, for each language for which a grammar or other suitable reference was available. These investigations yielded paradigm information for eighty-two Bantu languages; information about the object prefixes for an additional 102 languages was taken from Polnak-Bynon (1986). Full paradigms with reasonably reliable tonal data were available for approximately thirty-nine languages. I then examined the SP and OP person paradigms for ambiguities, and for the variety of forms used for the prefixes in question. If tonal information was available, I noted whether the SPs and OPs still had distinguishing tonal contrasts, as well as whether the tones had changed from the Proto-Bantu forms. Analysis is based on three groupings of the languages: (a) all languages for which at least some data are available (185 languages); (b) languages for which complete paradigm and tonal information were found (39 languages); (c) one language from each group represented in (b), in order to get the most even geographical spread possible (approximately 21 languages). I focused most of my investigation on the OP paradigm, for several reasons: i.
More information was available for OP forms (largely thanks to Polnak-Bynon’s 1986 survey) ii. Potential ambiguities in both the SP and OP paradigms involve second-person forms. Second-person subjects seem most likely to be used in questions rather than
4
For a more complete description of the classification system, see Maho (2003).
Crane 5 statements, while second-person OPs may allow for more frequent and varied usage, and hence, maximal opportunity for ambiguities to arise.5 2.2.1 Difficulties Collecting data for Bantu languages is fraught with challenges and frustrations (cf. Nurse and Philippson 2003b for further discussion). Inadequate information is available for languages from many of the groups (and even entire zones); thus, the data assembled here may be skewed because of the highly uneven distribution of languages examined. In addition, the information that is available is often inconsistently presented, difficult to locate in grammars, incomplete, and unreliable. Most salient for this investigation, tonal information is often partial, inaccurate (failing to take into account tonal features that would affect the description of lexical tones), or (most commonly) completely omitted. Because of the many uses and complex nature of tone, tone assignments are often opaque and can be difficult to analyze (cf. Odden 2003:62: “In many (perhaps most) Bantu languages, other tonal phenomena result in a very indirect relationship between primary H and surface tone.”); this compounds the problem, because even carefully written grammars may overlook factors essential to understanding tonal phenomena. Also, many languages, particularly those in the northwest, do not mark object on the verb at all, but use full pronouns or NPs.6 For all of these reasons, it is difficult to make generalizations that are reliably true for a wide spread of Bantu languages; results of this study should therefore be regarded as preliminary. With these caveats in mind, I discuss my initial findings below.
Many potential ambiguities are also present in the full noun class SP and OP paradigms, but I believe that person referents are both more frequent and more subject to potential ambiguity, as it is more likely for non-human referents to be explicitly mentioned in surrounding discourse, while human referents (particularly first and second person) are more frequently referred to using only pronominal-type forms. 5
Crane 6
2.3
Findings and Discussion
2.3.1 Variation from Proto-Bantu forms Prediction (repeated from 2.1): More variation will be found in the forms that Proto-Bantu differentiated only with a tonal distinction. Considerable variation is found in Bantu OPs. Many OP forms differ greatly from the reconstructed Proto-Bantu forms and from those of other Bantu languages, even closely related ones. In addition, there is much language-internal variation. For example, Totela speakers use both -mu- and -mi- OPs to express second-person plural.7 As might be predicted by homophony-avoidance theories, there is great variation of 2pl object markers: at least forty-nine 2pl OP variants (including tonal variations) were found within the 176 languages for which data were available (approximately one variant for every 3.6 languages). 3sg OPs also show great variation, with at least seventeen variants in the seventy-four languages investigated, or a variant for every 4.4 languages. However, 2pl OPs have diverged from the Proto-Bantu form in a far greater number of languages. Fifty-two of the 176 languages, or about 30%, have -mu- (either H or L toned, or unmarked for tone) as at least one of their 2pl OP variants; for 3sg, at least fifty-six of the seventy-four languages (76%) retain -mu- as an OP alternant. (7) # of languages examined # of varying forms found # of languages with -mu - as an variant
2PL
3SG (CL 1)
176
74
49+
1 for every 3.6 languages
17+
1 for every 4.4 languages
52+
29.5%
56+
75.7%
OP VARIATION
In addition, it is strongly evident from an impressionistic look at the language data that the greatest non-phonologically-conditioned language-internal variation is found in the 2pl OPs, as might be predicted if homophony-avoidance forces are indeed at work. When considering these figures, however, it is important to note that other factors may influence the variation, or lack thereof, of OP forms. In particular, class 1 nouns are often
OP choice is sometimes sociolinguistically conditioned. Polnak-Bynon (1986:386) notes that Town Bemba speakers consider -mi- to be more ‘modern’ and ‘sophisticated’; the -mu- form is more often used in villages. -mi-, however, may still be a relatively early varient (Polnak-Bynon 1986:389). 7
Crane 7 prefixed with mu-; retention of mu- might therefore be “preferred” in order to optimize paradigm uniformity.8 2.3.2 Maintenance of tonal contrast Prediction (repeated from 2.1): Tonal contrasts will be maintained in the SP and OP person paradigms, particularly in the case of 2sg/3sg SPs and 2pl/3sg OPs. Tonal contrasts were maintained for at least some forms in a majority of the languages for which tonal information was available. For the remaining languages, contrasting lexical tone has been lost for the prefixes, often superceded by grammatical tone. SP tonal contrasts are present for 46-51% of the languages investigated9, and OP tone is contrastive for 5969% of the languages (see also (7) below). Within the smaller language sample (sample (c): one from each Guthrie group for which tone information is available), similar results were found: 48-57% of the twenty-one languages have tonal contrasts on SPs, and 55-70% do for OPs (see also (8) below). (8) # of languages examined Tonal contrast retained
SP
OP
36
31
17-19
47.2-52.8%
19-21
61.3-67.7%
RETENTION OF TONAL C ONTRAST: LANGUAGE SAMPLE ( B)
(9) # of languages examined Tonal contrast retained
10-12
SP
OP
21
20 47.6-57.1%
11-14
55-70%
RETENTION OF TONAL C ONTRAST: LANGUAGE SAMPLE ( C)
Of particular interest is that at least two dialects (North and South Rombo) maintain a tonal contrast only on the 2pl OP forms. The next question to ask is whether the retention of tonal contrast actually prevents ambiguity. I categorized the languages that retained tonal contrast into three categories:
Note that a change in the 2pl OP would also disrupt 2pl paradigm uniformity, as the 2pl SP is often mu-; one would have to weigh the total numbers of occurrences of mu in each paradigm to evaluate claims of paradigm uniformity as a factor in inhibiting OP changes. 9 Percentage data is given as a range because of the ambiguity of some language descriptions. 8
Crane 8 i. languages in which tonal contrasts “save” the person paradigm from ambiguity ii. languages in which tonal contrasts are present, but the forms are also otherwise differentiated (e.g. Bangubangu: 2pl OP -lù-; 3sg SP -mu-) iii. languages in which tonal contrasts are present, but ambiguous forms are still within the person paradigm Findings for samples (b) and (c) are given in (9) and (10) below. (10) SP # of languages examined tonal contrast saves paradigm from ambiguity11 (i) tonal contrast present; forms otherwise differentiated (ii) tonal contrast present; ambiguity nonetheless (iii)
19
OP
10
21
11
57.9%
10
47.6%
7
36.8%
9-10
38.1-47.6%
1
5.3%
1-2
4.8-9.5%
THE R OLE OF TONAL C ONTRAST IN AVOIDING AMBIGUITY: LANGUAGE SAMPLE (B)
(11) # of languages examined tonal contrast saves paradigm from ambiguity13 (i) tonal contrast present; forms otherwise differentiated (ii) tonal contrast present; ambiguity nonetheless (iii)
SP
OP
12
(11-)1412
8
66.7%
6
45.5%
2
16.7%
(5-)6
45.5%
2
16.7%
(0-)2
14.3%
THE R OLE OF TONAL C ONTRAST IN AVOIDING AMBIGUITY: LANGUAGE SAMPLE (C)
As seen in the tables, tone still plays a large role in ambiguity prevention, although ambiguity is sometimes “doubly” prevented, since contrasts are expressed both in tonal information and in morpheme shape. A diachronic study of the languages in which this I assume here that for every language in which lexical tone contrasts appear to be present, this is actually the case; it should be noted that percentage calculations in this case are probably less meaningful than the raw data, anyway. 11 Note that the ambiguities (and potential ambiguities) discussed here are not just related to 2- or 3person forms, but to any forms in the person paradigms. 12 Numbers in parentheses here indicate the low numbers; e.g. with grammars that are not entirely clear being omitted. 13 Note that the ambiguities (and potential ambiguities) discussed here are not just related to 2- or 3person forms, but to any forms in the person paradigms. 10
Crane 9 “double marking” would be informative; if ambiguity avoidance does indeed play a role in the maintenance of tonal contrasts, these might be more likely than others to lose lexical tone on person prefixes. It seems that forces of uniformity and contrast would be at odds in these situations. 2.3.3 Differentiation when tone is lost Prediction (repeated from 2.1): If the SP and OP tonal contrasts have been lost, forms that would have been ambiguous as a result will be otherwise differentiated. Of the languages in which tone contrasts for the person prefixes were lost, most had some sort of “compensation” for this loss, so that ambiguity was still avoided. Statistical results are given in tables (11) and (12) below. (12) # of languages examined no tonal contrast; no ambiguity no tonal contrast; ambiguity
SP
OP
1914
12
14
73.7%
5
41.7%
5
26.3%
7
58.3%
MORPHOLOGICAL “COMPENSATION” FOR LAKC OF TONAL CONTRAST: LANGUAGE SAMPLE (B)
(13) # of languages examined no tonal contrast; no ambiguity no tonal contrast; ambiguity
SP
OP
11
9
7-8
63.6-72.7%
2-5
22.2-55.6%
2-4
36.3%
3-515
33.3%-55.6%
MORPHOLOGICAL “COMPENSATION” FOR LAKC OF TONAL CONTRAST: LANGUAGE SAMPLE (C)
Due to the small number of languages available for sampling, and the conflicting and incomplete data in several of the grammars, these results must be seen as tentative at best; still, it seems that less ambiguity is found in the SP paradigms. This is counter to the prediction above; however, we should also remember that the Proto-Bantu SP paradigm already provided an alternate form for the 3sg; this has often been adopted. It would, of course, be instructive to see whether languages that maintain the tonal contrast also maintain Again, I am assuming the maximal number of languages (including those cases where grammars were not entirely clear); percentage data is therefore not highly reliable. 15 Maximum numbers add to more than the total number because grammars presented unclear or conflicting information. 14
Crane 10 the optative/non-optative contrast discussed in footnote (2) above. At any rate, it is interesting, and contra the prediction in 2.1, that OPs that have lost the tonal contrast show little evidence for morphological compensation. Homophony, it seems, is tolerated to some extent. 2.3.4
Homophony and ambiguity in general
Prediction (repeated from 2.1): If change has occurred, it will be mostly found in the second-person forms, since their referents are less likely to be explicitly mentioned in surrounding discourse; hence, the possibility for ambiguity is greater. Finally, we should see how much homophony is tolerated within the SP and OP person paradigms in general. If a great deal of homophony is found, explanations as to why these ambiguous forms are allowed would be necessary in order to defend the thesis that antihomophony effects drive or inhibit morphological change. The tables below give data for total number of ambiguities found in the SP and OP person paradigms for the languages examined. Because some languages had multiple ambiguities, I also give the total number of languages in which ambiguities were found. (14) SP, SAMPLE (B) # of languages examined # of cases of 2sg/3sg ambiguity # of cases of other ambiguity Total cases of ambiguity
36 2-4 4 6-8 (in 5-6 languages)
13.9-16.7% of languages examined
SP AMBIGUITY AND ITS DISTRIBUTION: LANGUAGE SAMPLE (B)
Crane 11 (15) OP, SAMPLE (B) # of languages examined # of cases of 2pl/3sg ambiguity # of cases of other ambiguity Total cases of ambiguity
31 7 4-5 22.6-32.2% of languages examined
11-12 (in 7-10 languages)
OP AMBIGUITY AND ITS DISTRIBUTION: LANGUAGE SAMPLE (B)
OP ambiguities appear to be slightly more common than SP ambiguities within the same (or nearly the same) sample of languages. This contradicts the assumption I made in choosing the forms to focus on for data collection, although the number of languages in the sample is too small to make any strong claims either way. It is also interesting to note, if not surprising, that for both SP and OP paradigms, ambiguities involving Proto-Bantu forms distinguished only by tone seem to be at least as common as all other cases of ambiguity combined. That is, languages may lose phonological distinctions that result in paradigminternal ambiguity, but are less likely to add forms that create ambiguity. We can also look at cases of (potential) ambiguity for all of the languages sampled, including those without tonal information. (16) SP, SAMPLE (A) # of languages examined # of cases of 2sg/3sg ambiguity # of cases of other ambiguity Total cases of ambiguity
72 12-18 4-5 16-23 (in 2021 languages)
27.8-29.2% of languages examined
SP AMBIGUITY AND ITS DISTRIBUTION: LANGUAGE SAMPLE (A)
Crane 12 (17) OP, SAMPLE (A) # of languages examined # of cases of 2pl/3sg ambiguity # of cases of 2pl/3pl ambiguity # of cases of other ambiguity Total cases of ambiguity
89 15-21 21 3-4 39-46 (in 3943 languages)
43.8-48.3% of languages examined
AMBIGUITY AND ITS DISTRIBUTION: LANGUAGE SAMPLE ( A)
Here, we find that potential OP ambiguities are much more common than SP ambiguities. However, this finding is inconclusive because of the lack of tonal information that would tell us whether the ambiguities actually exist. Also inconclusive is the high prevalence of 2pl/3pl ambiguity. Because of pragmatic (politeness) and other factors, Bantu languages show a general shift from using 2sg to 2pl forms, as well as a shift from 2pl to 3pl (Larry Hyman, p.c.). However, since the Proto-Bantu OPs also showed 2pl/3pl tonal contrast (2pl being H; 3pl L), and we lack tone information for many languages, we again do not know whether the ambiguities actually exist. I should also note that the data may also be skewed towards finding ambiguity in the OP paradigm, because of the data taken from Polnak-Bynon (1986), who included a section on 2pl OPs that have the same form as 3pl OPs. Despite all these problems, I have included the information in order to point out the need both for further research into this particular problem, and for more thorough description of Bantu languages. 3
Conclusion While the findings discussed in this paper are preliminary, they point to a robust
tendency for SP and OP paradigms to be completely contrastive within languages, whether as a result of tone contrasts or change to the morphemes. This finding may provide tentative support for the claim that paradigm-contrast preservation is indeed an active force in the inhibition of language change. Fully evaluating this claim would require a thorough examination of all the morphemes associated with each person in each of the languages; it would also be important to take into account ambiguities involving the reflexive marker,
Crane 13 which appears in the same slot as the OP. A rigorous evaluation of other possible sources of language change is also required. Despite the present study’s limitations, the trends observed are of sufficient interest to warrant further investigations. 3.1
Further research In general, the problem associated with research of this nature is that for every case
where homophony-avoidance seems to be a force, cases can be cited in which homophony is not avoided. Still, the question is interesting enough to merit further investigations of homophony and homophony-avoidance. An obvious first step in continuing this project would be to gather further paradigm and tonal information for Bantu languages. In addition, it would be very instructive to examine general sound changes within the languages that lack paradigm-internal homophony, to see whether other sound changes have been “avoided” within the paradigm. A diachronic study of particular languages would also be very enlightening: do languages first lose the tonal contrast, and then develop or borrow alternate prefixes to compensate for the ambiguity created, does ambiguity-eliminating change within the paradigm pave the way for loss of tonal contrast, or are the phenomena unrelated? It is also important to consider why changes occur where they do: for example, as alluded to in section 2.3.4, there is more variation in the 2pl OP than in that of the 3sg. Here, cross-linguistic studies of person hierarchies and markedness effects would be of use. It would also be of interest to examine typologies of paradigm changes: cross-linguistically, how common is the Bantu 2sg > 2pl > 3pl shift? Finally, the difficulty of finding reliable data for use in this project highlights the importance of careful, clearly presented language documentation and description of Bantu languages. It is only with the availability of quality grammars that broad typological queries such as the raised in this paper can be honestly and adequately investigated.
Crane 14
4 References Blevins, Juliette. 2006. Lexical character displacement: an evolutionary approach to inhibited sound change. Paper presented at the University of California, Berkeley. Crosswhite, Katherine. 1999. Intra-paradigmatic homophony avoidance in two dialects of Slavic. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 1. Papers in Phonology 2, ed. by Matthew K. Gordon. Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Linguistics. Garrett, Andrew. 2006. Paradigmatic heterogeneity. Paper presented at the University of California, Berkeley. Gordon, Raymond G., Jr., ed. 2005. Ethnologue: languages of the world, fifteenth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Segmental phonology. The Bantu languages, ed. by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson, 42-58. New York: Routledge. Inkelas, Sharon. 2006. Notes on anti-homophony effects in morphology. Lecture given in Linguistics 215 (Advanced Morphology), University of California, Berkeley. Katamba, Francis. 2003. Bantu nominal morphology. The Bantu languages, ed. by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson,103-120. New York: Routledge. Kenstowicz, Michael. 2005. Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. Paradigms in phonological theory, ed. by Laura J. Downing, T.A. Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen. New York: Oxford University Press. Kisseberth, Charles and David Odden. 2003. Tone. The Bantu languages, ed. by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson, 59-70. New York: Routledge. Maho, Jouni. 2003. A classification of the Bantu languages: an update of Guthrie’s referential system. The Bantu languages, ed. by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson, 639-651. New York: Routledge. Malkiel, Yakov. 1968. The inflectional paradigm as an occasional determinant of sound change. Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium, ed. by W. P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, 21-64. Austin: University of Texas Press. McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. by Jill Beckman, Laura Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249-384. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Nurse, Derek and Gérard Philippson. 2003b. Towards a historical classification of the Bantu languages. The Bantu languages, ed. by Derek Nurse andGérard Philippson, 164-181. New York: Routledge. Nurse, Derek. 2001. A survey report for the Bantu languages. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version: http://www.sil.org/silesr/2002/016/SILESR2002016.htm#Bantu%20languages%20of%20Africa. Polak-Bynon, Louise. 1986. Les infixes (‘prefixes objets’) du bantou et leur réconstruction. Africana Linguistica X.365-422; 449-454. Rebrus, Péter and Miklós Törkenczy. 2005. Uniformity and contrast in the Hungarian verbal paradigm. Paradigms in phonological theory, ed. by Laura J. Downing, T.A. Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen. New York: Oxford University Press. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 2003. Historical linguistics. The Bantu languages, ed. by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson, 143-163. New York: Routledge.
Crane 15 4.1 Language data references Alexandre, Pierre. 1966. Systeme verbal et predicatif du Bulu. Paris: Librarie C. Klincksieck. Anderson, W.G. 1897. An introductory grammar of the Sena language. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Bastin, Yvonne. 2003. The Interlacustrine zone (Zone J), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 501528 Baumbach, E.J.M. 1997. Languages of the eastern Caprivi. Namibian languages: reports and papers, ed. by W.H.G. Haacke and E. Elderkin, 307-451. Cologne, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Bentley,Mayrene and Andrew Kulemeka. 2001. Chichewa. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Botne, R. 1994. A Lega and English Dictionary. Cologne: Rüdiger-Köppe Verlag. Botne, Robert. 2003. Lega (Beya dialect) (D25), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 422-449. Canonici, Noverino N. 1994. The Nguni languages: a simple presentation and comparison of Zulu, Xhosa, and Swati. Durban: University of Natal. Carter, Hazel. 2002. An outline of Chitonga grammar. Lusaka: Bookworld Publishers. Coupez, A. 1955. Esquisse de la langue Holoholo. Belgium: Tervuren. Crane, Thera. 2006. Totela field notes. ms. University of California, Berkeley. Daeleman, Jan. 1966. Morfologie van naamwoord en werkwoord in het Kongo (Ntandu) met ontleding van het foneemsysteem. PhD Thesis. Belgum: Universiteit te Leuven. Dembetembe, N. C. 1987. A linguistic study of the verb in Korekore. Harare: University of Zimbabwe. Diarra, Boubacar. 1990. Grámatica Cokwe. Luanda : Secretária de Estado da Cultura, Instituto de Línguas Nacionais. Doke, Clement M. 1938. Text book of Lamba grammar. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. -----. 1954. The Southern Bantu languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Elderkin, Edward D. 2003. Herero (R31), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 581-608. Fisch, Maria. 1998. Thimbukushu Grammar. Windhoek: Out of Africa Publishers. Fivaz, Derek. 1986. A reference grammar of Oshindonga. Windhoek: Out of Africa Publishers. Fortune, G. 1967. Elements of Shona (Zezuru dialect). Rhodesia: Longmans. -----. 1982. Shona grammatical constructions part II. Harare: Mercury Press. Fourie, David J.1993. Mbalanhu. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Gecaga, B. Mareka. 1994. A short Kikuyu grammar. New York: Macmillan Kenya Publishers Ltd. Gowlett, Derek. 2003. Zone S, in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 609-638. Grégoire, Claire. 2003. The Bantu languages of the forest, in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 349-370. Guarisma, Gladys. 2003. K!"# (A53), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 283-306. Halme, Riikka. 2004. A tonal grammar of Kwanyama. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Harries, Lyndon. 1950. A grammar of Mwera. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Heath, Teresa. 2003. Makaa (A83), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 335-348 Hedinger, Robert. 1987. The Manenguba languages (Bantu A.15, Mbo cluster) of Cameroon. London: SOAS.
Crane 16 Henry, George. 1904. A grammar of Chinyanja. Aberdeen; G&W Fraser. Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Basaá (A43), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 257-282. Johnson, Amandus. 1930. Mbundu (Kimbundu) English-Portuguese dictionary with grammar and syntax. Philadelphia: The International Printing Company. Junod, Henri A.1896. Grammaire Ronga. Lausanne: Imprimerie Georges Bridel & Cie. Kaji, Shigeki. 2000. Haya vocabulary. (Asian and African lexicon series, no 37.) Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Katamba, Francis. 2003. Bantu nominal morphology, in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 103-120. Kimyeni, Alexandre. 2002. A tonal grammar of kinyarwanda: an autosegmental and metrical analysis. Ontario: The Edwin Mellen Press. Kisseberth, Charles. 2003. Makhuwa (P30), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 546-565. Lehmann, Dorothea. 2002. An outline of Cinyanja grammar. Lusaka: Bookworld Publishers. Leitch, Myles. 2003. Babole (C101), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 392-421. Lojenga, Constance Kutsch. 2003. Bila (D32), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 450-474. Mangulu, Motingea. 1996. Etude comparative des langues ngiri de l’entre Ubangi-Zaïre. Leiden: Research School CNWS Meeussen, A.E. 1954. Linguistische schets van het Bangubangu. Belgium: Tervuren. Miti, Lazarus M. 2002. Aspects of Cinsenga tonology. Capetown: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Möhlig, Wilhelm J.G. 1967. Die Sprache der Dciriku: Phonologie, Prosodologi und Morphologie. PhD Dissertation. Cologne: Universität zu Köln. Möhlig, Wilhelm J.G., Lutz Marten and Jekura U. Kavari. 2002. A grammatical sketch of Herero (Otjiherero). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Morrison, W.M. 1939. Dictionary of the Tshiluba language. Luebo, Belgian Congo: J. Leighton Wilson Press. Mous, Maarten. 2004. Grammatical sketch of Mbugwe: Bantu F34, Tanzania. Cologne: Rüdiger-Köppe Verlag. Ntahokaja, Jean-Baptiste. 1994. Grammaire structurale du Kirundi. Bujumbura: Universite du Burundi – A.C.C.T. Nurse, Derek and Gérard Philippson. eds. 2003. The Bantu languages. New York: Routledge. Odden, David. 2003. Rufiji-Ruvuma (N10, P10-20), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 529-545. Olson, Howard Stanley. 1964. The phonology and morphology of Ri$mi. PhD Thesis. Hartford, Connecticut: Hartford Seminary Foundation. Philippson, Gérard and Marie-Laure Montlahuc. 2003. Kilimanjaro Bantu (E60 and E74), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 475-500. Poulos, George and Sonja E. Bosch. Zulu. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Richardson, I. The role of tone in the structure of Su$ku$! ma. London: SOAS. Riordan, J, M. Mathiso, A.S. Davey, et al. 1969. Lumko Xhosa self-introduction course. Delmenville (South Africa): Lumko Institute. Ruttenberg, S.J. Piet. 2000. Lexique Yaka-Français; Français-Yaka. Munich: Lincom Europa. Sadler, Wesley. 1964. Untangled Cibemba: a language of Northern Rhodesia, Central Africa. Kitwe, Northern Rhodesia: The United Church of Central Africa in Rhodesia.
Crane 17 Sanderson, G. Meredith. 1954. A dictionary of the Yao language. Zomba, Nyasaland: The Government Printer. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1990. A sketch of Umbundu. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Sommer, Gabriele. 2003. Western Savanna (K,R), in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 566-580. Stappers, Leo. 1986. Boma: eine Sprachskizze. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Taljaard, P.C., Khumalo, J.N., and S.E. Bosch. 1991. Handbook of Siswati. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik (Pty) Ltd. van den Eynde, Karel. 1968. Éléments de grammaire yaka: phonologie et morphologie flexionelle. Kinshasa, Université Lovanium: Publications Universitaies. van der Veen, Lolke J. 2003. The B30 language group, in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 371391. Waters, John R. 2003. Grassfields Bantu, in Nurse and Philippson (eds) 225-256. White, C.M.N. 1949. A short Lwena grammar. New York: Longmans, Green & Co. Whitehead, John. 1899. (1964) Grammar and dictionary of the Bobangi language as spoken over a part of the upper Congo West Central Africa. Ridgewood, NJ: Gregg Press Incorporated. Whitely, W.H. and M. G. Muli. 1962. Practical introduction to Kamba. London: Oxford University Press. Wilson, P.M.1979. Simplified Swahili. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau. Ziervogel, D., D. P. Lombard and P.C. Mokgokong. 1969. A handbook of the Northern Sotho language. Pretoria: J.L. von Schaik Limited. Zimmermann, Wolfgang and Paavo Hasheela. 1998. Oshikwanyama grammar. Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan.
Crane 18 Appendix A: Variants of 2pl/3sg OPs: 2pl OP variants: ba
mu
b!
mu"
b#
mu$
bô
m%
e
mu (HH)
ke
mu- -ini
ko
mu- -inyi
ku
mu- -ni
ku- -(y)i
mu-/ku- -yi
kù- -éní (2sg + enclitic)
mu-/ku--(y)i
ku- -i
N
ku- -ni
ni
ku- -yi
ni (L)
ku, (v)u
no
le
nu&
li
nwi
lo
nyu
lu (H)
o
lu (L)
o- -ni
lu/la
u- -ni
m (H)
va
m, mu&
wa
mi
wa- -ini
mi'a
wa- -ni
mo (H) 3sg OP variants: a?
mu (L)
b()
N
m
n, m
m (L)
ny-*/a
m(u)
+wi
mô
u
mo (L)
uN
mo,m
va
mu
