The Linguistics Stuff I Read

Here’s an example of the stuff I read. I must say though that this text was so complex that I could only read a little bit of it at a time. After that, I’d start to feel overwhelmed. For instance, right now, I’m on Number 9. Haven’t made it to Number 10 yet. I follow most of it but for some of the words, I have a hard time seeing how the base words of the numeral went into the actual word that is a combination of two words. I guess I just don’t understand the sound changes.

EAST CHADIC NUMERALS IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

2.1.3.1 Numerals for ‘6’

6.1 = 5+1 Lele ménèŋ and Nancere mə̀nə̀ 6 were probably simplified Lele and Nancere ‘6’ were probably simplified from a similar primary compound such as that found in Barain dasumaniŋ ‘6’ < dawsu ‘5’ + in ‘and’ + paniŋ ‘1’ (cf. Rendinger 1949: 193), including the change *p > m, cf. Lele pìnà, Nancere pə̀nà ‘1’. The following numeral also seems to be an additive combination: Mokilko zót ‘6’ < *[paa]tso < páát ‘5’ + *sòo[t] ‘1’, where the final *-t is preserved in gέssát ‘9’. It is possible that Kwang sɪdəəŋ ‘6’ is analyzable in a similar way. (Stolbova 2009: 52 reconstructs Chadic *sid– ‘6’).

The proposed process of simplification is convincingly documented in Bade (the Ngizim group of the West Chadic branch). In a relatively recent documentation (Kraft 1981: 256) the form is ə̀zdù ‘6’ (~ Ngizim zədu; Hausa shídà; Tsagu šičə id.); in Koelle (1854) it was still badṣ-ṓdi ‘5’ + ‘1’; compare modern Bade: bā́du ‘5’ + g-áde ‘1’.

Corresponding forms appear in the Bole group: Karekare (Kraft) bə̀coḍi ‘6’ = bəḍi-*si-wəḍi ‘5 + 1’, where the hypothetical conjunction *si has its counterpart in Hausa sha: (goma) sha ḍaya ‘11’ = ‘(10) plus 1’, (goma) sha biyu ‘12’ = ‘(10) plus 2’ (Blažek 1999: 68).

6.2 = 3 + 3
A further additive complex is found in Kujarke: aŋgogɔbo~ gamgubo ‘6’ (ubo ‘3’).

6.3 = finger (over) hand
The additive complex ‘finger (over) hand’ is found in the following languages: Sumray: dénā *kubi = dénum ‘finger’ (Nachtigal) + *kubi, reconstructed after Gabri kobin ‘hand’, Nancere kebúng ‘arm’, Dormo kobóng ‘arm’, Kabalai kobí ‘arm’ (Lukas 1937: 87, 89, 90, 92). In Sumray, Nachtigal (see Lukas 1937: 74) recorded the following complex forms: dénā sir ‘6’, literally ‘2 fingers’, dénā súbu ‘7’, literally ‘3 fingers’, dénā gúbī ‘8’, literally ‘finger & gúbī’, dénā men ‘9’, literally “1 finger” (Lukas 1937: 74).

This interpretation makes no sense. The most elegant solution is to substitute the positions of the numerals ‘6’ and ‘8’: dénā gúbī *‘6’ = “finger” + ‘hand’, dénā súbu ‘7’ = ‘3 [bent] fingers’, dénā sir *‘8’ = ‘2 [bent] fingers’, dénā men ‘9’ = ‘1 [bent] finger’. With this change the form kubi ‘6’, originally ‘hand’, recorded by Friedrich and Gaudefroy-
Demombynes (see Lukas 1937: 74) is also understandable.

6. 4 < Central Sudanic 6 = 5 + 1
The forms as in Toram míkkà, Birgit mekke, mik, Jegu, Mogum, Mabire mik ‘6’ cannot be explained from East Chadic. From a Chadic perspective it is possible to derive it from *(ma-)kanu-(di) ‘3’, attested e.g. in Central Chadic: Boka məkkən, Fali Kiria màkun(u), Gude mak, Gudu mā:kǝ́n, Daba màkat (all in Kraft 1981); in West Chadic: Geeji meekaŋ, Guruntum myaŋ, Diir myakan, Dwot mààgai, Zaari mààki (all Shimizu 1978) etc. ‘3’.

But in the East Chadic branch this root is not attested, other than in Mokilko ʔáḍó ‘3’, káḍùwé ‘3rd’ (Lukas 1937: 173) – without the m-prefix. On the other hand, there are suggestive areal parallels in the West branch of Central Sudanic with a transparent internal structure: Bagirmi (Jacob) mìká ‘6’ = mí ‘5’ + kɛ́ɗɛ̀ ‘1’; Babahi (Decorse) meko ‘6’ = mi ‘5’ + ‘1’; Sara Dendje (Decorse) maka ‘6’ = mi ‘5’ + kab ‘1’; Kaba Na (Faris) màhá ‘6’ = mìí ‘5’ + kárē/hàré ‘1’.

6.5 < Masa
Kera kə́nə́kí ‘6’ – may be borrowed from the Masa group: Lame kánki, Lame-Peve kánkí (both Kraft), Dari kanki (Lukas) ‘6’; cf. further Higi Nkafa & Higi Ghye kwaŋəy (both Kraft), Baza (Lukas) kwānge ‘6’ etc., originally probably from Chadic *kanu-kanu ‘3’ + ‘3’.

6.6 < Arabic sitt f./sittat m.
‘6’ > Maban: Maba (Edgar) sittà:l/síttí: ‘6’, Kibet (Edgar) issʌl id. > Mubi ìstàlà, Kajakse istàlà, Zirenkel istala; cf. also Fur (Jakobi) sitta ‘6’.

2.1.3.2 Numerals for ‘7’

The number ‘7’ includes additives, subtractives, ‘fingers’ and borrowings from Chadic and Sudanic languages.

7.1 = 5 + 2
This complex form is documented in Birgit basiri ‘7’ = bèèḍyà ‘5’ + síirì ‘2’; Jegu paise ‘7’ = bei ‘5’ + shee ‘2’; Mogum payse ‘7’ = bey ‘5’ + sɛ̀ ‘2’; Mabire paise ‘7’ = betdaŋ ‘5’ + seɾ ‘2’; Bidiya píisit ‘7’ = bèeʔeŋ ‘5’ + sīḍì ‘2’; Migama pàysárà ‘7’ = bééḍyá ‘5’ + sê:rà ‘2’; Dangla pέέsìrá ‘7’ = bɛ̀ɛ̀ḍy ‘5’ + sέέr(ɔ́) ‘2’; Sokoro bémoḍù ‘7’ = biʔà ‘5’ + móḍù ‘2’; Ubi bɛɛmuḍu ‘7’ = bɛɛja ‘5’ + muḍu ‘2’; Mawa bʸamat ‘7’ = bi/bij ‘5’ + Sokoro móḍù ‘2’, instead of Mawa rap/ɾap ‘2’; Barain dasisidi ‘7’ = dawsu ‘5’ + sidi ‘2’; Sarwa ǰu esa re ‘7’ = uǰu ‘5’ + rei ‘2’.

7.2 = 2 + 5
Mokilko sárát ‘7’ ?= sìré ‘2’ + páát ‘5’ as well as Kera sééḍa ‘7’ are uncertain or borrowed (see 7.6).

7.3 = 4 + 3
Kujarke shows aŋgofadagɔbo~gafadagubo ‘7’ = fada ‘4’ + ubo ‘3’; Ndam (Decorse) wo subo ‘7’ = woro ‘4’ + supu ‘3’; Sumray wúrɡə́ súbù ‘7’ = wōdə̄ ‘4’ + súbù ‘3’ (see 77). The next example of ‘7’ is a subtractive complex. This is followed by ‘finger’ complexes and by probable borrowings from Central Chadic and Central Sudanic languages.

7.4 = (10) – 3
The subtractive strategy – using bar as ‘subtract’– is found in Toram bársubà ‘7’: suub ‘3’; similarly ‘9’: Toram bárkey, Birgit barakaido, Jegu baarket, Mogum barkɛt, Mabire baɾkεt id.; Sumray wúrɡə́ súbù ‘7’: súbù ‘3’.

A subtractive strategy may well underly in Kwang bʊkʊr ‘7’ < *subV-kVr = sūpáy~ sə̀bày ‘3’ (base -kVr ‘10’ related to Tumak kwàr ‘10’); Miltu lak sup ‘7’: sobo ‘3’; Ndam (Bruel) daksup ‘7’: supu ‘3’; Gulei dagsuba ‘7’: cuba ‘3’; Tumak ḍāg-sūùb ‘7’ = sūùb ‘3’ (the first component is perhaps related to Sarwa doko ‘10’, along with numerous parallels in Central Sudanic: Bagirmi dòk kemɛ́, Kara dɔɔgo, Bébot dɔ̀ɡɨ, Bedjond dɔ̀ɡə̀, Kab(b)a dóèkuè, Ngambay dɔ̀ɡə̀ etc. ‘10’).

7.5 = 3 [bent] ‘fingers’ or [4] ‘fingers’ + 3
Sumray (Nachtigal) dénā súbu ‘7’ = dénum ‘finger’ & súbu ‘3’ (cf. Blažek 1999: 44).

7.6 < Central Chadic / Masa
Kera sééḍa ‘7’ < Lame-Peve séḍā, Misme-Zime seda, Masa sidia, as well as Banana kìdìsìya, Banana-Museye kidsiya ‘7’ (Kraft) or vice versa (cf. 72).

7.7 < Central Sudanic
Kabalai (etc.) jurugum ‘7’< *ju ‘2’ & *rugu *mV ‘5’: Kara djúú ‘2’ & míí ‘5’, Kenga dìó ‘2’ & mīː ‘5’ etc. The connecting member may be related to the form attested in Sumray wúrɡə́ súbù ‘7’ = wōdə̄ ‘4’ + súbù ‘3’, or Nancere1 kàrɡí in ɡùwà kàrɡí pə̀nə̀ = Nancere2 gwara-kargi-pəna (Hamm 2002: 25) ‘11’ = ‘10 behind 1’.

A less probable candidate is gri in Ngama & Dagba (Bruel apud Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1907: 230) mi gri mota ‘8’ = mi ‘5’ + mota ‘3’, or in Lele kárɡày ‘behind’, used in teens: ɡoro kárɡày pínà ‘11’ = ‘10 behind 1’ etc. A further unlikely candidate is gri in Central Sudanic: Ngama & Dagba (Bruel apud Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1907: 230) mi gri mota ‘8’ = mi ‘5’ + mota ‘3’. Cf. Kabalai margum ‘8’.

2.1.3.3 Numerals for ‘8’

The numeral ‘8’ has both additive (including ‘finger’ complexes) and subtractive formations, as well as probable borrowings from Central Sudanic languages.

8.1 = 5 + 3
Sokoro béʃíba ‘8’ = biʔà ‘5’ + súbà ‘3’; Barain dasusubu ‘8’ = dawsu ‘5’ + subu ‘3’; uncertain Kujarke bebene ‘8’ = biya ‘5’ + ubo ‘3’?

The following list shows ‘8’ formed by ‘addition’: 4+4:

8.2 = 4 + 4

Mubi         fàrbàt ‘8’ :   fáḍà/fádàJg ‘4’
Miltu        welwel ‘8’ :   wedi ‘4’
Zirenkel     parpɘt ‘8’ :   paḍa ‘4’
Ndam (Bruel) welwel ‘8’ :   woro ‘4’
Jegu         pórpíde ‘8’ :  food ‘4’
Gulei        uáruar ‘8’ :   uori ‘4’
Mogum        porpide ‘8’ :  poot ‘4’
Tumak        wāwār ‘8’ :    wōrī ‘4’
Mabire       poɾpǝde ‘8’ :  pot ‘4’
?Kwang       kaᵘda ‘8’ :    wùḍāy/’ùḍày ‘4’
Bidiya       porpo ‘8’ :    pó:ḍí ‘4’
Dangla       pòrpòt ‘8’ :   pòòḍ ‘4’
Ubi          porpoḍa ‘8’ :  poḍa ‘4’
Mawa         patpat ‘8’ :   pat/paːt ‘4’
Nancere      pə̄rpə̄ndə̄ ‘8’ : pə̄rí ‘4’

The next example of ‘8’ is a subtractive complex. This is followed by a further ‘finger’ complex and by probable borrowings from Central Sudanic.

8.3 = (10) – 2
Mokilko gέsírè ‘8’: sìré ‘2’.

8.4 = 2 [bent] fingers də̀ná sə́r = dénum ‘finger’ & sə́r ‘2’. The Sumray form dénā gúbī, recorded and translated by translated by Nachtigal as ‘8’, should mean ‘6’ (see above).

8.5 < Central Sudanic 8 = 5 + 3
The forms Kajakse mártá ‘8’, Toram màrta ‘8’, Birgit martak ‘8’, Sarwa marta ‘8’ cannot be explained from East Chadic. The numerals may be loans from Central Sudanic: Bagirmi marta, Kenga mārtá, Sinyar màartà ‘8’,
etymologizable as ‘5 + 3’ in the light of Ngama & Dagba (Bruel) mi gri mota ‘8’ = mi ‘5’ + mota ‘3’.

8.6 < Central Sudanic 8 = 3 + 5
Kabalai margum ‘8’ may correspond to Bulala mata ‘3’ & mevi ‘5’, Sinyar mùʈʈà ‘3’ & mòy ‘5’, Kara mokpá ‘3’ & míí ‘5’, etc. As pointed out above (77) the connecting member may be related to the form attested in Sumray wúrɡə́
súbù ‘7’ = wōdə̄ ‘4’ + súbù ‘3’, or Nancere1 kàrɡí in ɡùwà kàrɡí pə̀nə̀ = Nancere2 gwara-kargi-pəna (Hamm 2002: 25) ‘11’ = ‘10 behind 1’.

A less probable candidate is gri in Ngama & Dagba (Bruel apud Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1907: 230) mi gri mota ‘8’ = mi ‘5’ + mota ‘3’, or in Lele kárɡày ‘behind’, used in teens: ɡoro kárɡày pínà ‘11’ = ‘10 behind 1’ etc. A further unlikely candidate is gri in Central Sudanic: Ngama & Dagba (Bruel apud Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1907: 230) mi gri mota ‘8’ = mi ‘5’ + mota ‘3’. Cf. Kabalai jurugum ‘7’.

2.1.3.4 Numerals for ‘9’

As with the above numerals, ‘9’ shows both additive (including ‘hand’ and ‘finger’ complexes) and subtractive formations, as well as probable borrowings from Central Chadic and Central Sudanic languages and from Arabic.

9.1 = 5 + 4
Sokoro bépʌḍʌ̀ ‘9’ = biʔà ‘5’ + paʔáḍà ‘4’; Barain dasumpudu ‘9’ = dawsu ‘5’ + pudu ‘4’.

9.2 = 4 + 5
?Kwang bɪdaamna ‘9’ = budabua (Lukas) = wùḍāy~’ùḍày ‘4’ + wiḍyím~’ùḍyí:m ‘5’.

9.3 = (10) – 1
Mubi fέrbínì ‘9’: fíní ‘1’; Zirenkel paɾpini ‘9’: pinne ‘1’; Toram bárkey ‘9’: kέtàŋ ‘1’; Birgit barakaido ‘9’: káydò ‘1’; Jegu baarket ‘9’: kee ‘1’; Mogum barkɛt ‘9’: kɛ̀ ‘1’; Mabire baɾkεt ‘9’: ke ‘1’; Migama pârnàkáḍyì ‘9’: káḍyì ‘1’; Dangla párnìkà ‘9’: kìḍá ‘1’; Mokilko gέssát ‘9’: sòo ‘1’; uncertain:
Bidiya penda ‘9’: kaḍya f. ‘1’; Miltu disa mane ‘9’: man ‘1’; Ndam (GD) disa mane ‘9’: mán ‘1’; Tumak bə̀sāmə̄n ‘9’: mǝ̄ə̀n ‘1’; Gulei sāmen ‘9’: mün ‘1’.

Mokilko gέssát ‘9’: sòo ‘1’, with regard to gέsírè ‘8’: sìré ‘2’, may serve as a pattern to understand such forms as Kabalai tegesu, Dormo tigesu, Gabri tə́nɡɛ̄sə́, Kimre diŋɡɛsə, Chire tíngešū ‘9’ (other etymological attempts are discussed by Takács 2001: 516-17 and Stolbova 1996: 117 and 2011: 60; here, Stolbova suggests a derivation from the common Nancere and Kabalai numeral kəs; however, according to Hamm (2002: 25) kas means ‘100’, not ‘10’ (as suggested by Stolbova); the numeral ‘10’ is gwara in both languages).

9.4 = hands – 1
Ubi kojpane ‘9’: koj = ‘hand’ & piina ‘1’; Mawa kʷapinikara ‘9’: kʷaːyan ‘10’ (*‘hands’) & pəni ‘1’.

9.5 = 1 [bent] finger
Sumray1 də̀ná mə́n ‘9’: dénum ‘finger’ & mə́n ‘1’.

9.6 < Central Chadic 9 = (10?) – 1
Kera támbə̀là ‘9’ resembles Hide tìmbéḍ ‘9’: Gwendele & Hurzo ḅīlē ‘1’, Muyang bílīŋ id. (de Colombel), Mwulyen táàmbìḍò ‘9’: híḍò ‘1’, Nzangi tǝmḅeḍè ‘9’: hɩḍè ‘1’, Zeghwana tǝmbǝ̀ ‘9’ (all Kraft), Lamang tǝ̀mbáyá ‘9’
(Wolff), etc.

9.7 < Central Sudanic 9 = (5) + 4
Forms such as Kajakse dooso or Sarwa doso ‘9’ are best explained as Central Sudanic loans: Bagirmi (Jacob) doso ‘9’: so ‘4’, Tele (Decorse) do so ‘9’: so ‘4’ (analogously do mota ‘8’: muta ‘3’), better understandable with help of
Baka ìɲi dɔ̀à ɛ̀sɔ̀ = ìɲi ‘5’ + ɛ̀sɔ̀ ‘4’.

9.8 < Arabic tisʕat m./tisʕ f.
‘9’ > Kujarke tissa ‘9’ (or to Kabalai tegesu, Dormo tigesu ‘9’?).

2.1.3.5 Numerals for ‘10′

The numeral “10” in as much as the numeral “10” differs from “6-9”, in as much as the relevant numerals can be described as cognates rather than as additives, subtractives, etc.

10.1 = Type *kwar
There are cognates in Central Chadic: Gidar klạ́w; Glavda kə̀la, Wandala kɪlawa/kláwà; Gisiga kuru/kookur, Mafa kúlà, Mofu kúrɔ́w ‘10’ (JI2 321) = Mofu kúráw, Zulgo kə́ró, Mvyang kə̄rāw, Sulede kwə́lá, Uldeme kə̄lāw, Muktele kùlà, Mora kə̀làwà id. (de Colombel, p.c., Oct 20, 1987), and again in East Cushitic: Oromoid & Dullay *ku[rḍ]an- ‘10’, Rendille kúḍ ‘100’ (cf. Blažek 2018: 52). Similar forms in the Benue-Congo group Kainji: Atsam kur, Rama kúrí ‘10’, or Plateau: Nindem ù-gúr, Rukuba a-wuruk ‘10’, both from central Nigeria, are geographically too far.

10.2 = Kwang rukoᵖ /ʔùrkób (JI2 321) Could it be connected with Kujarke kʌrup ‘10’ or related with *kwar via metathesis?

10.3 = Kera mánhòr (Pierce) ‘10’ = ‘1 x 10’ mə́ná ‘1’ & hòr(hòr) ‘10’ (Ebert; JI2 321). Cf. West Chadic: Ron: Bokos hùrè, Daffo hùṛè ‘10’ (JI2 321). It is tempting to connect this numeral ‘10’ with the numeral ‘5’ in the West Chadic group Ron: Daffo, Bokos háṛá, Kulere háárá ‘5’ (JI2 142). According to Stolbova (1996: 74-77), both Ron h- and Kera h- are derivable from Proto-Chadic *ḥ-

10.4 = Type *mwaǯ It is tempting to think about a compound*mVn-‘1’ (cf. 13) & *ǯaw ‘person’: Jegu já, Birgit jà, Mubi njṓ, Minjile njō, Kajakse njo, pl. nji; Muktele dzá id. (JI2 264; Stolbova 2009: 220), i.e. ‘{hands of } one person’. See Takács (2008: 801) about a possible relation to Egyptian md ‘10’.

10.5 = Sarwa doko ‘10’ Tumak ḍāg-sūùb ‘7’: sūùb ‘3’, Miltu lak sup “7”: sobo ‘3’; Ndam (Bruel) daksup ‘7’: supu ‘3’; Gulei dagsuba ‘7’: cuba ‘3’. The numeral may be of Central Sudanic origin: Bagirmi dòk kemɛ́, Kara dɔɔgo, Bébot dɔ̀ɡɨ, Bedjond dɔ̀ɡə̀, Kab(b)a dóèkuè, Ngambay dɔ̀ɡə̀ etc. ‘10’.

10.6 – Mokilko kòomá(t) ‘10’ cf. (West) Hausa góómà; Yiwom gmbat; Dera gûm, Tangale gbọmọ; Tsagu wúúma̍; Ngizim gúumà, Bade gúmā (JI2 320) || (Central) Hwona gumdìḍi (Kraft), Jara gwom, Tera gwàŋ; Margi ku̍mụ́, Chibak kymε (JI2 320); Fali Kiria gwùmù, Fali Jilbu gumù, Fali Mucela gùm (Kraft); Lamang ghwáŋá (Wolff); Wandala ishumi; Padukwo juma̘, Dghwede gwàŋgá/xwáŋgá, Ngweshe ùwáŋgò; Sukur úwâŋ (JI2 321); Kotoko: Yedina hākán (Lukas), Logone xkàn, Kusseri kàn, Gulfey, Makari, Afadé ká̰ŋ, Maltam kà̰ŋ (Tourneux 2003: 128); Musgum Ngilemong (Röder apud Lukas) gum (JI2 320-21).

Newman (1977: 32, #128) reconstructed Proto-Chadic *gwam-, but only on the basis of the West & Central Chadic forms. According to Stolbova (1996: 59, 67), Proto-Chadic *g- > Mokilko g-, e.g. in Mokilko géélò ‘left’ < *gulu/a id., and similarly *g- > Margi g- and Wandala g-, cf. Margi gwa ‘to go in’ < Proto-Chadic *gVw/y- ‘to enter, come’ and Wandala guwa ‘river’ < *gVw/y- (Stolbova 2011: 128, 133).

In this perspective the Margi & Chibak, Wandala and Mokilko forms in k- should be separated from common Chadic *gwam- and their origin might be sought in some Benue-Congo source (cf. JI1: 165 assuming for all Chadic forms projected in Proto-Chadic *gwm ‘10’ < Benue-Congo *-kumi).