35-528: The Teda language , also known as Tedaga, Todaga, Todga, or Tudaga is a Nilo-Saharan language spoken by the Teda, a northern subgroup of the Toubou people who inhabit southern Libya , northern Chad and eastern Niger . A small number also inhabit northeastern Nigeria . Along with the more populous southern dialect of Daza , the northern Teda dialect constitutes one of the two varieties of Tebu . However, Teda
70-525: A Core group in which Berta was considered divergent, and coordinating Fur–Maban as a sister clade to Chari–Nile. Songhay Saharan Kunama–Ilit Kuliak Fur Maban Moru–Mangbetu Sara–Bongo Berta Surmic – Nilotic Nubian , Nara , Taman Gumuz Koman (including Shabo) Kadugli–Krongo Bender revised his model of Nilo-Saharan again in 1996, at which point he split Koman and Gumuz into completely separate branches of Core Nilo-Saharan. Christopher Ehret came up with
105-419: A classification which expanded upon and revised that of Greenberg. He considered Fur and Maban to constitute a Fur–Maban branch, added Kadu to Nilo-Saharan, removed Kuliak from Eastern Sudanic, removed Gumuz from Koman (but left it as a sister node), and chose to posit Kunama as an independent branch of the family. By 1991 he had added more detail to the tree, dividing Chari–Nile into nested clades, including
140-482: A novel classification of Nilo-Saharan as a preliminary part of his then-ongoing research into the macrofamily. His evidence for the classification was not fully published until much later (see Ehret 2001 below), and so it did not attain the same level of acclaim as competing proposals, namely those of Bender and Blench. By 2000 Bender had entirely abandoned the Chari–Nile and Komuz branches. He also added Kunama back to
175-443: A whole, however this relationship is more likely due to a close relationship between Songhay and Mande many thousands of years ago in the early days of Nilo-Saharan, so the relationship is probably more one of ancient contact than a genetic link. The extinct Meroitic language of ancient Kush has been accepted by linguists such as Rille, Dimmendaal, and Blench as Nilo-Saharan, though others argue for an Afroasiatic affiliation. It
210-515: Is 38–39 million people. However, the data spans a range from ca. 1980 to 2005, with a weighted median at ca. 1990. Given population growth rates, the figure in 2010 might be half again higher, or about 60 million. The Saharan family (which includes Kanuri , Kanembu , the Tebu languages , and Zaghawa ) was recognized by Heinrich Barth in 1853, the Nilotic languages by Karl Richard Lepsius in 1880,
245-475: Is also sometimes used for Tebu in general. This Nilo-Saharan languages –related article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Nilo-Saharan language The Nilo-Saharan languages are a proposed family of around 210 African languages spoken by somewhere around 70 million speakers, mainly in the upper parts of the Chari and Nile rivers, including historic Nubia , north of where
280-684: Is not accepted by all linguists, however. Glottolog (2013), for example, a publication of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, does not recognise the unity of the Nilo-Saharan family or even of the Eastern Sudanic branch; Georgiy Starostin (2016) likewise does not accept a relationship between the branches of Nilo-Saharan, though he leaves open the possibility that some of them may prove to be related to each other once
315-688: Is poorly attested. There is little doubt that the constituent families of Nilo-Saharan—of which only Eastern Sudanic and Central Sudanic show much internal diversity—are valid groups. However, there have been several conflicting classifications in grouping them together. Each of the proposed higher-order groups has been rejected by other researchers: Greenberg's Chari–Nile by Bender and Blench, and Bender's Core Nilo-Saharan by Dimmendaal and Blench. What remains are eight (Dimmendaal) to twelve (Bender) constituent families of no consensus arrangement. Joseph Greenberg , in The Languages of Africa , set up
350-423: The grammatical number for multiple items is the unmarked form of a noun, and the noun is specially marked to indicate a single item. This is the opposite of the more common singular – plural pattern, where a noun is unmarked when it represents one item, and is marked to represent more than one item. In some cases, a further distinction is made between the collective and what is known in some terminologies as
385-399: The plurative , the former referencing multiple items as a class, the latter referencing them as individual units. Greenberg's linguistic universal #35 states that no language is purely singulative-collective in the sense that plural is always the null morpheme and singular is not. Welsh has two systems of grammatical number, singular–plural and collective–singulative. Since the loss of
SECTION 10
#1732773095822420-517: The "Satellite–Core" group and simplified the subdivisions therein. He retracted the inclusion of Shabo , stating that it could not yet be adequately classified but might prove to be Nilo-Saharan once sufficient research has been done. This tentative and somewhat conservative classification held as a sort of standard for the next decade. Songhay Saharan Singulative number In linguistics , singulative number and collective number ( abbreviated SGV and COL ) are terms used when
455-526: The English plural cannot convey; compare the English 'foliage' vs. 'leaves'. Singulatives are featured in some Semitic and Slavic languages. In Arabic grammar , the singulative is called اسم الوحدة , "noun of unity". It is formed by the suffixes: In some cases, the singulative has a further plural indicating a collection of the singular units, which may be broken or regular. In East Slavic languages , which are basically of singular–plural system,
490-647: The Welsh moch , "pigs", is more basic than the singular form mochyn , "a pig". It is generally the collective form which is used as an adjectival modifier, e.g. cig moch ("pig meat", "pork"). The collective form is therefore similar in many respects to an English mass noun such as "rice", which in fact refers to a collection of items which are logically countable. However, English has no productive process of forming singulative nouns (just phrases such as "a grain of rice"). Therefore, English cannot be said to have singulative number. In some cases, in addition to
525-405: The collective and singulative forms, a third form, called the "plurative" in the terminology of some scholars, is distinguished from the collective. The collective form, in these cases, denotes multiple items as a class while the plurative denotes them as individuals. Compare, for example, "people" in "People are funny" with "people" in "the people in this room", though in English the same plural form
560-404: The current name Nilo-Saharan for the resulting family. Lionel Bender noted that Chari–Nile was an artifact of the order of European contact with members of the family and did not reflect an exclusive relationship between these languages, and the group has been abandoned, with its constituents becoming primary branches of Nilo-Saharan—or, equivalently, Chari–Nile and Nilo-Saharan have merged, with
595-578: The distribution of Nilo-Saharan reflects the waterways of the wet Sahara 12,000 years ago, and that the protolanguage had noun classifiers , which today are reflected in a diverse range of prefixes, suffixes, and number marking. Dimmendaal (2008) notes that Greenberg (1963) based his conclusion on strong evidence and that the proposal as a whole has become more convincing in the decades since. Mikkola (1999) reviewed Greenberg's evidence and found it convincing. Roger Blench notes morphological similarities in all putative branches, which leads him to believe that
630-557: The families may reflect ancient watercourses in a green Sahara during the African humid period before the 4.2-kiloyear event , when the desert was more habitable than it is today. Within the Nilo-Saharan languages are a number of languages with at least a million speakers (most data from SIL's Ethnologue 16 (2009)). In descending order: Some other important Nilo-Saharan languages under 1 million speakers: The total for all speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages according to Ethnologue 16
665-602: The family is likely to be valid. Koman and Gumuz are poorly known and have been difficult to evaluate until recently. Songhay is markedly divergent, in part due to massive influence from the Mande languages . Also problematic are the Kuliak languages , which are spoken by hunter-gatherers and appear to retain a non-Nilo-Saharan core; Blench believes they might have been similar to Hadza or Dahalo and shifted incompletely to Nilo-Saharan. Anbessa Tefera and Peter Unseth consider
700-458: The family with the following branches. The Chari–Nile core are the connections that had been suggested by previous researchers. Koman (including Gumuz) Saharan Songhay Fur Maban Central Sudanic Kunama Berta Eastern Sudanic (including Kuliak , Nubian and Nilotic ) Gumuz was not recognized as distinct from neighbouring Koman; it was separated out (forming "Komuz") by Bender (1989). Lionel Bender came up with
735-543: The modern countries of Sudan and South Sudan , through which the Nile River flows. In his book The Languages of Africa (1963), Joseph Greenberg named the group and argued it was a genetic family. It contained all the languages that were not included in the Niger–Congo , Afroasiatic or Khoisan families. Although some linguists have referred to the phylum as "Greenberg's wastebasket ", into which he placed all
SECTION 20
#1732773095822770-494: The name Nilo-Saharan retained. When it was realized that the Kadu languages were not Niger–Congo, they were commonly assumed to therefore be Nilo-Saharan, but this remains somewhat controversial. Progress has been made since Greenberg established the plausibility of the family. Koman and Gumuz remain poorly attested and are difficult to work with, while arguments continue over the inclusion of Songhai. Blench (2010) believes that
805-434: The necessary reconstructive work is done. According to Güldemann (2018), "the current state of research is not sufficient to prove the Nilo-Saharan hypothesis." The constituent families of Nilo-Saharan are quite diverse. One characteristic feature is a tripartite singulative–collective–plurative number system , which Blench (2010) believes is a result of a noun-classifier system in the protolanguage . The distribution of
840-426: The noun inflection system of earlier Celtic , plurals have become unpredictable and can be formed in several ways: by adding a suffix to the end of the word (most commonly -au ), as in tad "father" and tadau "fathers", through vowel affection , as in bachgen "boy" and bechgyn "boys", or through a combination of the two, as in chwaer "sister" and chwiorydd "sisters". Other nouns take
875-413: The otherwise unaffiliated non- click languages of Africa, other specialists in the field have accepted it as a working hypothesis since Greenberg's classification. Linguists accept that it is a challenging proposal to demonstrate but contend that it looks more promising the more work is done. Some of the constituent groups of Nilo-Saharan are estimated to predate the African neolithic . For example,
910-415: The poorly attested Shabo language to be Nilo-Saharan, though unclassified within the family due to lack of data; Dimmendaal and Blench, based on a more complete description, consider it to be a language isolate on current evidence. Proposals have sometimes been made to add Mande (usually included in Niger–Congo ), largely due to its many noteworthy similarities with Songhay rather than with Nilo-Saharan as
945-407: The singular suffix -ин- ('-in-', Russian, '-yn-', Ukrainian), resp. '-ін-' ('-in-', Belarusian) performs the singulative function for collective nouns. Notice the affix '-a' in all these examples, which indicates the feminine form. Notice also that plural forms may be derived from these singulatives in a regular way: goroshina -> goroshiny (several peas), etc. In both East Slavic and Arabic,
980-749: The singulative form always takes on the feminine gender . Singulative markers are found throughout the Nilo-Saharan languages . Majang , for example, has: ŋɛɛti lice. COL → ŋɛɛti-n louse. SGV (Bender 1983:124) ŋɛɛti → ŋɛɛti-n lice.COL {} louse.SGV In Dutch, singulative forms of collective nouns are occasionally made by diminutives: snoep "sweets, candy" → snoepje "sweet, piece of candy" snoep → snoepje {"sweets, candy"} {} {"sweet, piece of candy"} These singulatives can be pluralized like most other nouns: snoepjes "several sweets, pieces of candy". A collective form such as
1015-535: The singulative suffixes -yn (for masculine nouns) or -en (for feminine nouns). Most nouns which inflect according to this system designate objects that are frequently found in groups, for example adar "birds/flock of birds", aderyn "bird"; mefus "a bed of strawberries", mefusen "a strawberry"; plant "children", plentyn "a child"; and coed "forest", coeden "a tree". Still other nouns use suffixes for both singular and plural forms (e.g. merlen "a pony", merlod "ponies",
1050-486: The six branches of Central Sudanic alongside his more explicit proposal for East Sudanic. In 1950 Greenberg retained Eastern Sudanic and Central Sudanic as separate families, but accepted Westermann's conclusions of four decades earlier in 1954 when he linked them together as Macro-Sudanic (later Chari–Nile , from the Chari and Nile Watersheds). Greenberg's later contribution came in 1963, when he tied Chari–Nile to Songhai, Saharan, Maban, Fur, and Koman-Gumuz and coined
1085-821: The two tributaries of the Nile meet. The languages extend through 17 nations in the northern half of Africa: from Algeria to Benin in the west; from Libya to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the centre; and from Egypt to Tanzania in the east. As indicated by its hyphenated name, Nilo-Saharan is a family of the African interior, including the greater Nile Basin and the Central Sahara Desert. Eight of its proposed constituent divisions (excluding Kunama , Kuliak , and Songhay ) are found in
Teda language - Misplaced Pages Continue
1120-412: The unity of Eastern Sudanic is estimated to date to at least the 5th millennium BC. Nilo-Saharan genetic unity would thus be much older still and date to the late Upper Paleolithic . The earliest written language associated with the Nilo-Saharan family is Old Nubian , one of the oldest written African languages, attested in writing from the 8th to the 15th century AD. This larger classification system
1155-400: The unsuffixed * merl does not exist); these are similar to nouns formed from other categories of words (e.g. cardod "charity" gives rise to cardotyn "a beggar" and cardotwyr "beggars"). When translating the Welsh collective noun into English the plural is usually used, e.g. mefus → 'strawberries'. However, the Welsh collective also has a sense of a homogenous whole which
1190-461: The various constituent branches of Central Sudanic (but not the connection between them) by Friedrich Müller in 1889, and the Maban family by Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes in 1907. The first inklings of a wider family came in 1912, when Diedrich Westermann included three of the (still independent) Central Sudanic families within Nilotic in a proposal he called Niloto-Sudanic ; this expanded Nilotic
1225-402: Was in turn linked to Nubian, Kunama, and possibly Berta, essentially Greenberg's Macro-Sudanic ( Chari–Nile ) proposal of 1954. In 1920 G. W. Murray fleshed out the Eastern Sudanic languages when he grouped Nilotic, Nubian, Nera , Gaam , and Kunama. Carlo Conti Rossini made similar proposals in 1926, and in 1935 Westermann added Murle . In 1940 A. N. Tucker published evidence linking five of
#821178