No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dhaagicw Life-Stages: A Study in Paradigmatic Reconstruction*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 May 2014
Extract
Among the goals of diachronic linguistic research, we may recognize two types of what is commonly called “reconstruction.” One of these involves postulation of a “proto-unit,” such as vowel-quality assumed to underlie an observed correspondence set, or the probable original rule of relative-clause formation. The other involves the “reconstruction” of a system or paradigm. Examples are the postulation of an ancestral set of phonemic contrasts, or determination of the original pattern of case markings. Within each type, we may further distinguish between reconstruction of the probable situation at å given point in the history of the languages (as exemplified by most reconstructions of Proto-Bantu), and postulation of a sequence of stages and changes leading up to the present situation.
The historian often has recourse to these reconstructions. If carefully used, they may be an important form of evidence in plumbing the history of the peoples speaking the languages concerned. Though such evidence should not, generally, be used alone, linguistically-based conclusions may validly add their weight to the evaluation of other data. As one might expect, the different types of linguistic reconstruction differ widely in utility to the historian. Reconstruction of the original shape of a word meaning ‘tree,’ for example, will help the historian but little, whereas reconstructing the developmental sequence of a grammatical system, with conclusions as to the nature and relative chronology of the linguistic separations and contacts involved, is likely to be more directly useful.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © African Studies Association 1985
Footnotes
*
Most data for Dhaagicw, Southern Luo, and the Sotho group are from my own collections or comparative compilations, and will not be further specified as to source, nor will most single citations from Bantu lexical sources. I am indebted to Ann Biersteker, Hazel Carter, John Distefano, Christopher Ehret, Magdalena Hauner, and Derek Nurse for their comments and suggestions in response to earlier drafts. The following works, not all cited herein, have been more or less extensively consulted in the preparation of the paper: Africa Inland Mission. A Kikamba-English Dictionary (Nairobi, 1970); George F. Aubin. A Proto-Algonquian Dictionary (Ottawa, 1975); Frederick Baraga. A Dictionary of the Otchipwe Language (Minneapolis, 1973); Patrick R. Bennett. “A Reconstructed Phonologic History of North-East Victoria Bantu” (paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 1973); Patrick R. Bennett. “The Barlow Manuscript: An Early Contribution to Thagicũ Dialectology.” Afrika und Ubersee, 52 (1974), ; Leonard Bloomfield. Menominee Lexicon. ed. Charles Hockett (Milwaukee, 1975); Christopher Ehret. Ethiopians and East Africans (Nairobi, 1974); Malcolm Guthrie. Comparative Bantu (Farnborough, 1970); Gerhard Lindblom. The Akamba in British East Africa Uppsala, 1920); John Nichols and Earl Nyholm. Ojibwewi-Ikid-owinan (Saint Paul, 1979); Howard S. Olson. The Phonology and Morphology of Rimi (Hartford, 1964).
References
NOTES
1. All citations from Dhaagicw are drawn from my own data or from my compilations from published sources, which will not generally be specified. Proto-Dhaagicw reconstructions are my own. The transcription used for Dhaagicw and other seven-vowel Bantu languages is one developed in collaboration with Ann Biersteker and H. Mwaniki; its principal feature is use of e/o/y/w for open e, open o, close e, and close o respectively. Tone is marked where known but tonal markings for Kamba and Imenti are not certain.
2. Interestingly, Class 11 seems to be relatively common in Eastern Bantu terms for BABY.
3. I use the double asterisk to mark theoretically possible but unattested forms, or to distinguish such stages as pre-Dhaagicw, which are not fully reconstructible, from valid reconstructions, which are, as usual, marked with a single asterisk.
4. Common Bantu citations are from Guthrie, Comparative Bantu, and are prefaced with the number of Guthrie's Comparative Series. For convenience, however, vowels have been rewritten to conform to my Dhaagicw orthographic practice.
5. John Distefano (personal communication) suggests that the replacement of kàryygw and the other older terms for GIRL may be due to the pejorative implications of uninitiated status. However, it is difficult to see why this would not apply equally to BOY. In addition, in other Bantu languages (as seen in the discussion of the Sotho group below) it seems to be more common for terms for GIRL to replace those for MAIDEN. Perhaps we should see in this an effect of the educational and religious establishment's opposition particularly to female initiation.
6. It is not always possible to be certain of the semantic distinctions in these system, especially since in most cases I am relying on secondary sources.
7. Proto-Algonquian reconstructions are cited from Aubin, whose reference numbers are cited in parentheses after each item. The reconstructions for Southern Luo and Sotho are my own.