Affiliation:
1. University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
The rich morphological systems and discourse-based syntactic structures of a range of modern Bantu languages have attracted the attention of many linguists. The present contribution takes articles in a volume on the reconstruction of Proto-Bantu grammar edited by Bostoen et al. (2022. On Reconstructing Proto-Bantu Grammar, Niger-Congo Comparative Studies 4. Berlin: Language Science Press. 808 pp. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7560553) as a basis, in order to address the origin of these grammatical properties. More specifically, historical as well as synchronic features of Bantu languages are compared with Tima, a related language spoken in the Nuba Mountains, Sudan, and classified as a member of the Kordofanian family within Niger-Congo by Greenberg. Contrary to a popular view, it is claimed here that subject inversion and corresponding (extended) ergative alignment marking with transitive verbs is not only a property of Tima as a Niger-Congo language, but also of several Niger-Congo languages classified as Bantu. Tima consequently may perform a role similar to that of Tocharian in the history of Indo-European studies. The present contribution also raises methodological issues related to lexicon-based Bayesian phylogenetics as against Greenberg’s method of multilateral comparisons, and the historical-comparative method. In addition, it addresses the question of the extent to which the spread of typological features coincides with so-called “belts” postulated in the typological literature on African languages.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference56 articles.
1. Babaev, Kirill V. 2008. Reconstructing Benue-Congo person marking I: Proto-Bantoid. Journal of West African Languages 35(1–2). 131–183.
2. Blažek, Václav & Michael Schwarz. 2016. The Early Indo-Europeans in Central Asia and China: Cultural relations as reflected in language. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
3. Blench, Roger. 2013. Splitting up Kordofanian. In Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench (eds.), Nuba Mountain language studies, 571–586. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
4. Bostoen, Koen, Sebastian Dom & Guillaume Segerer. 2015. The antipassive in Bantu. Linguistics 53(4). 731–772. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0016.
5. Casaretto, Antje, Gerrit J. Dimmendaal, Birgit Hellwig, Uta Reinöhl & Gertrud Schneider-Blum. 2020. Roots of ergativity in Africa (and beyond). Studies in African Linguistics 49(1). 111–140. https://doi.org/10.32473/sal.v49i1.122270.