Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:53:44.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Main Verb-Markers in Northern Gurage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2012

Robert Hetzron
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Northern Gurage subgroup of Ethiopian Semitic consists of three languages, Soddo (also known as Aymälläl), Gogot (or Dobbi), and Muxǝr. Grouping these languages together is contrary to the general classification of Gurage hitherto adopted, which puts Soddo as the unique representative of Northern Gurage, and Masqan, Gogot and Muxǝr as a special branch of Western Gurage. We disagree with this classification, propose a new one with three Northern Gurage languages, and dissociate Mäsqan from Gogot by putting it as the easternmost representative of Western Gurage, the only one of its type. It is considered that the phenomenon to be dealt with—a common feature of Soddo, Gogot, and Muxǝr, and of these three only—is enough to justify this new classification, though there is other evidence.

Résumé

INDICATEURS DE VERBE PRINCIPAL EN GOURAGUÉ SEPTENTRIONAL

La catégorie d'indicateur de verbe principal apparaît dans la même forme dans trois langues gouragué: soddo (aymallal), gogot (dobbi) et muxǝr. Elles constituent ensemble le sous-groupe gouragué septentrional. Ces indicateurs se suffixent aux formes affirmatives de l'indicatif imparfait et parfait. Lorsqu'il y a des suffixes de complément attachés au verbe, les indicateurs se mettent après ces suffixes. Du point de vue de la distribution allomorphique, aussi bien que pour les suffixes de complément, nous devons distinguer entre une position ‘lourde’ (après voyelles longues historiques) et ‘légère’ (après consonnes et voyelles brèves historiques). Cette distribution est arbitraire d'un point de vue synchronique. Pour la position ‘légère’ nous pouvons reconstruire l'allomorphe *wt donnant -u et -t dans les trois langues modernes, et pour la position ‘lourde’ l'allomorphe *nt donnant -n en soddo et gogot, et -tt en muxǝr. Tous les deux allomorphes reconstruits avaient été des copules (attestées ailleurs encore maintenant). Les -t finaux sont des développements spéciaux en sémitique méridional (qui n'inclut pas l'arabe). Leur relation génétique avec les indicateurs d'indicatif de l'imparfait en arabe, notamment -u et -na, semble probable.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Africa , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 1968, pp. 156 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © International African Institute 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Cohen, Marcel. 1924. Le Système verbal sémitique et l'expression du temps. Paris.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marcel. 1931. Études d'éthiopien méridional. Paris.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marcel. 1936. Traité de tongue amharique. Paris.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1965. ‘The particle bàa in Northern Somali’, Journal of African Languages, iv. 2, pp. 118–30.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1966. ‘Pronominalization in Amharic’, Journal of Semitic Studies, ix. 1, pp. 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. (forthcoming). The Verbal System of Southern Agaw.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. (forthcoming). ‘Vocalic length and stress in Ennemor’.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert, and Marcos, Habte Mariam. 1966. ‘Des traits pertinents superposés en ennemor’, Journal of Ethiopian Studies, iv. 1, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1957. ‘Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques entire les langues’, appendix to the French edition of Troubetzkoy, N. S., Principes de phonologie, traduits par J. Cantineau. Paris, 1957, pp. 351–65.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1950. ‘Observations on Gurage Documents’, Word, vi. 3, pp. 234–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1951. ‘Archaic features in South Ethiopic’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, lxxi. 4, pp. 212–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1952. ‘Report on a second trip to Ethiopia’, Word, viii, pp. 72–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1954. Le type verbal qatälä en éthiopien méridional (Mélanges de l'Université St. Joseph, Beyrouth), xxi. 2.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1956 a. ‘Personal communication’, in Tucker, A. N., and Bryan, M. A., The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa (Handbook of African Languages, II). London.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1956 b. Étude descriptive et comparative du gafat. Paris.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1960. ‘Homonyms in Gurage’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, lxxx. 3, pp. 200–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1964. Etymological Dictionary of Harari. Berkeley—Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1967. ‘Hypothesis on a Proto-Semitic marker of the imperfect in Gurage’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, xxvi. 2, pp. 121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, William L. n.d. ‘The Hebrew language in its Northwest Semitic background’, in Wright, G. Ernest (ed.) The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright).Google Scholar
Polotsky, H. J. 1938. ‘Études de grammaire gouragué’, Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, xxxix. 137–75.Google Scholar
Polotsky, H. J. 1951. Notes on Gurage Grammar. Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Rundgren, Frithiof. 1959. Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation (Uppsala Universitets, Årsskrift, 1959), 5, ‘Das Imperfekt in Gogot, Muher und Aymallal’.Google Scholar
Tucker, A. N., and Bryan, M. A. 1956. The Non-Bantu languages of North-Eastern Africa (Handbook of African Languages, II). London.Google Scholar