Marijn van Putten Profile picture
Sep 24, 2020 19 tweets 5 min read Read on X
It's been a while since I wrote on #Tamazight/#Berber, so I thought it would be nice to do a thread on its plural formation. Much like Arabic (and Semitic more generally), Berber has 'sound plurals' and 'broken plurals'. Let's have a look at how these are reconstructed.
The 'sound plural' is simply formed by a suffix: *-ăn for the masculine, *-en for the feminine. For example:
*a-maziɣ pl. i-maziɣ-ăn "Berber man"
*ta-maziɣ-t pl. *ti-maziɣ-en "Berber woman"

In most dialect *-ăn > -ən and *-en > -in, but some retain the contrast.
If a sound plural suffix is added to a word-final vowel, usually an epenthetic *-t- is infixed to avoid the meeting of two vowels. Perhaps this is due to historical loss of *t (there is some weird stuff with disappearing *t's elsewhere in morphology).

*anu pl. *anu-t-ăn 'well'
As you may have noted above, nouns also usually have prefixes, m. sg. Free state (unmarked) *a-; Annexed State (post-verbal subject/post-prepositional form) *wă; f. sg. *ta-/*tă-; m. pl. *i-/*yə-; f. pl. *ti-/*tə-.

These prefixes were probably articles of some kind originally.
Where in Arabic the use of the sound masculine plural is fairly predictable (mostly used for Adjectives and participles), in Berber it's a lot less so. Many Berber varieties don't really have adjective or participles, and the closest thing -- agent nouns -- may be sound or broken
Mostly two-consonantal nouns have a variant of the sound masculine plural that adds an extension *-iw- or *-aw- to the plural. I've argued that this is originally phonetically conditioned. A preceding low vowel triggers *iw-, an preceding high vowel trigger *-iw-.
*uləβ pl. *uləβ-aw-ăn 'heart' (cf. Semitic *libb- 'id.')
*tiṭṭ-t pl. *tiṭṭ-aw-en 'eye, water source' (yes of Tatooine fame)
*e-nărăz (< *a-nărăz) pl. *i-nărăz-iw-ăn 'claw'

It is tempting, although by no means proven, to connect this suffix with Semitic -ū/ī and Egyptian -w.
The plural suffix of this type is also used for feminine nouns with the *-e or *-a suffix, which I've argued are cognate to the Proto-Semitic *-ay and *-āy suffixes.

*te-βădd-e pl. *ti-βădd-iw-en 'height'
*ta-năkr-a pl. *ti-năkr-iw-en 'standing up'

academia.edu/37112479/The_f…
The most common broken plural replaces the last vowel of the word with *a, every preceding low vowel becomes high (*ă > *ə; *a > *u, rarely *i). High vowels remain unchanged.

*a-ǵărtil pl. *i-ǵərtal 'mat'
*t-uɣməs-t pl. *t-uɣmas 'tooth'
*anu pl. *una 'well'
There is another plural that completely replaces the syllabic shape of the stem, forming its plural in CəCC-an (feminine CəCC-en):
*a-găllid pl. *i-gəld-an 'king'
*e-ɣăzăr pl. *i-ɣəzr-an 'valley, wadi'

This formation is probably cognate to Arabic ɣulām pl. ̣ɣilmān.
A fairly limited group of nouns places *a in the last vowel slot of the stem and adds *-ăn/-en.

*wăššăn pl. *wăššan-ăn 'jackal'
*esḱăr (< *a-asḱăr) pl. *asḱar-ăn (< *i-asḱar-ăn)

I think this might be exclusive to historically CăCCăC stems. But not 100% sure.
The previous plural is presumably related to the 'harmonizing' plural found in verbal nouns. Verbal nouns of heavy verbs infix a long high vowel, *i if no *u occurs in the stem, otherwise *u.

*a-səlməd pl. *i-səlmid-ăn 'teaching'
*a-gugəl pl. *i-gugul-ăn 'being an orfan'
There is a small group of nouns (mostly body parts, but not all) which infix *a (or *ă, depends on the dialect) in the last vowel slot, and geminate the final stem consonant, then following it with *-ăn/-en:

*a-ɣil pl. *i-ɣa/ăll-ăn 'arm'
*a-ʔ(v̆)fud pl. *i-ʔ(v̆)fadd-ăn 'knee'
There's another class that adds an ending *-aʔ or perhaps *-ăʔ (the reflexes are such that we're seemingly missing something in the reconstruction), preceding lowe vowels become high vowels.

*ta-mur-t pl. ti-mur-a/ăʔ 'land'
*ta-ʔ(v̆)mar-t pl. ti-ʔ(ə)mir-a/ăʔ 'beard'
Ghadamsi tmuro could be from *ti-mur-aʔ or *ti-mur-ắʔ
Figuig timura likewise < *ti-mur-aʔ or *ti-mur-ắʔ

Tuareg tafirt 'word' pl. tifir (Ahaggar, Mali) < *ti-mur-ăʔ (unaccented ă); tifira (Ayer Tuareg) < *ti-mur-ắʔ/ti-mur-aʔ.

These forms are currently irreconcilable.
We're probably missing some piece of the puzzle for *vʔ. Stress plays a role in the verb; there's not much evidence for phonemic stress in the noun, and it doesn't quite solve all our issues.

For *ʔ in the verb see @ait_kisou
academia.edu/7977957/The_or…
Finally, some nouns receive a preposed id or ənd to mark the plural (no obvious reconstruction presents itself to resolve these two into one reconstruction). This is common for kinship terms, but may show up elsewhere, e.g. Figuig ṗṗa pl. id ṗṗa 'father'.
Much of this, and more is discussed in my Spanish paper introducing historical phonology and nominal morphology of Berber. It is based on the Workshop I gave in Tenerife and was kindly translated by Jonay Acosta and José Juan Batista.

academia.edu/40781506/Intro…
That's all for today. If you enjoyed this thread about Tamazight/Berber rather than Arabic for a change, let me know.
If you wish to support me, you can buy me a Ko-Fi:
ko-fi.com/phdnix
Or you can support me on Patreon:
patreon.com/PhDniX

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Marijn van Putten

Marijn van Putten Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PhDniX

Aug 5
I'm about to start watching this.

As some of you may know, I don't have a particularly high opinion of Arabic101, but now he's wading into the manuscript fray...

Will be live-tweeting facepalms as I go through it. Image
0:14 "what you see is 100% identical today to any Muṣḥaf".

Minor gripe. It's identical to the Madani Muṣḥaf, but not really to the Kufan, Basran or Damascene. But still 99.9% so this is really nitpicky.
0:43 "Re-phrased Ayat/Removed words/Added words" is of course anachronistic. It implies that the text we have today is more original than the Sanaa Palimpsest. Not much to suggest that.
Read 68 tweets
Jul 22
In his 2020 book, Shady Nasser spends a chapter on a 'survival of the fittest' model of canonization of the reading traditions, arguing that over time the "majority transmission" tended to win out.

He choses a rather unusual example to illustrate this. 🧵 Image
On page 25, Nasser tries to present an evolutionary model, with natural selection, by which some transmission paths of the seven readers become 'canonical', while others don't. One of these is that one "drops out" when diverging from the standard reading of the group... Image
As an illustration of this divergence from the standard, he cites what he considers a non-canonical reading among the seven, namely the imalah of an-nēsi, which is a variant reading transmitted for Abū Ṭāhir ʿAbd al-Wāḥid b. ʿUmar al-Bazzār (d. 349/960). Image
Read 15 tweets
Jul 10
Ibn Ḫālawayh's (d. 380) Kitāb al-Badīʿ is an interesting book on the Qirāʾāt because it's the earliest surviving work that tries to simplify the transmissions of the readings, and does it rather differently from what becomes popular, the system of Ibn Ġalbūn the father (d. 389) Image
Ibn Ḫālawayh was Ibn Muǧāhid's student, who is widely held to be the canonizer of the seven reading traditions. Ibn Muǧāhid's book is the earliest book on the 7 reading traditions. But canon or not, Ibn Ḫālawayh's book actually describes 8 (adding Yaʿqūb).
Today the simplified system (and the only surviving one) is the "two-rawi canon". Each of the 7 readers, have two standard transmitters (all of them were once transmitter by more transmitters than those two). This system was introduced by ʾAbū al-Ṭayyib Ibn Ġalbūn in his ʾiršād. Image
Read 15 tweets
May 3
NEW PUBLICATION: "Pronominal variation in Arabic among grammarians, Qurʾānic readings traditions and manuscripts".

This article has been in publication hell for 4 years. But it was an seminal work for my current research project, and a great collaboration with Hythem Sidky.
🧵 Image
In this paper we try to describe the pronominal system used in early Islamic Classical Arabic. There is a striking amount of variation in this period, most of which does not survive into "standard classical Arabic".
We first look at the grammarians and how they describe the pronominal system.. Much of this description is already in my book (Van Putten 2022), but I assure you we wrote this way before I wrote that 🥲
Notable here is that Sībawayh prescribes minhū instead of now standard minhu. Image
Read 23 tweets
Apr 21
In my book "Quranic Arabic" I argue that if you look closely at the Quranic rasm you can deduce that the text has been composed in Hijazi Arabic (and later classicized into more mixed forms in the reading traditions). Can we identify dialects in poetry?
I think this is possible to some extent, yes. And so far this has really not been done at all. Most of the time people assume complete linguistic uniformity in the poetry, and don't really explore it further.
But there are a number of rather complex issues to contend with:
As @Quranic_Islam already identified, there are some philological problems that get in the way in poetry that aren't there for the Quran: I would not trust a hamzah being written in a written down poem. This might be classicization. So it's hard to test for this Hijazi isogloss.
Read 13 tweets
Apr 17
Last year I was asked to give a talk at the NISIS Autumn School about the textual history of the Quran. Here's a thread summarizing the points of that presentation. Specifically the presentation addresses some of Shoemaker's new objections on the Uthmanic canonization. Image
Traditionally, the third caliph ʿUṯmān is believed to have standardized the text.

However, in critical scholarship of the '70s the historicity of this view came to be questioned.

How can we really be sure that what the tradition tells us is correct?
Image
Image
This skepticism wasn't wholly unwarranted at the time. The Uthmanic canonization really had been uncritically accepted, not based on any material evidence.

But we now have access to many manuscripts, beautifully digitized, we can test the historicity of these claims! Image
Read 27 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(