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'
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
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.
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.
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
This article examines a famous passage in the Hadith that related the canonization of the Quran, where the Uthmanic committee has a disagreement on how to write the word for "Ark".
Insight into loan strategies elucidates the passage.
In the Quran today the Ark of the Covenant is spelled التابوت and pronounced al-tābūt. This is a loanword from the Aramaic tēḇōṯ-ā, likely via Gəʿəz tābōt.
However, reports (which go back to Ibn Šihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/741-2)) tell us there was a controversy on how to spell it.
The Medinan Zayd b. Ṯābit wanted to spell it with a final hāʾ: التابوه, while his Quraši colleagues insisted it should be spelled التابوت.
They take it up with ʿUṯmān who says: the Quran was revealed in the Quraysh dialect, so it should be written according to it.
Ibn al-Bawwāb's quran, following the Classical Arabic orthography (rather than the rasm), spells ʾalif maqṣūrah before suffixes with ʾalif rather than (the Uthmanic) yāʾ. However, sometimes it does not, e.g. in Q79 here: مرساها, تخشاها, ضحاها, BUT: ذكريها. What gives? 🧵
Turns out there is a beautiful perfectly regular distribution!
The Ibn al-Bawwāb Quran is written according to the transmission of al-Dūrī from the reading of ʾAbū ʿAmr.
ʾAbū ʿAmr treats such ʾalifāt maqṣūrah is a special way. He reads them as /ā/ most of the time...
But he reads with ʾimālah, i.e. /ē/ whenever a /r/ precedes.
When the word stands in rhyme position, the /ā/ of such words is pronounced bayna lafẓay, i.e. /ǟ/.
And this distribution explains the spelling in the screenshot above, and throughout this manuscript!
If you look in a printed muṣḥaf today, and you're familiar with modern Arabic orthography, you will immediately be struck that many of the word are spelled rather strangely, and not in line with the modern norms.
This is both an ancient and a very modern phenomenon. 🧵
On the two page spread in the previous post alone there are 25 (if I didn't miss any) words that are not spelled the way we would "expect" them to.
The reason for this is because modern print editions today try to follow the Uthmanic rasm.
During the third caliph Uthman's reign, in the middle of the 7th century, he established an official standard of the text. This text was written in the spelling norms of the time. This spelling is called the rasm.
But since that time the orthographic norms of Arabic changed.
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.
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.
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. 🧵
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...
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).
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)
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.