Kuliak languages

Last updated
Kuliak
Rub
Geographic
distribution
Karamoja region, northeastern Uganda
Linguistic classification Nilo-Saharan?
  • Kuliak
Proto-language Proto-Kuliak
Subdivisions
Language codes
Glottolog kuli1252
Kuliak languages.png

The Kuliak languages, also called the Rub languages, [1] or Nyangiyan languages [2] are a group of languages spoken by small relict communities in the mountainous Karamoja region of northeastern Uganda.

Contents

Nyang'i and Soo are moribund, with a handful of elderly speakers. However, Ik is vigorous and growing.

Word order in Kuliak languages is verb-initial. [3]

Names

The Kuliak languages are also called the Rub languages by Ehret (1981), since Ehret reconstructed "Rub" to mean 'person' in Proto-Kuliak. He suggests that "Kuliak" may actually be a derogatory term used by neighboring Nilotic-speaking peoples to disparage Kuliak speakers as "poor," hence his preference for using Rub instead. [4] However, Kuliak continues to be the most widely used name, and is preferred by Roger Blench, Terrill Schrock, Sam Beer and other linguists, who note that the name "Kuliak" is not perceived as offensive or pejorative by any Kuliak speakers.[ citation needed ]

History

The Kuliak languages have previously had a much more extensive range in the past. Kuliak Loanwords in the Luhya, Gusii, Kalenjin and Sukuma languages show that these peoples inhabited western Kenya and the southern parts of Lake Victoria before being absorbed by the ancestors of these Bantu and Nilotic speakers. These now extinct kuliak peoples are known as the "Southern Rub". The Southern Rub lived as far south as Lake Eyasi as shown by Kuliak loanwords in Hadza and Sandawe) and possibly as far east as the Kilimanjaro Region (as shown by Kuliak loanwords in the Chaga and Thagiicu languages). [5] [6]

Classification

Internal

According to the classification of Heine (1976), [7] Soo and Nyang'i form a subgroup, Western Kuliak, while Ik stands by itself.

Kuliak

Soo (Tepes, Kadam) – 50 speakers, moribund

Nyang'i (Nyangia) – 1 speaker, nearly extinct

Ik (Teuso) – 7,500 speakers, vigorous

According to Schrock (2015), "Dorobo" is a spurious language, is not a fourth Kuliak language, and may at most be a dialect of Ik. [8]

Heine finds the following numbers of correspondences between the languages on the 200-word Swadesh list:

External

Bender (1989) had classified the Kuliak languages within the Eastern Sudanic languages. Later, Bender (2000) revised this position by placing Kuliak as basal branch of Nilo-Saharan. Glottolog treats Kuliak as an independent language family and does not accept Nilo-Saharan as a valid language family.

An early suggestion for Ik as a member of Afroasiatic was made by Archibald Tucker in the 1960s; this was criticized as weak and abandoned by the 1980s. [9]

Evolution

The following sound correspondences are identified by Bernd Heine (1976), [7] who proposes also corresponding Proto-Kuliak reconstructions.

Kuliak consonant correspondences
IkTepesNyang'iProto-KuliakPhonological environment
bb ~ pb*b
ɓɓɓ
ɗ ~ ddd*d
dz*dzInitially. Fricative z in Dorobo.
ds(?)Medially. No reflexes known in Nyang'i.
ɟ ~ ʄɟɟ
ggg*gInitially, before back vowels
ɟgɟInitially, before front vowels
gMedially
fpp*p
ttt*t
tscc*c
ckk*kjInitially and medially
hkkFinally
kkk*k
kwwkw*kwWord-initially
k*kʰ
tsʼʄʄ*cʼInitially
sssMedially
ɠɠ*kʼ
sss*sInitially
rssMedially
ɬlɬInitially
ɬlFinally
h*hInitially
ʔFinally
z(?)s*zNo reflex known in Tepes
mmm*m
nnn*n
ɲɲɲ
ŋŋŋInitially, by default
ɲŋŋInitially, before *ɛ
r ?ɲMedially and finally
lll*lFinally, a plosive /t/ in Dorobo.
rrr*rInitially and at the end of monosyllabic words
rrElsewhere
rrr*rrMedially
j*jInitially and finally
jjjMedially
www*wDefault
w ~ ∅wFinally after *k, *g
Kuliak vowel correspondences
IkTepesNyang'iProto-KuliakPhonological environment
aaa*aDefault
aaɛPreceded by any non-open vowel
aeeFollowed by a high vowel *i, *u
aɛɛUnstressed, when followed by a semivowel *j, *w
ɛɛɛIn Tepes and Nyang'i, /e/ and /ɛ/ can alternate morphophonologically.
eee*e
iee*ẹ
eii*I
iii*i
ɔɔɔIn Tepes and Nyang'i, /o/ and /ɔ/ can alternate morphophonologically.
ooo*o
uoo*ọ
ouu*U
uuu*u

For other vowel correspondences, Heine reconstructs clusters of vowels:

Heine reconstructs two classes of stress in Proto-Kuliak: "primary", which could occur in any position and remains in place in all Kuliak languages, and "secondary", which always occurred on the 2nd syllable of a word, and remains there in Ik and Nyang'i, but shifts to the first syllable in Tepes.

Blench [10] notes that Kuliak languages do not have extensive internal diversity and clearly had a relatively recent common ancestor. There are many monosyllabic VC (vowel + consonant) lexical roots in Kuliak languages, which is typologically unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages and is more typical of some Australian languages such as Kunjen. Blench considers these VC roots to have cognates in other Nilo-Saharan languages, and suggests that the VC roots may have been eroded from earlier Nilo-Saharan roots that had initial consonants. [10]

Significant influences from Cushitic languages, [11] and more recently Eastern Nilotic languages, are observable in the vocabulary and phonology of Kuliak languages. Blench [10] notes that Kuliak appears to retain a core of non-Nilo-Saharan vocabulary, suggesting language shift from an indigenous language like that seen in Dahalo.

Numerals

Comparison of numerals in individual languages: [12]

Language12345678910
Ik (1)kɔ̀nʊ̀kᵓ (lit. and it's one)lèɓètsìn (lit. and it's two)àɗìn (lit. and it's three)tsʼàɡùsìn (lit. and it's four)tùdìn (lit. and it's five)tudini ńda kɛɗɪ kɔn (5+ 1)tudini ńda kiɗi léɓetsᵉ (5+ 2)tudini ńda kiɗi aɗ (5+ 3)tudini ńda kiɗi tsʼaɡús (5+ 4)tomín
Ik (2)kɔnᵃléɓetsᵃaɗᵃ / aɗᵉtsʔaɡúsᵃtúdᵉńda-keɗi-kɔnᵃ (5+ 1)ńda-kiɗi-léɓetsᵃ (5+ 2)ńda-kiɗiá-aɗᵉ (5+ 3)ńda-kiɗi-tsʔaɡúsᵃ (5+ 4)tomín
Nyang'i nardoknɛʔɛciyʔɔnnowʔetudmɔk kan kapeimɔk tomin
Soo (Tepes) (1)nɛ́dɛ̀sínɛ̀'bɛ́cínì'jɔ̀nín'ùáʔíntùdˌíntùd ká ˈnɛ́dɛ̀s (5+ 1)ˌíntùd ká ínɛ̀'bɛ̀c (5+ 2)ˌíntùd ká ínì'jɔ́n (5+ 3)ˌíntùd ká ínùáʔ (5+ 4)mì'míɾínìk
Soo (Tepes) (2)ɛdɛsnɛbɛciyonnowatuɗtuɗ ka nɪ ɛdɛs (5+ 1)tuɗ ka nɪ nɛbɛc (5+ 2)tuɗ ka nɪ iyon (5+ 3)tuɗ ka nɪ nowa (5+ 4)tuɗ en-ek iɠe (hand-PL all)

See also

References

  1. Ehret, Christopher (2001) A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan (SUGIA, Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika: Beihefte 12), Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, ISBN   3896450980.
  2. Ethiopians and East Africans: The Problem of Contacts. East African Publishing House. 1974. p. 35.
  3. Beer, Sam, Amber McKinney, Lokiru Kosma 2009. The So Language: A Grammar Sketch. m.s.
  4. Ehret, Christopher. 1981. Revising Proto-Kuliak. Afrika und Übersee 64: 81-100.
  5. An African Classical Age: Eastern and Southern Africa in World History, 1000 B.C. to A.D. 400. pp. 131, 185, 193–197.
  6. The Khoesan Languages. p. 475-478.
  7. 1 2 Heine, Bernd. 1976. The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda. Nairobi: East African Publishing House.
  8. Schrock, Terrill. 2015. On Whether 'Dorobo' was a Fourth Kuliak Language. Studies in African Linguistics 44: 47-58.
  9. Hetzron, Robert (1980). "The Limits of Cushitic". Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika. 2: 12–13.
  10. 1 2 3 Blench, Roger. Segment reversal in Kuliak and its relationship to Nilo-Saharan.
  11. Lamberti, Marcello. 1988. Kuliak and Cushitic: A Comparative Study. (Studia linguarum africae orientalis, 3.) Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
  12. Chan, Eugene (2019). "The Nilo-Saharan Language Phylum". Numeral Systems of the World's Languages.