Appleyard, David

English

Zeitschriftenserver von Hamburg University Press  Verlag der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg

       Aethiopica 3 (2000) International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies     ________________________________________________________________  DAVID APPLEYARD Review  WOLF LESLAU, Ethiopic Documents: Argobba. Grammar and Dictionary Aethiopica 3 (2000), 236߃241 ISSN: 1430߃1938 ________________________________________________________________  Published by UniversitÃt Hamburg Asien Afrika Institut, Abteilung Afrikanistik und £thiopistik Hiob Ludolf Zentrum fÛr £thiopistik   Reviews Aethiopica 3 (2000) 236 Hierarchie, unter Beobachtung der regionalen Besonderheiten. Die Rezensentin wÛnscht diesem Fachbuch die ihm gebÛhrende Aufmerksamkeit. Verena BÕll    WOLF LESLAU, Ethiopic Documents: Argobba. Grammar and Dictionary = Aethiopistische Forschungen 47. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1997. 274 S. Preis DM 148,߃. ISBN 3߃447߃03955߃8.  Argobba is, as LESLAU says in his introduction, one of the least known Ethio- pian Semitic languages. LESLAU߈s own publications prior to this volume, dating from between 1949 and ߈60, form the largest amount of published material on  the language, and all are based on his original fieldwork carried out in 1946 and especially 1950, as is the present volume. The publication of the present volume now follows closely on the heels of a brief survey carried out by the Survey of Little-known Languages of Ethiopia (SLLE) and published as Linguistic Report no. 22 at the end of 1994. LESLAU had this latest material available to him when  he was preparing his volume for publication, though apparently without the final page, which contains the conclusion of an English߃Amharic߃Argobba wordlist and a small map of the languages of the Argobba region. Data from the SLLE Report is cited throughout and contrasted with LESLAU߈s own data where the  two sources differ. LESLAU is conscious that his own material is incomplete: there are gaps in the basic morphological and syntactic description, and not a few inconsistencies  between what is observable from the tables and the examples provided. For in-stance, the ending of the 1st singular of the perfect is given only as -ku on p. 45,  but examples illustrating various assimilations between this ending and the stem-final consonant suggest that variants -kW and even, apparently, -k exist: ŀeqqW <  ŀeؾ-kW ߇I sold߈, hegk < hed-k glossed (p. 46) as both ߇I went߈ and ߇you (masc.) went߈. Similarly, in the table on p. 92 the prepositional suffix pronoun of the 3rd masculine of the ߇bÃ- set߈ is given as -ow as in mÃsÃkkÃrow ߇he testified against him߈, but examples on pp. 93/94 show variants -w (yÃmmiggÃħħÃwƼn saؾƼn ߇the box in which it is found߈, yarÃggÃzawƼn arƼh ߇the place in which he stayed߈),  -wo (yÃmmƼttƼììawÃtwo kwaŀa ߇the ball with which you are playing߈), -bu (moldobul ߇it is plentiful in it߈), -bbo (yÃbÃllibbon harƼh ߇the place in which  they ate߈). These inconsistencies are unfortunate, and the majority would seem to arise from the nature of the transcription which is not always strictly phonemic Reviews Aethiopica 3 (2000) 237 but allows for the marking of some broad phonetic, sub-phonemic features: so,  the marking of the verbal ending as both presumably fully syllabic -ku and labi-alised -kw: so, ߇I died߈ appears as mogku on p. 5, but moggw on p. 46. In the same way, one might question whether pharyngeal ׷, included in the consonant chart on p. 1, is a phoneme; it occurs only as double ׷׷, as a contraction of t+׷ in the  tÃ- stem of verbs and then only in one dialect where in the dialect recorded in the SLLE Report long hh appears (which for that dialect would negate the  statement of LESLAU߈s that ߋall consonants may be geminated except hߌ). The reader might also wonder about the inclusion of glottalised ص in the same conso-nant chart, when an examination of the vocabulary at the end of the volume  yields no examples. Glottalised ص [s߈] is not included in the phonemic chart in the SLLE Report, nor indeed in LESLAU߈s own 1959 article A Preliminary Descrip-tion of Argobba. These are mostly, however, only small matters. Students of  Ethiopian Semitic will all be grateful to LESLAU for at long last making available the full corpus of his Argobba data now, as he says, he ߋwill have no other  occasion to reexamineߌ the language in the field. The volume follows the familiar pattern of LESLAU߈s descriptions of other Ethiopian Semitic languages. Following a brief introduction outlining the cir-cumstances (and discomforts) of his data collection almost 50 years ago, the grammar part of the book proceeds through sections on phonology and mor-phology, including remarks on syntax, (noun, adjective, pronoun, numerals,  copula and verb of existence, verb, positional relations, clauses and conjunct- tions, adverbs, vocative and exclamation, enclitics) to a comparative inventory  of Argobba and Amharic and a summary of the distinctive features of Argobba and Amharic. This latter section is particularly cogent because of the on-going question of the status of Argobba. LESLAU, like BENDER before him, though on the basis of a more considered body of data, concludes that Argobba is a dialect  of Amharic. ZELEALEM LEYEW in the SLLE Report came to the same conclu-sion. The question of dialect of, or sister language to Amharic is in itself an open one dependent on how ߇dialect߈ is defined, and like LESLAU himself one can  settle on some criterion of mutual intelligibility as the defining factor. Percentage of vocabulary in common is another criterion, and LESLAU߈s own analysis  indicates as much as an 87% common vocabulary. Certainly, the reader is struck by the many instances where an Argobba phrase or sentence is almost the same  as its Amharic equivalent, e.g. yalmÃؾؾa ƼndÃhona bƼììayÃn Ƽhedalluh ߇if he  does not come, I shall go alone߈, or ƼdawƼn saykÃfƼl heda ߇he left without pay- ing his debts߈ would be virtually the same in Amharic. On the other hand, there are some substantial differences between the two even in basic forms, e.g. de-Reviews Aethiopica 3 (2000) 238 monstratives (Arg. hud and [h]od, Amh. yƼh and ya); independent personal pro-nouns (Ãy, ank, anì, kƼssu, kƼssa, etc., as against Amh. Ƽne, antÃ, anìi, Ƽssu,  Ƽsswa, etc.); the 2nd feminine ending (possessive, subject marker in the gerund  and the perfect of some verb classes) -ih, Amh. -Ƽŀ; negative copula (Arg.  ahuneyu, Amh. aydÃllÃm); and it would seem doubtful that sentences like merun tagÃħħe ìugga lihanþÃn mÃؾؾa ߇after he had met his friend, he came to see me߈,  or su simmeؾؾÃؾ hakim Ƽndihanþe yƼzzorel ߇when a man is ill he needs a doctor to see him߈ would be intelligible to an Amharic speaker, where only one word in each example would be identical. Incidentally, it does seem odd that in his brief discussion of the relationship between Argobba and Amharic LESLAU makes no reference to HETZRON߈s 1972 monograph Ethiopian Semitic, where a short sec-tion is devoted to the question. HETZRON does not commit himself to ߇dialect߈ or ߇language߈, but simply says ߋwithin the T(ransversal) S(outh) E(thiopic) group, Amharic and Argobba form a closer unit,ߌ which is indisputable. The volume continues with a comparison of LESLAU߈s own material and that presented in the SLLE Report. It perhaps should not be surprising that at times substantial differences are found between the two, e.g. 3rd person pronouns (LESLAU) kƼssu, kƼssa, kƼssÃm, and (SLLE) ƼwwÃt, Ƽyyat, ƼllÃb / ƼllÃm. The  SLLE Report is unfortunately very brief and there are many lacunae and, sadly, not a few inconsistencies, but it is the most recent record of Argobba. LESLAU߈s initial investigations in 1950 were carried out in the region of Aliyu Amba and Ch߈anno, and subsequently amongst traders from the Ankober region living in Addis Ababa. The SLLE team focussed on Shewa-Robit, over 30 miles to the north-east of the area where LESLAU had worked. The villages where Argobba survives are strung out along the eastern escarpment of the Shoan plateau, and  this amount of disparity between local speech forms of an endangered and in- deed probably moribund language spoken in enclaves and subject to dominant languages (in this case, Amharic and Oromo) is not unusual.  Closing the volume are reprints of 4 of the 5 articles published by LESLAU on Argobba between 1949 and 1960. The one article omitted is presumably the  section on Argobba in his Studies in Ethiopic Classification which appeared in  the proceedings of the 1959 Ethiopian Studies Conference in Rome. It is probab-ly good to have these reprinted here, though in the 48 pages that they together consume there is a great deal of repetition of what has gone before in the main body of the book. Finally, LESLAU provides an Argobba-English and an English-Argobba wordlist, incorporating his own material and that published in the  SLLE Report. Reviews Aethiopica 3 (2000) 239 While the book provides an account of the basic facts of Argobba morphology and some syntax in an easily accessible and familiar format, there is a number  of infelicitous statements and inconsistencies that the reader should be aware  of, some of which have already been mentioned. Some of these may be simply typographical errors, though others could suggest that the book was compiled in something of a hurry without the attention to detail that might have been ex-pected. Some errors are comparatively trivial and it is perhaps unkind on the  reviewer߈s part to mention them, but a statement such as ߋAnkober was the  capital of Ethiopia in the 18th centuryߌ does need correcting: Ankober was, of course, the capital of the Kingdom of Shoa in the 18th and 19th centuries, and  indeed could be said to have been (one of) the capital(s) of Ethiopia under  Menilek II until the move to Enؾoؾؾo in 1881 and later the founding of Addis  Ababa. Somewhat more serious is the statement on p. 3 5.3 that *ÃhV may  become Ƽha, where the illustrative examples (qÃddƼha but qÃddƼhÃd and qƼdƼhi) clearly indicate that the rule should be stated in the more general terms: ÃhV  optionally > ƼhV, and lower down the page, in 6.2, the statement that VhV may become (C)Ċ needs redrawing as C[V]hV > CĊ, to accommodate such instances  as the pair yƼlÃhsÃl and yƼlisÃl ߇he licks߈ as well as yarhƼq and yariq ߇it is far߈.  In 26.1 on p. 20, the comparison of the 2nd masculine independent pronoun ank ߇you߈ with Tigrinya nƼss-Ƽka seems inappropriate; the latter is of course built on  a noun base with the possessive suffix, whereas the Argobba form shows the  substitution of the dental ending of such as Amharic antÃ by the velar of the  possessive suffix, while retaining the independent pronoun base an-. The com-parison with Harari akak and more especially such as ChÃha aka is more appo-site. The corresponding feminine form is ambiguous as anì could derive directly from original anti, and not just from substituted *anki, as LESLAU intimates. Somewhat careless are statements such as that on p. 74 74.1, that ߋverbs of the  1st subdivision go back to verbs with an original last radical w.ߌ where amongst  the immediately following examples LESLAU himself cites qÃrra, which ߋoccurs  in Tigrinya qry.ߌ It may well be that the halla-type has as its underlying origin verbs tertiae w, and those of the ŀÃììa-type verbs tertiae y, but the evidence  suggests that the better explanation is that in the ŀÃììa-type the palatal feature of the second consonant of the stem affects the vowel of the endings of the 2nd  masculine and 3rd feminine of the perfect (-ah, -Ãd in type 1, but -eh, -ed in type  2), which is seemingly the only difference between the two subdivisions. Of course, the incompleteness of the data that LESLAU admits may conceal further differences. It might be significant, however, that in Amharic original tertiae w  and tertiae y verbs are conflated into the one inflexional type. LESLAU߈s state- Reviews Aethiopica 3 (2000) 240 ment in the following paragraph that ߋa palatalizable verb of this class that is not palatalized is fÃssa ߇break wind߈ (G. fÃsÃwÃ ) due to the original radical w,ߌ  seems rather muddled as w would not be expected to cause palatalisation any- way, no more than in the Amharic cognate fÃssa. Finally, there are two analyses that I believe are not proposed in the best way and which consequently require comment. In discussing the inflexion of the  gerund, on p. 53 54.2., LESLAU analyses the 1st singular form sÃdb-Ƽì as from  base sÃdbƼdÃ- on analogy with the other persons, plus an ending *-ìe ߋpresent- ing the originally palatalized -te represented in Argobba as -de.ߌ Surely, rather  than propose a hypothetical repetition of the -t formative, the analysis should be simply base sÃdbƼt[Ã]- (before voicing of t > d) + ending -e/-yÃ and subsequent palatalisation and loss of the final vowel to give sÃdbƼì? Secondly, in describing  the addition of the object suffix pronouns to the 1st plural imperfect, in the foot-note to the table at the top of page 91, 87.3, LESLAU remarks on the position of the pronoun suffix in such forms as ƼlgÃdlƼkkƼn, ƼlgÃdlƼììƼn and ƼlgÃdlƼkkumƼn ߇we will kill you߈ (masc., fem., plur., respectively). Presumably he is implying  the object suffix pronouns in these forms precede rather than follow the -Ƽn  suffix which is part of the subject marking. When these are contrasted with such as ƼlgÃdlƼnem ߇we will kill them߈ and ƼlgÃdlƼne ߇we will kill him߈, it is obvious  that in underlying and regular *ƼlgÃdlƼn + -k/-ì/-kum (߇hard߈ suffixes because of original postconsonantal position) the suffix pronoun and the final -n of the base have assimilated to give *ƼlgÃdlƼkk, *ƼlgÃdlƼìì, *ƼlgÃdlƼkkum, to which the -Ƽn marker of the 1st plural has subsequently been re-added, probably because after the assimilation it was felt to be ߋmissingߌ. An interesting issue which LESLAU does not tackle, and the investigation of which would need more complete data than currently available, is the variation  in form of certain object suffix pronouns added to verbs, most notably the 2nd person suffixes. This is not the place to go into details, but the 2nd masculine and 2nd plural show variation between suffixes in -h and -k with something of an  unexpectedly skewed distribution. For instance, whilst it is not surprising that  the -h forms occur after original final vowels (but note -kum after final -u!) and  the -k forms after original final consonants, it is quite unexpected that -k and  -kum are also found after the -o ending of the 3rd masc. gerund. The 2nd feminine object suffixes are even more surprising with variation between -ih, -ì and -ŀ,  again with a rather odd distribution, and perhaps significantly in the light of the distribution of the -k forms for the masculine and plural, with -ì occurring after final vowel -o. This is all very surprising when compared with the other Trans-versal South Ethiopic languages, where only Silt߈i has any variation, in the 2nd  Reviews Aethiopica 3 (2000) 241 masculine object suffix between postconsonantal -ka and postvocalic -ha, and in the 2nd plural between -kum and -mmu in the same contexts. Students of Ethiopian Semitic should rightly be grateful to LESLAU for pub-lishing his Argobba material, adding yet again to the outstanding corpus of data on Ethiopian Semitic languages that he has published in almost 60 years of re-search activity. In his introduction to the present volume he echoes the recom-mendation of the SLLE team and makes a plea for Ethiopian scholars to under-take the task of investigating Argobba as thoroughly as possible before it is  completely extinct. The opportunities and resources for carrying this out are now greater than ever before, and it is to be hoped that the SLLE work was only the preliminary. However, as the demands on linguists and language development teams in Ethiopia today are to tackle what must be the priorities of developing materials for and promoting the host of larger languages, realistically and sadly  the recording of the moribund Argobba probably comes low down on their list. David Appleyard    WOLF LESLAU: Zway. Ethiopic Documents. Grammar and Dictionary. (Aethiopistische Forschungen. BegrÛndet von Ernst Hammerschmidt. Herausgegeben von Siegbert Uhlig. Band 51) Harrassowitz Verlag,  Wiesbaden, 1999. XXIII + 321 Seiten, 4 Leinen, DM 198,߃. ISBN 3߃447߃04162߃5  In den Aethiopistischen Forschungen ist WOLF LESLAU nunmehr mit vier BÃn-den vertreten. Als Fortsetzung der Reihe ߋEthiopians Speak. Studies in Cultural Backgroundߌ erschien der dem Muher gewidmete Part IV 1981 als Band 11 und der dem Chaha-Ennemor gewidmete Part V 1983 als Band 16, und mit dem  neuen Untertitel ߋEthiopic Documents. Grammar and Dictionaryߌ war 1997 in Band 47 das Argobba beschrieben worden. Das Zway gehÕrt innerhalb der Ãthio-semitischen Sprachen zur Ostgurage-Gruppe, deren Ûbrige bekannte Vertreter das SƼlؾi und Wolane sind, wÃhrend  das Ulbarag (Urbarag) und Inneqor bzw. Azarnat-Mugo noch nicht eingehender erforscht worden sind. Neuerdings sind diese Dialekte au¾er als Ostgurage auch als Silؾe-Gruppe bezeichnet worden, so von ERNST-AUGUST GUTT in The Semi-tic Languages, edited by ROBERT HETZRON, London-New York 1997, S. 509߃534, wo einleitend vermerkt wird, da¾ das Zway innerhalb dieser Gruppe am meisten abweicht und gegenÛber den anderen Dialekten wesentliche Unterschiede 

Wolf Leslau: Ethiopic Documents: Argobba: Grammar and Dictionary

Aethiopica

https://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de/aethiopica/article/download/593/598

Wolf Leslau: Ethiopic Documents: Argobba: Grammar and Dictionary

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Zeitschriftenserver von Hamburg University Press Verlag der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg

Aethiopica