Shirt a Phobia

Sample Page

Not to be confused with Omotik language.

The Omotic languages are a traditionally recognized but disputed grouping of languages spoken mainly in southwestern Ethiopia, around the Omo River region, and in parts of southeastern Sudan (Blue Nile State). This classification conventionally includes the Damotic (North Omotic), Dizoid (Majoid), Mao and Aroid (South Omotic) languages.

Some of these languages are written in the Geʽez script, while others use the Latin alphabet. They are generally agglutinative and exhibit complex tonal systems, as in the Bench language. The group comprises about 7.9 million speakers.[1]

They are generally classified within the Afroasiatic family, though the internal coherence of Omotic as a linguistic unit is questioned by some linguists. For example, Güldemann[2] treats Damotic and Dizoid as Afroasiatic, but considers Mao and Aroid to be separate language groups outside Afroasiatic, influenced by contact with North Omotic.

Classification

The Omotic languages are generally considered the most divergent branch of the Afroasiatic languages, but both their internal unity and their Afroasiatic affiliation are debated. In 19th century classifications linguists such as d’Abbadie and Latham grouped most of what are now classified as Damotic under the name Gonga (including the Ometo languages) and treated them as “Hamitic languages of Great Damot“.[3][4] Later classifications up to Greenberg (1963) placed the Omotic languages within Cushitic as “West Cushitic”. Fleming (1969) argued instead that Omotic should be considered an independent branch of Afroasiatic, a view largely accepted after Bender (1971),[5] although some scholars still support the West Cushitic position[6][7] or propose that only part of Omotic is independent, with North Omotic remaining Cushitic. Blench notes that Omotic shares honey-related vocabulary with Cushitic but not cattle-related terms, suggesting a very early split, possibly before the spread of pastoralism.[8]

The main groups usually distinguished are Damotic (North Omotic), Dizoid (Maji), Mao, and Aroid (Ari-Banna or South Omotic). Damotic is generally considered the clearest candidate for Afroasiatic affiliation, while Dizoid shows some Afroasiatic features but its classification remains uncertain and requires further research.[9] In contrast, it has been argued that Mao and Aroid may not belong to the Omotic family at all.

The Mao languages, spoken on the Sudan-Ethiopian border, are poorly documented and show strong influence from Koman languages. Because of this and the lack of basic descriptive work, their genealogical affiliation remains unclear.

The Aroid languages are the most controversial. Their external classification has long been disputed, with proposals linking them to Nilo-Saharan languages. At the same time, scholars acknowledge heavy contact influence from neighboring Nilo-Saharan (Surmic and Nilotic) languages and from Afroasiatic languages, including Damotic, Dizoid, and Cushitic. Güldemann (2018) stresses that existing proposals do not adequately distinguish inherited features from areal effects, making it impossible to reach firm conclusions. As a result, Aroid is often treated as a possibly isolated family with no established higher-level affiliation.

Recent genome-wide and ancient DNA studies provide independent support for this linguistic separation: Damotic groups such as the Wolayta cluster genetically with Cushitic speakers and bear substantial West Eurasian admixture, whereas Aroid populations such as the Aari show stronger continuity with the ancient local hunter-gatherer Mota genome and much lower levels of that Eurasian signal. This clear genetic discontinuity complements the linguistic evidence, reinforcing the view that Damotic and Aroid are not closely related genealogically, but instead reflect distinct population histories, and supports the interpretation that any linguistic similarities between them are primarily the result of long-term contact rather than common descent.[10][11][12]

Because of these issues, some linguists, including Güldemann, classify only Damotic and Dizoid as Afroasiatic, while treating Mao and Aroid as separate groups outside Afroasiatic that have been strongly shaped by contact.[2]

Omotic?

Characteristics

General

The Omotic languages have a morphology that is partly agglutinative and partly fusional:

  • Agglutinating: Yem am-se-f-∅-à go+plural+present+3. Person+Femininum “they go”[13]
  • Fusional: Aari ʔíts-eka eat+3. Person Pl. Converb “by eating”[14]

Inflection through suprasegmental morphemes is found in individual languages such as Dizi and Bench; Historically, these are partly reflexes of affixes:

  • Bench sum˩ “name”, sum-s˦ “to name”

The nominal morphology is based on a nominative–accusative–absolutive system; for verbal morphology, a complex inflection according to categories such as tense/aspect, interrogative/declarative, and affirmative/negative, as well as agreement, is more predicative, characterizing forms with the subject. In syntax, the word order subject-object-verb (SOV) is generally valid; postpositions are used, which can be considered typical for both SOV languages in general and for the Ethiopian region.

Phonology

The Omotic languages have on average slightly less than thirty consonant phonemes, which is a comparatively high number, but is also found in other primary branches of Afro-Asiatic. Commonly used are bilabial, alveolar, velar and glottal plosive, various fricative, alveolar affricates and /w/, /j/, /l/, /r/, /m/, /n/. What is typical for the non-glottal plosives is that they are each represented by a voiced, a voiceless, and an ejective phoneme; All three types can also be found in fricatives and affricates. Most Omotic languages have additional consonants. Examples of this are the Implosive in South Omotic (/ɓ/, /ɗ/, /ɠ/) and the Retroflex of the Bench. In some cases, consonants can also occur geminated. Representatives of the Nordomotic and Mao have five to six vowel phonemes, the quantity is partly a difference in meaning; In contrast, much more extensive vowel systems are typical for South Omotic.

All Omotic languages for which sufficient data is available are tonal languages, which usually only distinguish two tones (high and low), some languages have more tones: Dizi distinguishes three, Bench six. Certain Omotic languages such as Aari and Ganza (Mao) have tonal accent systems in which each independent word has exactly one high tone, whereas in most languages the tones are freely distributed.

Morphology

Nouns

The Omotic languages distinguish between the nominal categories number, case,[15] and definiteness. These categories are marked by different suffixes, which can be fusional or analytic depending on the language. The two genders in all omotic languages for which sufficient data are available are masculine and feminine; they essentially correspond to natural gender. The case system distinguishes the omotic languages as accusative languages; other cases form various adverbial determinations. A number of omotic languages have an absolutive case, which marks the citation form and the direct object (examples from Wolaita):[16]

  • Absolute keett-a “the house”
  • Nominative keett-i “the house”

Some common case suffixes are:

  • Nominative *-i (Gonga-Gimojan, Dizi-Sheko)
  • Accusative *-m (South Domotic)
  • Genitive *-kV (Gonga-Gimojan, Dizi-Sheko, Mao, Dime)
  • Dative *-s (Gonga-Gimojan, Dizi-Sheko, Mao?[17])

A typological peculiarity, which is also isolated within Omotic, is the person and gender dependency of the nominative in Bench (either –i˧ or –a˧, depending on the person):

  • a˦tsin˦-a˧ “a woman” (3rd person sg. femininum)[18]
  • nun˧-a˧ “we” (1st person plural exclusive)[19]
  • nas˦i˧ “a man” (3rd person sg. masculine)[19]

In most languages, the singular is unmarked, while the plural has its own suffix. It is possible that plural suffixes in some languages arose from a partitive construction. This is supported by the length of certain plural suffixes, formal relationships to the genitive singular and the fact that the determining suffix sometimes comes before the plural suffix, which is typologically unusual:[20][21]

  • Dizi kìan-à-kʾankàs dog+det.+plural “the dogs”[22]
  • Yem ʔasú-nì-kitó human+gene+plural “people”[23]

Pronouns

The personal pronouns distinguish similar categories to the nouns in most omotic languages; However, the genera are usually only marked in the 3rd person singular. The personal pronouns usually have their own stem for each number-person-gender combination, to which case suffixes are then added, which are the same for all persons. Some of the pronouns show similarities with other Afro-Asian language families and can therefore be traced back to Proto-Afro-Asiatic; Certain South Omotic personal pronouns can be explained as borrowings from the neighboring Nilo-Saharan:[24]

1st person 2nd person 3rd person
sg. pl. sg. pl. sg. pl.
m. f.
Omotic Nordomotic
Proto-Gonga-Gimojan *ta *nu~*no *no *int- *isi ? *is-
Proto-Dizi-Sheko *ǹ *ń *yeta *iti *iz- *iži *iš-
Proto-Mao *ti- ? *hiya *nam ? ? ?
Proto-Southomotic *inta *wo-ta *yaa/*in *ye-ta *nuo *naaa *ke-ta
Other Afroasiatic: Akkadian ī nī k-a/k-ī k-unu/k-ina š-u š-a š-unu/š-ina
Nilotic: Teso[25] ɛɔŋɔ ɔnɪ/ɪs(y)ɔ ɪjɔ yɛsɪ ŋɛsɪ kɛsɪ

The case endings of the personal pronouns and the nouns are usually identical:

  • Aari: Accusative -m: yé-m “you”, fatir-in-ám “the corn”

Possessive pronouns in particular have their own forms:

  • Aari: yé “yours,” ʔéed-te “a man’s”

Reconstruction

Bender (1987: 33–35)[26] reconstructs the following proto-forms for Proto-Omotic and Proto-North Omotic, the latter which is considered to have descended from Proto-Omotic.

English gloss Proto-
Omotic		 Proto-North
Omotic
ashes *bend
bird *kaf
bite *sats’
breast *t’iam
claw *ts’ugum
die *hayk’
dog *kan
egg *ɓul
fire *tam
grass *maata
hand *kuc
head *to-
hear *si-
mouth *non-
nose *si(n)t’
root *ts’ab-
snake *šooš
stand (vb.) *yek’
this *kʰan-
thou (2.SG) *ne(n)
water *haats’
we (1.PL) *nu(n)
ye (2.PL) *int-
green *c’il-
house *kyet
left *hadr-
elephant *daŋgVr
sister, mother *ind
armpit *šoɓ-
boat *gong-
grave *duuk
vomit *c’oš-

Comparative vocabulary

Sample basic vocabulary of 40 Omotic languages from Blažek (2008):[27]

Language eye ear nose tooth tongue mouth blood bone tree water eat name
Basketo af waytsi sints ačči B ɪnts’ɨrs no·na suuts mεk’εts B mɪts B waːtse A moy- B sumsa
Dokka af waytsi si·nts ačči ɨrs’ɪns no·na su·ts mik’әts mittse wa·tsi m- suntsa
Male ’aːpi waizi sied‘i ’ači ’ɪndɪrsi daŋka sugutsi mεgεtsi mitsi waːtsi mo- sunsi
Wolaita ayf-iya; A ayp’-iya haytta sir-iya acca; A acc’a int’arsa doona suutta; Ch maččamié mek’etta mitta hatta m- sunta
Dawro ayp’-iya haytsa siid’-iya acc’a ins’arsa doona sutsa mek’etsa barzap’-iya hatsa m- sutta
Cancha ayp’e hayts sire acc‘a ins‘arsa doona suts mek’etsa mits haats m- sunts
Malo ’áɸe hʌ́je síd’e ’áčʰә ’irɪ́nts dɔ́nʌ sútsʰ mεk‘ɨ́ts‘ mɪ́ts ’átsә m- sʊns
Gofa ayp’e haytsa siide acc’a intsarsa doona sutsa mek’etta mitsa hatse m- suntsa
Zala ayfe (h)aytsa sid’e ačča int’arsa duna tsutsa mitsa hatsa maa-
Gamu ayp’e haytsa siire acc’a ins’arsa doona suuts mek’ets mitsa hatse m- sunts
Dache ayfe hayts’e siyd’e acé ɪntsεrs duna suts mek’ets šara hatse m- sunts
Dorze ayp’e waye sire acc’a ins’arsa duuna suts mek’etsa mits haats m- sunts
Oyda ápe, ayfe B haːye sid’e ’ač, pl. o·či iláns B doːna suts mεk’εts mɪns’a haytsi mu’- suntsu
Zayse ’áaɸε waayέ kuŋké ’acc’ ints’έrε baadέ súuts’ mεk’έεte mits’a wáats’i m- č’úuč’e
Zergulla ’aːɸe wai kuŋki ’ac’e ’insәre haː’e suːts nεkεtε mintsa waːtse m- suːns
Ganjule ’áaɸε waašέ kuŋkε gaggo ints’úrε baadέ súuts’ mεk’έtε mits’i waats’i m- ts’únts’i
Gidicho ’áaɸε waašέ kuŋké gaggo ints’úrε baadέ súuts’i mεk’εte míts’i wáats’i m- ts’únts’i
Kachama ’áaɸε uwaašέ kuŋkέ gaggo ints’úrε baadέ súuts’ε mέk‘έtee mits’i wáats’i m- ts’únts’i
Koyra ’áɸε waayέ siid’ε gaggo ’únts’úrε ’áaša súuts’ mεk‘έεte míts’e; Ce akka wáats’e múuwa súuntsi
Chara áːpa wóːya sínt’u áč’a ’íns’ila noːná súːta mertá mítsa áːs’a ḿ-na sumá
Bench ap (h)ay sint’ gaš; san eyts’ non sut mert inč so’ m’ sum
She af ai sint’ gaš ets’ non sut mεrt enc so’ mma sum
Yemsa aafa; kema odo siya a’ya terma noono anna mega i’o aka me suna
Bworo aawa waaza šint’a gaša albeera noona ts’atts’a mak’әttsa mitta aatsa maa- šuutsa
Anfillo aːfo waːjo šiːnto gaːššo εrɪːtso nɔːno ts’antso šaušo mɪːtso yuːro m šiːgo
Kafa affo, aho wammo; kendo muddo gašo eč’iyo nono; koko dammo šawušo met’o ač’o mammo; č‘okko šiggo
Mocha á·p̱o wa·mmo šit’ó gášo häč’awo no·no damo ša·wúšo mit’ó à·č’o ma̱·(hä) šəgo
Proto-Omotic[26] *si(n)t’ *non- *haats’
Maji
Proto-Maji[28] *ʔaːb *háːy *aːç’u *eːdu *uːs *inču *haːy *um
Dizi ab-u aːi sin-u ažu yabɪl εd-u yεrm-u us wɪč aːi m- sɪm-u
Shako áːb aːy B sɪnt’ áːč’u érb eːd yärm uːsu íːnču áːy m̥̀- suːm
Nayi ’aːf B haːy si.n B acu B yalb eːdu yarbm ’uːs B incus B hai m- suːm
Mao
Mao áːfέ wáːlέ šíːnt’έ àːts’ὲ ánts’ílὲ pɔ́ːnsὲ hándέ máːlt‘έ ’íːntsὲ hàːtsὲ hà míjà jèːškέ
Seze aːb, áːwi wέὲ šíːnté háːts’έ, haːnsì jántsílὲ/ t’agál waːndè hámbìlὲ bàk‘ílí ’innsì háːns’ì máːmɔ́ nìːší
Hozo abbi wεεra šini ats’i S wìntə́lә waandi hambilε bak‘ilε S ’íːnti haani maa iiši
Aroid
Dime ’afe, ’aɸe k’aːme nʊkʊ F baŋgɪl; ɪts; kәsɪl ’ɨdәm ’afe; B ’app- maχse; F dzumt k‘oss; F k‘ʊs ’aχe; B haːɣo naχe; B nәːɣ- ’ɨčɨn mɨze; F naːb
Hamer api, afi k’a(ː)m- nuki ’ats’ ’ad’ab ap- zum’i leːfi ak’- noko kʊm- nam-
Banna afi k’ami nuki atsi adʌb/adɪm afa zump’i lεfi ɑhaka/haːk’a noko its-; kum- na(a)bi
Karo afi k’ami nuki asi attәp’ M ’apo mәk’әs lefi aka nuk’o isidi
Ari afi k’ami nuki atsi; B kasel geegi adim afa zom’i lεfi ahaka noɣa; B nɔk’ɔ its- nami
Ubamer a·fi ɣ/k’a·mi nuki atsi admi afa mək’əs ~ -ɣ- lεfí aɣa luk’a, luɣa ’its- na·mi
Galila a·fi k’a·mi nuki ači admi afa mәk’әs lεfí aɣa/aháɣa lu·ɣa/lo·ɣa ič- la·mi

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b “Omotic languages”. Ethnologue (Free All). Ethnologue. Archived from the original on 9 March 2023. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
  2. ^ a b Güldemann, Tom (2018). “Historical linguistics and genealogical language classification in Africa”. In Güldemann, Tom (ed.). The Languages and Linguistics of Africa. The World of Linguistics series. Vol. 11. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 58–444. doi:10.1515/9783110421668-002. ISBN 978-3-11-042606-9. S2CID 133888593.
  3. ^ Beke, Charles T. (1850). “On the Geographical Distribution of the Languages of Abessinia and the Neighbouring Countries”. Journal of the Ethnological Society of London (1848-1856). 2: 214–221. doi:10.2307/3014123. ISSN 1368-0358.
  4. ^ Needham Cust, Robert (1883). A sketch of the modern languages of Africa (PDF). London: Trübner & Co. pp. 139–140.
  5. ^ Hayward 2000, p. 85.
  6. ^ Lamberti 1991.
  7. ^ Zaborksi 1986.
  8. ^ Blench 2006, pp. 150–152.
  9. ^ Theil, Rolf. “Omotic”. University of Oslo.
  10. ^ Pagani, Luca; Kivisild, Toomas; Tarekegn, Ayele; Ekong, Rosemary; Plaster, Chris; Gallego Romero, Irene; Ayub, Qasim; Mehdi, S. Qasim; Thomas, Mark G.; Luiselli, Donata; Bekele, Endashaw; Bradman, Neil; Balding, David J.; Tyler-Smith, Chris (2012-07-13). “Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool”. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 91 (1): 83–96. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.05.015. ISSN 0002-9297. PMID 22726845.
  11. ^ Pickrell, Joseph K.; Patterson, Nick; Loh, Po-Ru; Lipson, Mark; Berger, Bonnie; Stoneking, Mark; Pakendorf, Brigitte; Reich, David (2014-02-18). “Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111 (7): 2632–2637. arXiv:1307.8014. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.2632P. doi:10.1073/pnas.1313787111. ISSN 1091-6490. PMC 3932865. PMID 24550290.
  12. ^ Walsh, Sandra; Pagani, Luca; Xue, Yali; Laayouni, Hafid; Tyler-Smith, Chris; Bertranpetit, Jaume (2020-10-22). “Positive selection in admixed populations from Ethiopia”. BMC Genetics. 21 (Suppl 1): 108. doi:10.1186/s12863-020-00908-5. ISSN 1471-2156. PMC 7580818. PMID 33092534.
  13. ^ Mammo Girma: Yemsa Verb Morphology. Some Inflections and Derivations. 1986, quoted from Bender 2000, p. 120; Clay marking according to the different forms in Lamberti 1993, p. 190
  14. ^ Hayward 1990 quoted in Bender 2000, p. 171
  15. ^ R. Hayward, Y. Tsuge: Concerning case in Omotic. In: Africa and Overseas. Volume 81, pp. 21-38. 1998.
  16. ^ Bender 2000, p. 21.
  17. ^ Bender 2000, p. 212.
  18. ^ Bender 2000, p. 127.
  19. ^ a b Mary J. Breeze: Personal Pronouns in Gimira (Benchnon). In: Ursula_Wiesemann (Ed.): Pronominal Systems. Narr, Tübingen 1986, ISBN 3-87808-335-1, pp. 47–70, p. 53.
  20. ^ Hayward 2003, p. 246.
  21. ^ Lamberti 1993, p. 70 f.
  22. ^ Bender 2000.
  23. ^ Lamberti 1993, p. 71.
  24. ^ Reconstructions according to Bender 2000, p. 196
  25. ^ Bender 2000, p. 163.
  26. ^ a b Bender, Lionel M. 1987. “First Steps Toward proto-Omotic.” Current Approaches to African Linguistics 3 (1987): 21–36.
  27. ^ Blažek, Václav. 2008. A lexicostatistical comparison of Omotic languages. In Bengtson (ed.), 57–148.
  28. ^ Aklilu, Yilma. 2003. Comparative phonology of the Maji languages. Journal of Ethiopian studies 36: 59–88.

Sources cited

  • Bender, M. Lionel (2000). Comparative Morphology of the Omotic Languages. Munich: LINCOM.
  • Blench, Roger (2006). Archaeology, Language, and the African Past. Oxford: AltaMira Press. ISBN 9780759104662.
  • Fleming, Harold (1976). “Omotic overview”. In Bender, M. Lionel (ed.). The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. pp. 299–323.
  • Hayward, Richard J., ed. (1990). Omotic Language Studies. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
  • Hayward, Richard J. (2003). “Omotic: the ’empty quarter’ of Afroasiatic linguistics”. In Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.). Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II: selected papers from the fifth conference on Afroasiatic languages, Paris 2000. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 241–261. doi:10.1075/cilt.241.13hay.
  • Newman, Paul (1980). The classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic. Universitaire Pers Leiden.
  • Lamberti, Marcello (1991). “Cushitic and its Classifications”. Anthropos. 86 (4/6): 552–561.
  • Lamberti, Marcello (1993). Materialien zum Yemsa. Studi Linguarum Africae Orientalis, Band 5. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. ISBN 3-8253-0103-6.

General Omotic bibliography

  • Bender, M. L. 1975. Omotic: a new Afroasiatic language family. (University Museum Series, 3.) Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.
  • Zaborski, Andrzej. 1986. Can Omotic be reclassified as West Cushitic? In Gideon Goldenberg, ed., Ethiopian Studies: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference pp. 525–530. Rotterdam: Balkema.