Kalahari sandveld

Zimbabwean mopaneveld

The Khoisan languages of southern Africa:

a brief introduction. .

Dr Menán du Plessis,

Research Associate in the Dept of Linguistics, Stellenbosch University

Our core topics for today

Our core topics for today

• Distribution: where are (or were) the speakers of Kalahari KHOE found?

• What is the status of these languages today?

• How do the Kalahari languages differ from Khoekhoe varieties?

• What differences exist within Kalahari KHOE, between western and eastern varieties?

Note on the term ‘Central Khoisan’

At one time, all hunter-gatherer

communities of the Kalahari were

lumped together as ‘Bushmen’ – even

when they spoke entirely different

languages! Early accounts of these

languages were often ethnographic in

character, and typically focused on

‘otherness’.

Page from a typical anthropological account of ‘Kalahari Bushmen’ (Passarge 1907).

Note on the term ‘Central Khoisan’

Dorothea Bleek divided the ‘Bushman’ languages into

Southern Bushman (now known as !Ui-Taa or TUU)

Northern Bushman (now known as JU)

Central Bushman (now recognised as the Kalahari branch of

KHOE)

Dorothea Bleek, daughter of Wilhelm Bleek

The unity of the KHOE languages

• The probable relationship between some of the Kalahari languages and Khoekhoe languages such as Nama was pointed out on the basis of comparative data by Samuel Dornan as early as 1917.

• From the 1960s onward, the relationship was repeatedly asserted by Oswin Köhler and Ernst Westphal, while further comparative evidence in support of the (frankly obvious) connection was put forward by Maingard.

• With Rainer Vossen’s presentation (1997) of a set of reconstructed roots for Proto-Khoe –following a previous set of postulations from Kenneth Baucom– the matter was settled conclusively.

The unity of the KHOE languages

• Vossen initially labelled the languages of this branch ‘non-Khoekhoe Khoe’, but later abandoned the negative term in favour of ‘Kalahari Khoe’.

• Ernst O. J. Westphal’s earlier term ‘Tshu-Khwe’ for the Kalahari varieties is no longer used.

• Dorothea Bleek’s term ‘Central Bushman’ was later revised to ‘Central Khoisan’, and a few linguists now use the latter as a name for the whole of the KHOE family, even though the implication of a geographically limited distribution for the group is rather misleading.

Distribution: KHOE

Distribution of Kalahari KHOE languages

• Originally there were speakers of various Kalahari KHOE languages in Angola, Namibia and Botswana.

• Some speakers seem to have entered Zimbabwe via the Hwange Game Reserve. Some older accounts also mention a few speakers in the southern part of Zambia.

• In more recent times, some speakers (of Khwe in particular) have moved to South Africa.

The Tjwao documentation project in Zimbabwe

Chebanne (2008): Languages of Botswana

Chebanne (2008): Languages of Botswana

A member of a Khwe community playing a musical bow (gourd resonator, string struck with small stick).

Two previously mentioned differences between Khoekhoe and Kalahari

• Unlike Khoekhoe languages, Kalahari languages do not mark a distinction between Inclusive and Exclusive reference in pronouns of the 1st and 2nd person

• Unlike Khoekhoe languages, Kalahari languages typically use a linker (sometimes termed a ‘juncture’) between the verb and certain inflectional elements, as well as between two verbs in compound forms.

(a) Pronominal system of Khwe (W Kalahari)

Note four main differences:

• Inclusive/Exclusive missing

• Pronominal base for 3d person different

• 3rd person masculine singular as –m rather than -b

• Morphology of 3rd person masc pl different

The ‘junctures’ of Kalahari KHOE

The presence of linking morphology associated with the verb was noted at various times, but it was Köhler (1981) who gave the first definitive description –for Khwe– and who introduced the term ‘juncture’.

In the particular variety he studied, he identified two junctures (I and II), where the second one has a number of allomorphs.

The junctures occur:

• between two verbs in certain compounds

• Between a verb and some of the verb extensions (which appear to have a verbal origin)

• Between a verb and some of the morphemes used to express Tense and Aspect (which similarly appear to have a verbal origin)

The ‘junctures’ of Kalahari KHOE

Source: Christa Kilian-Hatz, A Grammar of Modern Khwe (2008)

An illustrative text for Kalahari

Text 2: Kalahari KHOE: Khwe. Extract, ‘How We Got the Fire’. From Christa Kilian-Hatz, Folktales of the Kxoe in the West Caprivi (Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1999), 17–32.

The Caprivi strip is the panhandle seen in the north-eastern corner of Namibia.

More differences between Kalahari and Khoekhoe

(a) Gender suffixes • Khoekhoe varieties express gender overtly through nominal suffixes, where

the 3rd person masc. markers are typically, as in Kora:

b(i) or –m(i) (Sing ) –ku (Plural)

khoe-b ‘man’ khoe-ku-a ‘men’

xam-mi ‘lion’ xam-ku-a ‘lions’

ǂxoā-b ‘elephant’ ǂxoā-ku-a ‘elephants’

ǁ’ãi-b ‘he’ ǁ’ãi-ku-a ‘they (masc)’

• Kalahari varieties may use nominal suffixes, but may also express gender more covertly through pronominal cross reference, where the 3rd person masc. markers may be, as in Khwe:

(–m (Sing)) -ǁú (Plural)

ta-khoe-m ‘old man’ ta-khoe-ǁu-a

ǂxoa ‘elephant’ ǂxoa-ǁu-a ‘elephants’

mungwere ‘toad’ mungwere-ǁu-a ‘toads’ [loan?]

xa-ma ‘he’ xa-ǁu-a ‘they (masc)’

(a) 3rd person masculine sing suffix in Khwe

Warthog, ǁxùú in Khwe

(b) Postpositions may be slightly different from those used in Khoekhoe

‘Monkey arrives at the river.

‘Monkey then goes down

‘in order to drink with his mouth.

‘So he arrives and bends down to drink. (Khwe)

(c) A (slightly) greater range of verb extensions in Kalahari

Verb extensions in Khwe:

Benefactive -ma ‘for’

Reflexive -can ~ cen ‘self’

Reciprocal -ku ‘each other’

Comitative -ǀxoa ‘together with’

Passive -e

Causative –ka or –xu

(c) Comitative verb extension in Khwe

(c) Comitative verb extension in Khwe

(d) Differences in negation

Khoekhoe: tama (or ta)

ĩ tama ǀoeb tje ‘vloek is nie mooi nie’ (Kora)

ĩ tama ǀoe-b tje

nice NEG swear-3ms BE

‘swearing is not nice’

(d) Differences in negation

Khwe: be or véé (where Khoekhoe varieties use tama or ta)

Summing up: some differences between Khoekhoe and Kalahari varieties

a. Aspects of the pronominal system, particularly absence of the Inclusive/Exclusive distinction in Kalahari varieties; use of a different pronominal base; differences in form and occurrence of the gender suffixes.

b. Some differences in the morphemes used as postpositions.

c. A (slightly) greater range of verbal extensions in Kalahari.

d. Differences in morphology used to express negation.

Differences within Kalahari Khoe

• A greater tendency for nominal suffixes to be omitted in eastern varieties.

• Some differences in the expression of Tense and Aspect.

• Absence of the (post)alveolar (ǃ) and palato-alveolar (ǂ) clicks in eastern varieties (thought to reflect a process of click loss in Shua and Tshwa).

The ‘replacement’

of the palato-

alveolar click (ǂ)

by a range of

palatals in

‘Tsowaa’ [Tshwa?]

(Snyman 2000).

Rhinoceros, !nabab in Nama, and ngyaava in Khwe.

Current debates in Khoisan linguistics

• A proposed connection between the JU group and the previously unplaced ǂ’Amkoe (aka E. ǂHoan).

• Clicks as clusters vs clicks as complex unitary segments.

• Proposed external relationships involving the KHOE group and the Angolan isolate, Kwadi; and ‘Khoe-Kwadi’ and Sandawe.

• Click loss vs click emergence across the KHOE spectrum.

• Areal scenarios for Khoisan.

• Can the complex predicates found in Khoisan languages be analysed as SVCs? Perhaps only in some cases?

Kudu, xaib in Nama, n!hoan in Juǀ’hoan, dòõ-ka in !Xoon

Hypothesised external relations

• Khoekhoe and Sandawe?

• Khoe and Kwadi?

• ‘Khoe-Kwadi’ and Sandawe?

Khoekhoe and languages of north or east Africa?

Khoe and Kwadi?

‘Khoe’ or ‘Khoe-Kwadi’ and Sandawe?

• There is a very small set (perhaps 60 items) of tantalising lookalikes, such as the word for ‘four’, which is haka in both Khoekhoe and Sandawe.

• Both the morphological resemblance and the proposed semantic connection are more plausible in some cases than in others, however.

• No-one has been able to present a full set of regularly recurring phonetic alternations.

Vossen overview (2013)

Clicks: ancient sounds or recent innovations?

A possible mechanism for the emergence of clicks

Patterns like the one illustrated above and various others point to an apparent association between the emergence of the click and the phenomenon of velarisation that occurs in various Zimbabwean languages in association with following back or low vowels …

A possible mechanism for the emergence of clicks

A possible mechanism for the emergence of clicks

NB: This is the ‘minority report’ (!), but if it is indeed the case that clicks can emerge under the right conditions, then it is also possible that they could have emerged on more than one occasion. This means that the mere possession of clicks by various languages does not necessarily imply that those languages must be related …

And speaking of clicks ….

Our previous ‘clicks of the day’ (a)

Our previous ‘clicks of the day’ (b)

ǁgamma ‘water’

A new click, and a new ‘accompaniment’

ǃã(sa)b ‘brother, uncle’ (Kora)

!gam ‘kill’ (Kora)

!nona ‘three’ (Kora)

More examples of the (post)alveolar click, with prenasalisation and affrication

The full set of Nama click ‘accompaniments’

Spectrogram for prenasalised click

↑

!nāb ‘stomach’ (Kora)

Spectrogram for plain click

↑

ǀuib ‘one’ (Kora)

Spectrogram for click with ‘glottal stop accompaniment’

↑

ǀ’ub ‘salt’ (Kora)

Spectrogram for aspirated click

↑

ǀhũb ‘white man’ (Kora)

Spectrogram for affricated click

↑

!xaru (Nama)

The Nama numbers from 1 to 10

The Nama numbers from 1 to 10

The Tjwao documentation project in Zimbabwe

Msindo Moyo teaching young teenagers from the Tsholotsho San community a traditional song in Tjwao (Eastern Kalahari KHOE).