CHAPTER XX.

THE LANGUAGES OF THE KILIMA-NJARO DISTRICT.

(_a_) MASAI.

(_b_) KI-ČAGA, KI-TAVEITA, &c. (BANTU LANGUAGES).

The interest taken in African languages is a newly awakened but a

growing one. The work of Bleek, Lepsius, Müller, Steere, and Schön; of

Barth, Koelle, Krapf, and Reinisch—not to mention many other earnest

workers in this freshly opened field, who each contribute their quota to

our present sum of knowledge—has at length begun to meet with due

appreciation, and though many of these patient grammarians and students

of unrecognized forms of speech have passed away, yet in almost every

case their work has begun to acquire a notoriety and a value that

neither they nor their publishers hoped for when the grammars or

vocabularies or handbooks were first issued to an unheeding public.

[Illustration:

To face page 446.

]

Those who are beginning or prosecuting their African linguistic

researches owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Robert Needham Cust[57] for

his painstaking bibliographical work, which tabulates every known source

of information on the subject, and where some form of order is

introduced into what, from very paucity of knowledge, has long been a

hopeless maze of conflicting theories. Imperfect as our grasp of the

subject is, we are able now at least to rise from its contemplation with

certain definite ideas as to the grouping or classifying of African

tongues. We know there is the great Bantu family in the southern half of

the continent; the common origin and relationships of the Hamitic

languages becomes apparent; the tongues appertaining to the Semitic

group in the north and north-east are relegated to their place; and if

more general classifications of the vast number of Negro and negroid

forms of speech are found to be at present illusory, we can at least

recognize several very distinct and natural families, lacking, it may

be, any appreciable relationships with extraneous linguistic groups

outside their own area, but possessing evident signs of a common

structural plan and a common origin. Such are the Nuba tongues, the Fula

group, the Hausa, Kanuri, Wolof, Kru, Mande, Bagirmi, Šiluk, and Diṅka

language-clusters of Central and Western Africa. Distinct also, and

offering only a slight indication of possible affinities, is the

language spoken with but little dialectal variation by the well-marked

race known as the Masai, whose ethnological features have been treated

of in the preceding chapter.

In the south, south-west, and south-central districts of Africa,

_enclaves_ of the Bushman and Hottentot tongues are found—the “Click”

languages, as they are often called, and the subject of their mutual

relations is still much disputed by authorities. But Theophilus Hahn[58]

shows that there is decided resemblance in many words of common use, and

in the first three numerals, and even Bleek is constrained to admit that

the difference between the speech of Hottentot and Bushman scarcely

exceeds that between English and Latin or English and Sanscrit,

languages derived from a common Aryan stock, though widely separated by

time and manner of development.

(_a_) Masai.

As far as is known, the neighbourhood of Kilima-njaro offers languages

belonging to only two of the African families which I have mentioned—the

Masai and the Bantu. As has been already stated, helot tribes of

En-durobo are often found in the vicinity of Useri, Kimaṅgelia, and the

north-eastern slopes of Kilima-njaro, but those few with whom I came

into personal contact only spoke Masai, and could not be induced to

utter any words or phrases of their own speech if they still possessed

any special dialect peculiar to them. My materials for a superficial

study of the Masai language were principally derived from individuals,

both Masai proper and the so-called “Wa-kwavi,” or agricultural Masai,

who visited the chief Mandara for trade during my residence in Moši;

from the Wa-kwavi of Kikoro, near Taveita; from the few Masai whom I met

near Useri, and from the roving Masai who visited Gonǰa, at the foot of

the Pare hills, and Semboja's town, Mazindi, on the western flank of

Usambara. I find my vocabularies agree pretty closely with those of

Krapf and Erhardt, and the chief differences arise from what I believe

to be the more exact orthography I have employed. Erhardt gives in

general the form of the word more correctly than Krapf. Both their

vocabularies, however, are deserving of the highest credit as having

been compiled with wonderful accuracy under circumstances of much

difficulty.

Krapf called his work “A Vocabulary of the Wa-kwavi Tongue,” and Erhardt

entitled his, more justly, “A Vocabulary of the Masai Language.” Neither

seemed to be aware that they were studying the same form of speech,

although practically the only difference in their vocabularies comes

from the employment of diverse modes of orthography. The language they

illustrated seems to be a tolerably pure form of Masai which is spoken

in the vicinity of Kilima-njaro.

I find some discrepancy between my linguistic notes and those of Mr.

Last, who visited the southern Masai, or Wa-kwavi dwelling in Northern

Nguru. I believe that gentleman has in hand a voluminous MS. vocabulary

which will, doubtless, exhibit an interesting study of the language; but

the sentences and words given by him in the Royal Geographical Society’s

“Proceedings” for September, 1883, seem to show that the dialect is

either a very corrupt one or has been imperfectly understood. Some words

are evidently borrowed from neighbouring Bantu dialects, and the

possessive pronouns and persons of the verb are sometimes not in accord

with the English translation.

About Northern Masai we know but very little. It was a great

disappointment to me that Mr. Joseph Thomson, who is the sole European

who has yet visited those regions where the Masai impinge on other races

to the north, should have had no opportunities of making linguistic

notes. He would otherwise have been able to throw some light on the

affinities and origin of the Masai language. He mentions the people of

Sūk who dwell somewhere to the north of Lake Bariṅgo, and observes that

their language resembles Masai to a certain extent, with, however,

distinct differences. What these differences are he does not tell us,

and therefore we cannot conjecture, in the absence of information, what

affinities the Sūk language may display.

The researches of Dr. Emin-Bey (the governor of the Egyptian Equatorial

provinces, whose fate is still uncertain) throw a certain amount of

light on the northern members of the Masai family of languages. He gives

us a vocabulary of the Latuka language (of which a few words were also

gathered by Sir Samuel Baker), and places the position of the Latuka

people in about 5° N. of the Equator, where they are nearly surrounded

by the negro tribes (and languages) of Madi, Šuli, and others. Dr.

Emin-Bey says the Latuka belongs to the Laṅgo cluster, farther south,

calls the Laṅgo a Galla language, and remarks that the Latuka also

evinces Galla affinities. In these suppositions I am disposed to

disagree with him. The Latuka language has absolutely less relationship

with the Galla than the few slight and doubtful signs exhibited by the

Masai: and the probability is that, as the Latuka is said to be closely

related to the Laṅgo, this latter language is also of the Masai group.

Though the Latuka tongue differs considerably from Masai proper, perhaps

to the extent of fifty per cent., in the small vocabulary collected by

Dr. Emin-Bey, there is, however, no doubt whatever that it is a language

of the same family, and I shall endeavour to show in the appended

vocabulary that it agrees in many test-words and essential points with

Masai. The only other known tongue which can at present be said to form

an independent member of this family is the Bari, a language spoken over

a fairly large district on both banks of the White Nile between 4° and

6° N. latitude. The fact of its evident relationship to Masai was

pointed out by Lepsius in the preface to his Nubian grammar, but this

interesting discovery has been completely ignored by other authorities

on African languages, who have grouped the Masai with Nuba,[59] Fula,

and many other utterly dissimilar tongues.

At the present time, from the information we possess, we are able to

constitute a separate family of African languages called the Masai, of

which the undermentioned forms of speech are probably members. (I append

a query to those of doubtful existence or affinities.)

Bari.

Latuka.

Laṅgo?

Sūk?

Samburu?

Masai.

The only possible affinities that the Masai group displays for other

independent families of African languages are, on the one hand, with the

Diṅka and the Šiluk tongues, and on the other, with the Galla branch of

the Hamitic family.

With the Diṅka and Šiluk (Šuli, Lur, Šiluk, &c.), the resemblances are

confined to a certain undoubted correspondence in the vocabularies,

numerals, and pronouns; while in grammar there is scarcely any affinity.

Masai proper, more than the northern members of the family, approaches

the Galla somewhat in grammatical construction, and there are, besides,

a few cases of correspondence in the numerals and pronouns. There is

absolutely no distinction between the Masai proper and the agricultural

Masai, or “Wa-kwavi,” as regards their language. The vocabularies given

by Krapf of the Wa-kwavi, and Erhardt of the Masai, only differ slightly

in orthography, and are independent versions of one and the same form of

speech. As I have already remarked, the Masai tongue, wherever spoken by

Masai people, offers, as far as we yet know, little dialectal variation,

though it is used over a district stretching between 5° 30′ S. and the

Equator. In this uniformity it resembles the Galla language, which

exhibits but trifling differences in the dialects spoken on the confines

of Abyssinia (12° N. latitude), and on the coast of the Indian Ocean,

near Mombasa. Doubtless the fact is due to the roving habits of the

race, for, as has been already mentioned, the Masai warriors range in

their raids over nearly the entire district that bears their name, and

thus are kept in constant communication with the outlying tribes of

their race.

Before describing in a superficial manner the grammatical construction

of the Masai tongue, I feel bound to remark that for beauty and

simplicity of expression it stands almost unrivalled among the languages

of Africa. Compared with such dreadfully complicated forms of speech as

the Fulde (spoken by the Fulbe or “Fulahs” in Central and West Africa),

where there are some nineteen[60] ways of forming the plural, and the

verbs with their many tenses and moods are worse than in Greek, the

Masai language offers the grammatical simplicity of English. It has,

moreover, a very copious vocabulary, and its combinations of sounds are

harmonious, simple, and easily pronounced by Europeans. Another pleasant

feature about it is that every syllable is so clearly enunciated by the

people who speak it that a stranger may much more easily distinguish

each word and realize its meaning than is ordinarily possible with a

barbarian tongue.

The leading features of the Masai language are these. It distinguishes

three genders or classes of nouns, answering approximately to

_masculine_, _feminine_, and _neuter_ (or _common_). These genders are

indicated by the form of the demonstrative article, demonstrative

pronoun, nominal, adjectival, and participial prefix, but only the

last—the neuter, or common—is represented in the personal pronouns and

in the persons of the verb.

There are two numbers, singular and plural. The plural is formed by an

addition to or a change in the _termination_ of the noun in the

singular, sometimes by a change of article,[61] and in certain parts of

speech (pronouns, a few adjectives, &c.) by prefixing or affixing _Ku_

or _K_ to the root.[62]

There are no cases or declensions of the noun expressed by inflection or

change in termination. The substantive in the genitive case follows the

governing word, with a particle interposed between the nominative and

genitive. This particle seems to be either masculine, feminine, or

neuter, according to the gender of the noun in the nominative case.

The adjectives are either independent substantives assuming an

adjectival position, or else they are participles from a verbal root,

preceded by the masculine, feminine, and neuter (or general, or

collective) prefixes.

The personal pronouns _precede_ the verb. The possessive pronouns

_follow_ the noun. The demonstrative pronouns may either be placed

before or after the substantive. The interrogative pronoun precedes the

verb, so also does the relative particle, and the interrogative particle

precedes the noun.

The stem or root of the verb remains unaltered, but the tenses and

modifications of the sense (such as a passive, a reciprocal, a causative

meaning, &c.) are formed by adding both prefixes and suffixes. Many of

these are traceable to abbreviated forms of independent verbs.

The negative particle is always prefixed to the verb. It is generally

expressed by the particle _me_ (_m-_ before a vowel); but in certain

tenses negation is indicated by the use of a separate prefix formed from

an auxiliary verb.

The prepositions in Masai, as their name indicates, precede the word

they govern. The only postpositions are certain enclitic adverbs.

The accent in Masai falls occasionally (especially in derivatives) on

the first syllable of the word (generally the root), most frequently on

the penultimate, and rarely on the last.

Having briefly noted the leading characteristics of the language, I will

now proceed to examine its important features in a somewhat more

detailed manner.

As regards the phonology of Masai it may be remarked that the vowels

have mostly their Italian value. There are no obscure or modified

sounds, and in this the Masai language resembles most of the Bantu forms

of speech, wherein, also, there are no vowels that are not clearly and

distinctly sounded as in Italian. In Masai words may end in a consonant

(unlike the opposite rule in Bantu), but two consonants _never_ come

together, unless one of them be a _nasal_ or a _liquid_. The sounds

represented in the language are these:—

Vowels.—a, e, i, o, ô, u. (U is sometimes pronounced as a

semi-diphthong, like “u” in the word “sure.”)

Diphthongs.—ai, ae, ao, au; ea, ei, eo, eu; ia, ie, io, iu; oa, oe,

oi, ou; ua, ue, ui, uo.

Consonants.—(No _aspirates_; neither h, h′, nor χ (kh) are

represented). _Gutturals._—k, g. _Palatals._—y, ǰ (sounding both as

French “j” and “dj”), d′ (“dy′” an intermediate sound between “d” and

“j”). Č (_ch_ in church) is not present in Masai. _Dentals._—d, t, s

(no z), š (sh), ž. _Liquids._—l, r. _Nasals._—n, ṅ (ng′), ny.

_Labials._—m, b, p, w, v. (F and v are absent in Southern Masai.)

It may be noted here that in Masai the hard and soft forms of the

gutturals, dentals, and labials are easily interchangeable. It is

difficult to know sometimes whether to write D or T, K or G, B or P. In

the same way Š, Ž, and ǰ are hardly distinguishable from one another.

The word _Žore_, “friend,” is pronounced sometimes _Šore_, _ǰore_, and

even _Dyore_. _Guduk_, “mouth,” may be _Kutuk_, _Gutuk_, or _Kuduk_.

The article in Masai[63] seems to be of three forms, viz. _ôl_, _el_,

and _en_. The first may be taken as meaning “strong, big, masculine,”

and is probably related to _ole_, _olewa_, “strong, male, manly.” Or it

may be a compound between this sexual adjective and the second article

_el_, which latter seems to be common in gender and collective in

number, serving as plural to _ôl_, and sometimes preceding nouns of a

collective character that have no singular. _El_ most probably is a

demonstrative pronoun of common gender, and the same as _ele_, he, she,

it, this (plur. _kulo_, they, these).

Both _ôl_ and _el_ drop their liquid consonant before the letter “s”

beginning a word; as in Arabic, a double sound of that consonant is

heard, as—_ossesin_ (= _ol-sessin_, “the body”), _ossoit_ (= _ol-soit_,

“the stone”), _es-soit_ (= _el-soit_), &c.

The last of the three articles, _en_, assumes the forms _e_, _es_, _eṅ_

(sometimes _eṅg_), and _em_, according as it precedes nouns commencing

with an _n_ or _m_, an _s_, a vowel, or a labial; as—_E-modi_, “a pan,”

or “pot;” _e-naṅga_, “cloth;” _es-siaṅgiki_, “a wife;” _eṅ-oloṅ_, or

_eṅ-goloṅ_ “the sun;” _eṅ-guduk_, “the mouth;” _em-bere_, “the spear.”

The article _en_ is mainly feminine in its significance, but it also

gives a diminutive, depreciatory, weakened, playful, or affectionate

character to the word it precedes. Thus _eṅ-ker_ is “a female sheep”

(_ôl-ker_, “a ram”), _eṅ-doinyo_, “a hill” (_ôl-doinyo_, “a mountain”),

_em-barawui_, “the Wa-kwavi, or agricultural Masai,” a contemptuous name

used in the feminine sense by the nomad Masai to imply cowardice;

_eṅ-guǰita_, “tender grass” (_ôl-guǰita_, “strong, rough grass”), and so

on.

The article _en_ (with its variants, _e_, _eṅ_, _eṅg_, _em_, &c.) seems

to be more immediately derived from _ena_, the feminine demonstrative

pronoun answering to _ele_ in the masculine, before described. It is

possible that _ena_ may be a compound of _el_, the common article,

directive, or demonstrative, and _na_ the feminine particle—i.e.

_el-na_, _e-na_, _ena_, _en_. Just as I already hinted that _ôl_ may be

compounded of _o_ (_ole_, “male”) and _el_.

This consideration leads us to the discussion of the masculine,

feminine, and neuter (or common) particles which are often prefixed to

nouns and adjectives.

_O_, _oi_, _li_, _le_, indicate masculinity or strength when prefixed to

a root. These forms are evidently derived from _ole_ (plur. _olewa_),

“male,” a term which is possibly allied to the verbal stem _gol_, “to be

strong,” and _iôlo_, _yôlo_, “to know,” “to be able,” and even _oloṅ_,

_goloṅ_, “sun.” Placed before a root word, _ole_ has by contraction or

abbreviation become _o_, _oi_ (_ole_, _o-e_, _o-i_), _le_, &c. This

prefix is used at present to give a masculine character to the word it

precedes: as _oigob_ (_oi-kob_; _kob_, “land”), “men of the land;”[64]

_o-irok_, “black,” masc.; _o-ibor_, “white,” masc. (_ol-doinyo oibor_,

“the white mountain”); _o-irosi_, “heavy,” masc.; _li-kai_, “another,”

masc.; _l-ino_, “thy,” masc.; and so on.

The traces of the common or neuter prefix, _e_, _ei_, or _el_ (_ele_),

are not so frequent as either the masculine or feminine particles; still

there are several words in which it is indisputably present, as

_ei-bardani_, “bride or bridegroom;” _ei-gulo_, “breast-bone;”

_ei-baṅgi_, “a moderate-sized hill;” _e-ǰon_, “fresh, green;” _e-irok_,

“black;” _e-ado_, “long;” _e-muaja_, “how much?” all adjectives in the

common gender: and abstract nouns, as _eweji_, “place;” _eiso_ (Latuka,

_eido_), “heaven;” _e-duwa_, “bitterness;” _e-gogo_, “old age,” &c.

The feminine prefix is _na_, and appears to be connected with the root,

_nana_, “weak, soft, tender,” even in a depreciatory sense, “worthless,

rotten.” It is united to all stems to which a special feminine sense is

to be given. Thus, _na-ido_ “sister,” a term of address to women _oido_,

“brother,” masc.; _eido_, “the brotherhood,” common; _na-daṅgile_, “dear

one, darling”—a term applied to women; _na-do_, “long,” fem. (_enaṅga

nado_, “the long cloth”); _na-gai_, “good, well,” adv. from _-gai_,

“good” (_En-gai_, fem., “God, rain,” lit. “the good”); _na-ǰon_,

“green,” fem., &c.

Examples of the above prefixes applied to the same root:—

_-ǰon_, “fresh, green.”

Masculine. Common. Feminine.

_Ôl-doinyo oǰon_, _El-ata éǰon_, _Em-benek naǰon_,

“the green mountain.” “fresh oil.” “the green leaf.”

There would appear at times traces as of all these particles—_o_, _na_,

and _e_—forming or having formed themselves into pronouns for the

classes they represent, especially in juxtaposition with the verb. At

the present moment this only appears in participial adjectives formed

from verbs, and not in the tenses, where only the common prefix, _e_, is

represented. Whether anciently all three forms were used as pronouns—he,

she, and it—or whether such a development is approaching, I cannot say.

At present, he, she, it, they, are represented by a common verbal

pronoun or particle—_e_ or _ei_. Thus we say—

Ôl-duṅani e-mud (-mud = the root of the verb).

En-daṅgile „

El-eduwa „

El-dana „

The man he disappears.

The woman she „

The bitterness it „

The people they disappear.

Also _ele_, the demonstrative pronoun, is generally accepted as a

personal pronoun, meaning “he,” “she,” and “it.” “They” is ordinarily

expressed by the plural form of this word, viz. _kulo_. Of course, for

strictly demonstrative purposes, this pronoun has a feminine form, which

will be treated of afterwards.

To summarize what I have been saying, it would seem as if originally

there had been in Masai three genders or classes of nouns—_masculine_ or

_strong_, _common_ or _general_, _feminine_ or _diminutive_—and that

these three classes were provided with certain particles which were

prefixed to word-stems to indicate the class or gender of the governing

noun. This somewhat reminds one of the concord in Bantu languages, but

the resemblance is not effectually carried out; if it were, you would be

able to say in Masai—

_Ôl_-duṅani _o_-gol _o_-šam; ki-šam-_ole_;

The man strong he loves; we love him;

= The strong man loves; we love him;

or,

_En_-daṅgile _na_-lulunga _na_-kweni; ki-niṅ-na.

The woman healthy she laughs; we hear her.

= The healthy woman laughs; we hear her.

As it is you say—

Ôl-duṅani o-gol _e_-šam; ki-šam-_ele_, and En-daṅgile na-lulunga

_e_-kweni; ki-niṅ-_ele_.

In the Bantu tongues, where there is a large (in all sixteen) number of

noun-classes, the governing prefix of the subject follows throughout.

Thus in Swahili they say—

_Wa_-tu _wa_-zuri _wa_-ja; na-_wa_-ona;

The men handsome they come; I them see;

= The handsome men are coming; I see them;

or—

_Ki_-tu _ki_-dogo _ki_-mo; Tu-_ki_-pate.

The thing little it is within; That we it may get.

= The little thing is inside; let us get it.

In the sex-denoting Hamitic, Semitic, and Aryan tongues this concord,

imperfectly as it is now represented, once existed, though the

sex-denoting particles were generally added to the termination of the

word instead of preceding it.

Thus in Galla (Hamitic) they say—

Ni_ti_ hie_ti_ obole_ti_-_ši_ ilal_ti_ _iši_ wam_te_.

Woman poor sister her saw (and) her called.

= The poor woman saw her sister and called her.

In this case the syllable _ti_, which has a feminine signification, and

_iši_, its variant, run through all the words dependent on the governing

noun.

In Hottentot[65] almost the same thing presents itself (I quote from

Bleek’s Grammar):—

//Nã-tara-_ti_, sida !hau-s-di-_ti_, /nĩ !ā-s-!na //an-hã-_ti_,

hõ-_ti_-da-ra, gare-da-ra goma-n ã-_te_.

Those women our tribe’s they, another village in dwelling find them we

do, praise we do cattle of them.

= The women of our tribe who live in that village, we find them, we

praise their cattle.

In Arabic (Semitic) much the same concord is present as in Galla. Thus,

to use the same phrase we might say:—

‏الامراة مسكينة شافت اختها و نادتها‎

Al-imr_at_ maskin_at_ šāfat uχ_t-ha_ wa nad_at_-_ha_.

The poor woman saw her sister and called her.

In many of the Aryan tongues the concord is exhibited by more or less

uniform terminations of words according to gender, which are usually

constant in their operation.[66] We most of us can call to mind the

masculine, feminine, and neuter endings of familiar Aryan languages,

which modify the same root in a generic sense, and which are repeated in

the dependent adjectives and pronouns. It is as much a concord as what

strikes us so particularly in Bantu, only it takes the form of a suffix

instead of a prefix.

The personal pronouns in Masai are:—

Sing. Plur.

1. _nanu._ _iok._

2. _ie_, or _iye._ _endai._

3. _ele_ (he, she, it). _Vide_ demons. pron. _kulo._

The 2nd person singular _ie_ seems to be a somewhat mutilated form. I

fancy there are slight indications in the language of its once having

had a masculine and feminine form, as in the Semitic tongues; possibly

_oiye_, _loiye_ (_loiye_ is still used as a form of saluting males) for

the masculine, and _naiye_ for the feminine. The 2nd person plural seems

to be of a feminine character, and to be composed of _enda_, demons.

pron. fem., “that,” and _ie_ or _iye_, “thou”—so that it would

originally assume the meaning of “you, there.” In Galla, all nouns,

whether masculine or feminine, use the feminine pronoun, and are

considered to be in the feminine gender when used in a collective sense.

_Ele_ and _kulo_, the 3rd pers. sing. and plur. are simply demonstrative

pronouns, and when not standing with the verb would be common or

masculine in gender. The female equivalents are _ena_ and _kuna_. The

objective forms of the personal pronouns are apparently the same as

those in the nominative case. In construction they are placed after the

verb or predicate.

“I give you” is _Nanu aišo ie_.

I give you.

“Thou givest me” is _Iye īšo nanu_.

Thou givest me.

At the same time, it must be remarked that in speaking Masai the pronoun

in the objective case is often understood rather than given. Thus “I

give” will often stand for “I give him, or you, or them,” according to

the context.

Reflective pronouns are often simply the ordinary personal forms, but in

cases of peculiar emphasis the words _os-sesin_ (body), _ôl-dau_

(heart), are used in conjunction with possessive pronouns. Thus “I,

myself,” is _nanu, os-sesin-lai_, lit. “I, my body;” or “I love myself,”

_Nanu ašam ôl-dau-lai_, lit. “I love my heart.”

For the 3rd person, sing. and plur., a form _ninye_, or _nenye_, is

sometimes used. This may possibly be an old feminine form of the 3rd

person possessive article, _enye_, and may refer to a feminine noun

understood. A reciprocal form of the pronouns is sometimes made by

prefixing _pa_, a preposition meaning “for, by, with,” as _paiok_,

_paye_, &c. This has often the force of “_each other_.”

Before the verb-root certain particles are used which seem originally to

have been abbreviated forms of the personal pronouns.

For the 1st person sing. _a-_.

„ 2nd „ „ _i-_.

„ 3rd „ „ _e-_. (_Vide supra._)

„ 1st „ plur. _ki-_.

„ 2nd „ „ _ki-_.

„ 3rd „ „ _e-_.

Examples:—

-_kweni_, to laugh.

A-kweni, I laugh.

I-kweni, Thou laughest.

E-kweni, He, she, it laughs.

Ki-kweni, We laugh.

Ki-kweni, You laugh.

E-kweni, They laugh.

It is possible that the form of the 1st pronominal prefix in the verb

was _na_,[67] an abbreviation of _nanu_. There are one or two cases in

which it still seems to linger, as in _naji_, “I am called.” The form of

the 1st and 2nd persons plural, it will be noticed, are the same. As may

be noticed in several African languages, the 2nd person plural has not a

very well fixed existence, and seems to borrow forms from the other

persons.

The possessive pronouns are used as suffixes, and are:—

Sing. Plur.

My, -_lai_, masc.; _ai_, fem. and -_lainai_, masc.; -_ainai_, fem.

common. and common.

Thy, -_lino_, masc.; -_ino_ or -_linono_, masc.; -_nono_, fem. and

-_nono_, fem. and common. common.

His, her, its, -_lenye_, masc.; -_enye_, fem. and common (sing. and

plur.).

Our, -_laṅ_, masc.; -_aṅ_, fem. and common (sing. and plur.).

Your (doubtful; possibly -_inye_ or -_enye_, the same as his, &c.).

Their, -_lēnyěna_, masc.; -_ēnyěna_, fem. (sing. and plur.).

Examples of above:—

_Arabe-lai_, my friend (masc.).

_Anaši-ai_, my sister (fem.).

_Eiboni-lino_, thy chief (masc.).

_Naiu-ino_, thy mother (fem.).

_Aji-enye_, his house (fem.).

_Tokitin-ainai_, my things (fem.).

&c.

The relative pronouns in Masai seem to present but one form, and that is

a slight one. It consists of _n-_ prefixed to the pronominal particle

preceding the verb, as:—

_Ôl-duṅani nešam_ (_n-e-šam_).

The man who loves.

_En-doki našam nanu._

The thing which love I.

= The thing which I love.

The interrogatives are:—

_Aṅai?_ “who? which?” _Nyo?_ and _Ainyo?_ “what?” _K_-, _Ka?_[68] is

often prefixed to nouns, and means “what sort of?” “what-?”

_Ka-l-kiteṅ?_ “what sort of a bullock?” &c.

All these interrogatives need the relative _n_- before the verb, as

_Aṅai neno?_ “Who is coming?” _Ken-doki neti?_ “What thing is here?”

The demonstratives are:—

Sing. Plur.

Masc. Fem. Masc. Fem.

_Ele_ or _elo_. _Ena_, “this.” _Kulo_ or _Kule_. _Kuna_, “these.”

_Elde._ _Enda_, “that.” _Kulde._ _Kunda_, “those.”

Sometimes _n_ or _ni_ (a form of the adv. _eni_, “here,”) is prefixed to

all the forms, and accentuates their position—_nelo_ means “this, here.”

When prefixed to the plural, _ku_ is left out, as _nieldo_, “those,

these.” All these demonstratives may take their place as personal

pronouns.

Adjectival pronouns are:—

_Poki_ or _boki_, “all, every.”

(_Pokirare_, all two = both.)

-_kai_, other.

_Likai_, masc. sing. }

_Eṅkai_, } fem. } the other.

_Nakai_, } sing. and plur. } the others.

_Kulikai_, common. }

The adjectives in Masai are either independent nouns used in an

adjectival sense (like in many of our compound substantives, such as,

“dog-collar,” “mealworm,” &c.) and unassociated with gender or class; or

else verb-roots, which are preceded by the class-prefix of the noun they

qualify, and which are adjectives in a participial sense.

Of the first description there are words like _torono_, _torok_,

originally a substantive meaning “destruction, anything broken, spoilt,”

but now only used as an adjective with the meaning of “bad, very bad,”

according to termination. _Torok_ is at once the plural and the

intensified form. Thus:—

_Ôl duṅani torono_ is “the bad man.”

_Ôl duṅani torok_ is “the very bad man.”

_El duṅanak torok_ is “the bad men.”

Adjectives of this description generally agree with their governing

substantive in _number_ (unless they are only found in a collective form

possessing no plural), but exhibit no prefixes indicative of gender; but

those of the second class, which comprise the bulk of the adjectives,

and which may possibly be present-participles, always prefix to their

stem the distinctive particle showing the class of the noun they

qualify. Thus, _iroši_, a verb-root meaning “to be heavy,” becomes

_oiroši_, masc., _nairoši_, fem., _eiroši_, common, according as it

serves as adjective to—

_Ôl-alem_ (masc.), “the knife.”

_En-dolu_ (fem.), “the hatchet.”

_El-ekari_ (common), “the bread.”

These adjectives do _not_ change their termination in the plural.

Masculine nouns, which, as I have already explained, go into the common,

neutral gender when they become plural, change their adjectival prefix

also. Thus you say:—

_Ôl-doinyo oibor_ (the white mountain), sing.;

but

_El-doinyon eibor_ (the white mountains), plur.

The adjectives, however, remain the same in both numbers for feminine

and common nouns.

In Masai, the adjectives always follow the nouns.

In treating of the prefixes, pronouns, and adjectives, I have said so

much about the substantive indirectly that there remains but little to

remark respecting this important part of speech.

In Masai, it seems to me that the substantive originates from a

verbal-root rather than that it gives birth to the verb, as seems to be

the case in the commencement of Aryan speech, I shall treat of this

further when discussing the verb.

I have already treated of the three genders, or classes of nouns, in

Masai; I will now briefly explain how the plural is formed. This, in the

majority of substantives, is done by adding _k_ or _ki_, _n_ or _ni_[69]

to the root, with, unless it ends in a vowel or a liquid, a vowel in

between the root and the plural suffix. As a matter of fact, most

substantives end in a vowel.[70]

One or two seemingly irregular plurals are formed by adding _a_ to the

root, or _tin_,[71] as:—

_Kera_, plur. of _Ker_, “a sheep.”

_Eweǰitin_, „ _Eweǰi_, “a place.”

_Tokitin_, „ _Toki_, “a thing.”

Many collective nouns, or nouns of neuter gender, form no plural, or

occasionally (and this is also noticeable in certain adjectives) form a

plural by _prefixing ku_. This prefix _ku_ will have been already

noticed in the demonstrative pronouns where it forms the plural

(_ku-na_, _ku-lo_, _ku-lde_, &c.). It is evidently an old plural prefix

of neuter gender. There are no “cases” distinguishable in the Masai

noun, but when it is used in a “vocative” sense the definite article is

dropped and the class prefix substituted. Thus, in addressing children

you say “_Na-kera!_” “Oh, children!” instead of _Eṅ-kera_, “the

children,” “_Ô-duṅani_!” “Oh, man!” “_Eiboni!_” “Oh, chief!”

It is difficult to treat of the Masai verb without entering somewhat

into the question of the construction of the Masai language.

I believe that it is possible to trace most of the fundamental ideas

which form the base of this speech to monosyllabic roots. Many of these

are still existing in their primitive form, side by side with their

polysyllabic variants, and it is not difficult to guess at the

agglutinative processes which have built up the structure of the

language.

The particles which are used to form the different concepts that are

built up from a single root may be placed before or after the stem.

Sometimes they consist of independent verbal roots, prefixed or affixed,

or they may be simple reduplications of the primitive idea with a view

of intensifying it, or adverbial or prepositional prefixes, or affixed

particles used in a passive sense, and so on. An example will better

illustrate my meaning.

From the root, _ud_, “digging, boring, hollowing,” is derived—

eṅg-_ud_-uk (eṅg. = the art. fem.

(“the mouth”) _ud_ = the root.

uk = another stem, meaning “shining, glittering;”

therefore

eṅg-_ud_-uk means the glittering cavity, viz. “the

mouth.”)

eṅg-_ud_-uk-aǰi (aǰi = house. _Engudukaǰi_, lit. “the mouth of the

(the “door”) house.”)

e-_ud_-oto = “hole.”

eṅg-_ud_-a = “the digger,” viz. “the field rat.”

en-d-_ud_-e = “the bowels;” lit. “a cavity.”

en-d-_ud_-ua = “a basket;” lit. the plaited or “dug into.”

en-d-_ud_-unio = “the heel,” in the sense of the heel’s

continually “digging” into the ground.

-_ud_-i, = to be dug, hollowed.

passive

_ud_-i-ki = a kind of double passive; lit. “to be furrowed

(viz. wrinkled) repeatedly.” = to purpose,

intend, after reflection.

-_ud_-i-kini = to be intended or destined for.

i-_ud_ = to rub, to wipe.

im-_ud_ = “im” = to pass; lit. to pass down, to set, as

the sun. _Eṅ-goloṅ eimud_ = “the sun sets.”

is-_ud_-o = to hide, conceal.

is-_ud_-orie = to hide carefully, viz. hide different portions

in different places. _Or_ = to divide. The

prefixed s is from the adv. _si_ = again, and

implies “repeated digging.”

ib-_ud_[72] = to fill up.

ib-_ud_-i = to be filled. &c.

Many of the leading verbal-roots will be found in the Vocabulary.

I will now give a few illustrations of the Masai verb and of its method

of conjugation.

EXAMPLE I.

-_en_, to bind together.

ACTIVE VOICE.

_Present Tense._

Affirmative. │ Negative.

Nanu[73] a_en_, I bind. │Ma_en_, I bind not.

Iye i_en_, Thou bindest. │Mi_en_, Thou bindest not.

Ele e_ën_ (or He, she, it │M_ēn_, He binds not.

_ēn_), binds. │

Iok ki_en_, We bind. │Meki_en_, We bind not.

Endai ki_en_, You bind. │Meki_en_, You bind not.

Kuloe_ën_ (or They bind. │M_ēn_, They bind not.

_ēn_), │

│

_Past Tense._

Affirmative. │ Negative.

At_ena_, I bound. │Itu_aen_, I bound not.

It_ena_, Thou boundedst. │Itu_ien_, Thou boundedst

│ not.

Et_ena_, He bound. │Etu_ēn_, He bound not.

Kit_ena_, We bound. │Itu_kien_, We bound not.

Kit_ena_, You bound. │Itu_kien_, You bound not.

Et_ena_, They bound. │Etu_ēn_, They bound not.

│

_Future Tense._

(The particles used in forming this tense are evidently relics of the

roots _-lo_, _-po_, signifying “to go.” _Vide_ Vocabulary, verbs.}

Al_aēn_, I shall find. │Mal_aen_, I shall not bind.

(lit. _ālo_, I │ Thou shalt not

go. _aen_, to │Mil_aen_, bind.

bind.) │

„ │Mel_aen_, He shall not

│ bind.

Il_aēn_, thou shalt bind. │Mekil_aen_, We shall not

│ bind.

El_aēn_, He shall bind. │Mekil_aen_, (or You shall not

│ Mekipu_aen_), bind.

Kipu_aen_, We shall bind. │ „ „

(Kipu is an irregular plural of │ „ „

_alo_, to go, from another root.)│

„ │Mepu_aen_, They shall not

│ bind.

│(The vowels that come together in

│ this tense are often contracted

│ with one sound. Thus “Kipu_aen_”

Kipu_aen_, You shall bind. │ will be generally heard

│ “Kip_wen_.” I spell them thus to

│ show the proper mode of

│ conjugating the tense.)

Epu_aen_, They shall bind. │ „

│

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

Mat_en_, let me bind. │Mi_en_, bind not.

T_ena_, bind thou. │ „ „

Mat_en_, let us bind. │Mi_enieni_, bind ye not.

End_ena_, bind ye. │ „ „

│

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

│

_Present Tense._

P_ēn_, If, when, whilst │Pema_en_ or If I bind not

I bind. │ pem_ēn_,

Pe_ien_, If thou bindest. │Pemi_en_, If thou bind not.

&c. │ &c.

This tense is made by prefixing the preposition _pe_, if, when, whilst,

&c., to the present indicative.

Another combination is with the relative particle _n_, _ne_, and

expresses, “that I may,” &c. It always follows an interrogative pronoun

or a preceding verb. This tense is often expressed by an infinitive in

English, as:—

_Ayau_ n_aen_, I wish to bind; lit. I wish that I may bind.

After a relative or interrogative pronoun it is prefixed to the verb in

the same manner, as:—

_Aṅai nēn_? Who is binding? lit. Who that is binding?

Its manner of uniting with the personal prefixes of the verb is the same

as that of _pe_, _me_, and other particles already given, viz.:—

N_aen_, │_that_ I may, thou mayest, he may, &c., bind.

N_ein_, │ „

N_ēn_, │ „

Ne_kien_,│ „

Ne_kien_,│ „

N_ēn_, │ „

Both these particles, _pe_ and _ne_ or _ni_, together with others, such

as _teni_, “if,” perchance, _K_, _Ka_, “What?” (Ka_ien_? “What art thou

binding?”) may be prefixed to all the tenses of the indicative mood in

the active and passive voices, thus giving them a subjunctive or

potential sense.

Thus you may say:—

Pe_tena_, If he bound.

Ne_itukien_, That we bound not.

&c.

│

PASSIVE VOICE.

│

_-eni_, to be bound.

│

INDICATIVE MOOD.

│

_Present Tense._

│

Affirmative. │ Negative,

A_eni_, I am bound. │Ma_eni_, I am not bound.

I_eni_, Thou art bound. │Mi_eni_, Thou art not

│ bound.

&c. │ &c.

Adding for this tense _-i_ to the present indicative, active voice.

│

_Past Tense._

│

Affirmative. │ Negative.

_Atēna_ki, I was bound. │_Ituäten_aki, I was not bound.

_Itēna_ki, Thou wast bound. │_Ituiten_aki, Thou was not

│ bound.

And so on. │ &c.

Adding _-ki_ to termination of past tense, indicative; active voice.

│

_Future Tense._

_Alaeni_, I shall be bound.

&c.

│

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

_Tena_ki, be thou bound.

_Endena_ki, be ye bound.

Besides the above-mentioned tenses, others can be formed by the aid of

auxiliary verbs, as:—

_Aidipa atena_, I had bound, I have already bound; lit. I have

finished, I have bound.

_Ituaidip atena_, I had _not_ bound, &c.

_Ayau naen_, I would bind; lit. I would, will, desire that I bind.

Many verbs, especially derivatives, and those commencing with _i_, make

their past tense differently from the mode already described, viz. by

simply affixing _a_ to the root. Thus:—

_Aidip_, I finish.

_Aidipa_, I finished.

_Aiken_, I count.

_Aikena_, I counted.

The mode of forming the past tense in other verbs is, as in the first

example, given by prefixing _-ta_, _-te_, _-ti_, _-to_, or _-tu_, to the

root, and adding _a_ to stems ending in a consonant, as:—

_A_-t-_ena_ │I bound.

(properly _a_-te-_ena_),│

────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────

_A_-ta-_šama_, │I loved (from _šam_, to love).

_A_-ti-_riša_, │I equalled (from _riš_, to equal).

_A_-to-_roro_, │I trod (from _roro_, to tread).

_A_-tu-_šuma_, │I put down (from _šum_, to put down).

It may be remarked that on the tonic vowel of the root, the vowel of the

prefix _-t-_ generally depends.

The elements of construction in the verb may be briefly summarized.

The present affirmative is simply the root with the personal prefixes

added. The past affirmative is formed by prefixing _-ta_, _-te_, _-ti_,

_-to_, or _-tu_, to the root, and affixing _a_, or by doing the latter

only in the case of most derivative verbs commencing with _i_.

It is possible that the _-ta_, &c., prefixed to the verb to form a past

tense is related to the verb-root _-ta_, “to be, become, have.” The

origin of the future tense has already been surmised. It is formed by

prefixing _-l_ (_al_, _il_, _el_) to the three persons in the singular

of the present tense, and _-po_ (_kipu_, _epu_) to the three persons in

the plural.

The imperative, it will have been remarked, resembles greatly the past

tense in the affirmative. In those verbs which form their preterite

without prefixing _-t-_, the imperative also lacks this particle, and

resembles the past tense exactly in the 2nd pers. sing. In the 2nd pers.

plural, the _e_, _en_, _em_, _end_, placed before the verb, as in

End_ašam_, “love ye;” End_en_, “bind ye,” stands for _Endai_, “you.”

The negative is generally formed by prefixing _m_ or _me-_ to the

affirmative. This particle is derived from the adverb _emme_, “no, not.”

The exception to this rule lies in the negative past tense of indicative

where _itu_, _etu_ takes the place of _m_. I cannot obtain any clue to

the origin of this prefix, unless it is related to _-toa_, “died,

ceased” (_Atoa_, “I died.”)

The passive is usually formed by adding _i_ in the present, and _ki_ in

the past tenses to the form of the active voice. In some verbs, _-i_ is

replaced by _-ki_ or _-ni_, and either of these two may be doubled to

intensify or modify the sense.

The meanings of verbal-roots may be altered by various affixes and

prefixes. Among the former are—

_-šo_, causative (from _-išo_, to give).

_-ate_, reciprocative.

_-ie_, transitive.

_-si_, intensitive (from _-si_, again).

_-ge_, restrictive (from _-ge_, only, but).

_-ka_, applicative.

The verb “to be, to have (viz. be with), to become, to exist,” is

expressed by three forms:—

_-ra_, _-ta_, and _-ti_.

_-ra_ applies more to actual existence, and is only used in the present

tense, _-ta_ is used in present and past, and with compounds. It is

often translated by “to have.” _-ti_ applies to locality generally, and

is possibly no thing but the preposition _ti_, “in, on” (_Ati_, “I am

here,” _Iti_, “thou art here, or there,” &c.). There are some few

defective verbs, and one or two such as “to go,” “to come,” which are

irregular, and made up of several different roots, as happens often in

other tongues.

As previously explained, great variety of meaning may be obtained from

the original monosyllabic roots, which express simple concepts, by the

agglutinative process which tacks on before and behind other particles

which enlarge, diminish, or intensify the primitive sense of the verb.

Adverbs in Masai are generally affixed, and prepositions prefixed to the

verb-root. Many independent nouns or verbs have the form of adverbs and

prepositions. The conjunctions are _au_, “or, either;” _o_ and _na_,

“and, with,” according to gender.

Having now passed the main features of this language in review, we may

be better able to fix its position and relationships among other African

linguistic groups.

In the recognition of sexual gender it resembles the Semitic, Hamitic,

and Hottentot tongues; but, as I have tried to show, this generic

distinction is somewhat hazy and seems to have originated rather in

differentiating the strong, big things from the small and weak. The

three classes in Masai, viz. strong or masculine, neuter or common,

feminine or weak, seem to occupy a somewhat intermediate position

between the many arbitrary classes in the Fula and Bantu languages, and

the two genders of nouns—male and female—in the Semitic and Hamitic

families. The “feminine” consonant in Masai is _n_. In the

Hottentot,[74] Hamitic, and Semitic languages it is generally _t_ (ϑ

(_th_), _š_, _h_).

In the question of construction the primal roots of the Masai language

seem to have been monosyllabic—in this differing from the Bantu and

Hamitic (wherein they were probably dissyllabic) and the Semitic (in

which they were trisyllabic and triliteral). The manner of forming the

plural by adding an affix to the root resembles the plan adopted in

certain Hamitic or Ethiopic tongues, particularly in Galla, where the

few plurals that exist are made by adding _-n_, _-ni_, _-da_ to the

singular form of the noun. The secondary and rarer mode of giving a

plural signification to a root (chiefly in pronouns and adjectives, and

in Bari in certain nouns) by changing the prefix to _ku_ (Bari, _ko_),

reminds one of the prefix-governed families of African tongues.

The mode of forming derivative verbs by affixing various suffixes to the

stem, thus imparting a reciprocal, causative, or intensitive meaning to

the simple root, recalls the same method in the Galla and Bantu

languages.

At the same time, although the Masai group offers certain points of

agreement in grammatical features with the Hamitic and Bantu divisions,

there is no positive approximation to either. Certain of the numerals

bear a slight resemblance to those of the Galla, and there are also a

few words alike in the vocabularies of both these groups, but the

similarity is possibly accidental, or some of the words may have been

borrowed, one from the other. Masai certainly resembles Galla in its

recognition of sexual gender, but differs from it by the possession of a

third or neuter class of nouns (the Galla, all Hamitic or Semitic

tongues beside, only recognizes two genders, masc. and fem.). Judging by

certain indisputable resemblances between the vocabularies of Masai and

Bari and the Diṅka-Šiluk tongues, there is a great probability that the

origin of the Masai family of languages is to be traced to the basin of

the White Nile. Its affinities with the Galla branch of the Hamitic

group raise the same interesting problems as the similarity which exists

in certain grammatical features between the Hausa language of the Niger

basin and the Berber tongues. On these points depend the solution of

many difficult questions respecting the origin of the Hamitic and

Semitic languages, and possibly races.

I append the following vocabulary of Masai for purposes of reference

rather than with any idea of giving a glossary of the language. This

would be out of place in a work of this sort, and therefore the

following list of words is only given for the convenience of the student

of African philology who may happen to take up this book.

I have added to the Masai vocabulary words from other African languages,

either belonging to the same group or forming part of separate

linguistic families which might seem to be remotely connected with the

Masai.

The mode of spelling adopted in these and other vocabularies which

follow, and throughout the volume where African names are introduced

which have not a generally accepted orthography, is practically the same

as that proposed in Lepsius’ “Standard Alphabet.” The following letters

are used:—

Vowels:—

_a_, _ā_, _e_, _ē_, _i_, _ī_, _o_, _ō_, _ô_, _ö_, _u_, _ū_, _ü_.

Consonants:—

_k_, _g_, υ, χ, _h′_, _h_, _y_, _ǰ_, _č_, _d′_, _d_, ϑ, δ, _t_, _s_,

_š_, z, ˇ, l, r, n, ṅ, ń (ny), m, b, p, f, v, w.

In their pronunciation it may be said roughly that the vowels are

sounded as in Italian and the consonants as in English, but for the

benefit of those who have not studied Lepsius’ system I give a further

explanation. Among the vowels

_a_ is sounded as in “master.”

_ā_ „ „ “rather.”

_e_ „ „ “met.”

_ē_ „ „ “grey.”

_i_ „ „ “bit.”

_ī_ „ „ “ravine.”

_o_ „ „ “not.”

_ō_ „ „ “bone.”

_ô_ „ „ “store,” or _a_ in “all.”

_ö_ like the German _ö_ in “Böse,” or French _œu_ in “cœur.”

_u_ „ „ “put.”

_ū_ „ „ “rule” (oo).

_ü_ like the French _u_ or German _ü_.

The consonants are sounded thus:—

_k_ as in “kitten.”

_g_ as in “gate.”

γ (the Greek gamma) like the Arabic ‏غ‎ (γain), a sound resembling the

Northumberland “burr” or the French

“_r grasséyé._”

χ (the Greek chi), like _ch_ in German or ‏خ‎ in Arabic.

_h′_, like the Arabic ‏ح‎, a strongly aspirated _h_.

_h_ as in “house.”

_y_ as in “year.”

_ǰ_ as in “jar” (the English “j”).

_č_ as _ch_ in English or _c_ before _e_ and _i_ in Italian. Ča = cha.

_d′_ a sound like “dy,” intermediate between _ǰ_ and _d_.

_d_ as in “day.”

ϑ as _th_ in “think.”

δ as _th_ in “that.”

_t_ as in “tale.”

_s_ as in “sail.”

_š_, English _sh_, as in “shawl.”

_z_ as in “zinc.”

_ž_ as in “azure” = the French “j.”

_l_ as in “lace.”

_r_ as in “Rome.”

_n_ as in “need.”

_ṅ_ as in “singing”—a ringing nasal sound like _ng_, but carrying on no

sound of the _g_.

_ń_, sometimes used at the end of words for _ny_ = the Spanish _ñ_.

_m_ as in “maid” and “umpire.”

_b_ as in “boat.”

_p_ as in “perch.”

_f_ as in “fail.”

_v_ as in “veil.”

_w_ as in “wait” and “nawab” (a consonantal _u_).

Where the accent is not marked, it generally falls on the penultimate.

(_b_) The Bantu languages of Kilima-njaro.

At the risk of wearying a majority of my readers, I will preface my

vocabularies of the Bantu languages of the Kilima-njaro district by a

slight sketch of the main features of this most remarkable family of

tongues. The word “Bantu” has been so often used in this book that there

are some who may be unaware of its meaning, and annoyed at its constant

repetition and apparently meaningless character. To these, and not to

the advanced in African studies, I tender this little general

dissertation.

[Illustration:

Map No. 5.—Map of Africa, showing range of Bantu Languages.

]

Any one who glances at a linguistic map of Africa—such an one as Mr.

Ravenstein has drawn for Mr. Cust’s book on African languages—will

hardly fail to perceive how thickly certain districts, such as

Abyssinia, the basin of the White Nile, the Lower Niger, or the country

round Sierra Leone, are dotted with the names of distinct languages. Nor

is it merely a question of numerous dialects of common origin. Many of

these tongues—spoken, it may be, by only two or three thousand

inhabitants of a single cluster of villages in a circumscribed area—are

quite isolated, quite without relationships to other known forms of

speech; or again, some of the languages may show faint indications of

possible affinities—just a few hints in their grammatical construction

or vocabulary, or phonology—sufficient to enable great generalizers in

philology to bundle them together in one common group, in a desperate

hope of simplifying the arrangement of African languages. Even the

well-marked and undoubted natural families that overlie these

regions—the Hamitic, the Fula, the Nubian, the Šiluk, the Hausa, the

Mandiṅgo—exhibit only sufficient similarity of structure in their

different branches to enable the philologist to satisfy himself that he

is justified in regarding them as forming homogeneous groups. But the

various members of any one of these families often differ widely in

their vocabularies, and sometimes are unlike in many grammatical points.

For instance, Galla and Šilha (Shlu) (the language of the Moroccan

Berbers) are both members of the Hamitic group, yet, beyond their

structural resemblance and their agreement in certain main features of

grammar, they scarcely possess a root or test-word in common.[75] I need

not multiply instances of this; the fact is already recognized by

students of African languages, that in the northern half of the

continent there are bewildering multitudes of diverse tongues belonging

to many independent families, and apparently irreducible to a common

origin. Yet cross the irregular boundary-line which runs over the

continent from 6° N. on the west coast to the Equator on the east

coast—viz. the northern limit of the Bantu speech—and what do we find?

Why that the whole of the southern half of Africa, with the exception of

the Masai and Galla intrusion in the north-east and the Hottentot

enclave in the south-west,[76] is the domain of a single homogeneous

family of languages, the Bantu differing perhaps less among themselves

than do the many offshoots of the Aryan stock. The only other African

tongues which in any way approach the Bantu (as regards similarity of

structure) occupy little isolated patches of country in Central and

Western Africa, surrounded often by totally dissimilar forms of speech.

Originally, there is little doubt, the primal Bantu language was as one

of these, a member of a little group of prefix-governed tongues

developed somewhere in the heart of Africa. Peculiar circumstances gave

the people who spoke it the opportunity of playing a great _rôle_ in

unwritten African history; and the Bantu negroes, at one time very

likely an obscure and unimportant tribe like the Temne and Bulom of

Sierra Leone, the Efik of Old Calabar, or the Tumale of Kordofan, became

the ruling and almost the exclusive race of Southern Tropical Africa,

swallowing up, obliterating, absorbing the previous inhabitants of the

land, and carrying their own form of language triumphantly from the

Upper Nile to Natal, and from the River Tana on the east coast to

Fernando Po on the west. In the spread of the Masai race and language we

may see, on a much smaller scale, a parallel to this extension of the

Bantu. It will be remembered that I already have pointed out the

relations which the Masai language bears to the Šiluk and other tongues

spoken in the basin of the White Nile. Some of these forms of speech

resemble Masai about as much as the Non-Bantu prefix-languages resemble

Bantu-proper. Most of them are spoken over small and confined areas. Yet

the range of the Masai tongue and its various dialects extends almost

uninterruptedly from 3° N. to 5° S. of the Equator, wherever the Masai

race has spread in its warlike raids. Now we know that in many parts of

Eastern Equatorial Africa the Masai only arrived, as it were, the other

day. In many districts, too, in the centre of their present home the

remnant of aboriginal natives still retain the oral tradition that

several generations ago the Masai were unknown in the land. Yet, with

the exception of a few isolated mountain-ranges where the Bantu-speaking

inhabitants still linger, the Masai language is dominant throughout the

whole length and breadth of the huge country known as Masai-land.

Moreover, it is probable that had this warlike race not encountered

natives armed with firearms and dominated by Arabs on the south, they

would have overrun a considerably larger district than the one they at

present occupy, and their language would have acquired an even greater

range, and in course of time have lost its uniformity, and become split

up into many separate dialects. Yet it is probable that some centuries

ago the Masai were only a small section of a Nilotic race which adverse

circumstances drove from its original home, and forced farther and

farther south, the Masai all the time developing their fighting

qualities, first to save themselves from extinction, and then in turn to

pursue a successful policy of rapine and dominion. Such, in all

likelihood, were the origin and history of the spread of the Bantu race

and language. It is quite possible that before their advent the southern

half of Africa was sparsely populated, perhaps by a low type of negro in

the north and west, and Hottentots, Bushmen, and Pigmies in the south

and centre. The invading Bantu carried all before him in the early days

of his invasion, and was probably little but a fighting-man, as is the

Masai at the present day. In the west, however, he was stopped—choked,

one might almost say—by the dense negro population, and in the

south-west by the Hottentots, who were probably driven to bay in this

corner of the continent. In the centre of Africa the race and language

of the Bantu people are purest to this day, probably from the much less

intermixture which took place between them and any previous inhabitants.

Judged by his purest types—the inhabitants of the great lakes and the

Congo basin—the Bantu was probably a red race in its origin.

Intermixture with Hottentots has given the Zulus a yellowish tinge, and

clicks in their language, and the fusing of Bantu and Negro on the west

coast has debased the character of the speech and deepened the colour of

the skin.

Taking into consideration the fact that the unwritten languages of a

savage people vary with extraordinary rapidity, and noting at the same

time how great is the uniformity in grammar, construction, and

vocabulary between all the Bantu languages, we can hardly believe that

they are a very ancient offshoot of the negro race, or that the date of

their original dispersion from their centre of development is very far

removed. I should think, as far as we may judge, that it is about 2000

to 2500 years since the Bantu people commenced their invasion of

Southern Africa; and that before this date—before the dispersal of what

was evidently a compact and homogeneous tribe—one common language, the

Bantu mother-speech,[77] was spoken. One of the principal reasons which

induces me to hazard this guess as to the recent period at which this

family of languages split up into separate branches and spread out over

half the continent of Africa, is the interesting fact that in nearly

every form of Bantu speech the domestic fowl is indicated by words of

one type, all pointing to a common origin. This in its most archaic form

is _ṅguku_. This is the term used in Ki-nyoro,[78] in Lu-ganda (the

language of Buganda, on the north-west shore of the Victoria Nyanza), in

the tongues of the Upper Congo, of Lake Tanganyika, of Kilima-njaro, at

the present day, while variants of the same word are found in Kafir

(_iṅkuku_), Zulu, Mpoṅgwe, and, in short, almost all the known members

of the Bantu group. Now this leads us to believe that the domestic fowl

must have been known to the original Bantu race before it commenced its

migrations from the centre of its development, from its primal home. Yet

the era of the domestication of _Gallus Bankiva_ is not a very remote

one, as far as we can ascertain, even in Malacca and Indo-China, its

original habitat. Hindustan seems to have known it as a domesticated

bird about 2000 years B.C., China about 1200 B.C., and the Polynesians

possibly carried it with them when they started about two thousand years

ago to colonize the Pacific Archipelagoes. From India it spread to

Persia, and the Persians made it known to the Greeks about 1000 B.C.

Aristophanes called it the “Persian bird.” It was not known to the

Romans till much later, and the Ancient Jews ignored it till long after

the Babylonian captivity. It was introduced into Egypt, as far as we can

tell, during the early part of the Ptolemic rule. Down the Nile it

quickly spread to the negro and negroid inhabitants—as quickly as

turkeys, Muscovy ducks, pine-apples, manioc, Indian corn, and other

American products have penetrated to the heart of Africa during the last

two centuries—and thus probably reached the ancestors of the Bantu race

not more than some two thousand years ago. Even yet there are many parts

of Africa where the fowl is not known, such as in Masai-land and in some

parts of South and West Africa. The Bushmen have it not. Moreover, the

fact that there is such an absence of special varieties and peculiar

breeds seems to suggest that the fowl in Africa has not yet had time to

depart in any marked manner from the original stock.[79]

By studying the comparative vocabularies of the Bantu languages, many

interesting conjectures may be made as to the original home and

primitive condition of this people. Thus the fact that similar words are

used in the remotest and most widely separated members of the group to

express “leopard,” “elephant,” “hippopotamus,” “buffalo,” “pig,” “ape,”

“monkey,” “grey parrot,” “bee,” &c., leads us to believe that these

creatures were familiar to the primitive Bantu race; while we may infer

that because the rhinoceros, giraffe, lion, ostrich, and zebra are known

by many different and varying terms in the dialects of those tribes

acquainted with them, they were unknown to the forefathers of the people

in their ancestral home. Now the first-mentioned list of creatures (with

many others which might be cited but for want of space) suggest a

well-forested and well-watered country in West Central Africa as the

original abode of the Bantu race. The grey parrot, for instance, is

found as far east as the Victoria Nyanza, and as far south as Angola,

but otherwise is confined to Western Africa. The leopard, elephant,

apes, and monkeys mostly affect densely-wooded regions. The hippopotamus

only inhabits big rivers or lakes. The buffalo is rarely found

_westward_ of the Niger. On the other hand the lion, giraffe,

rhinoceros, zebra, or ostrich decidedly prefer the sparsely-wooded

steppes and savannahs of Eastern and Southern Africa; so that, on the

whole, we may conclude that the primitive Bantu being unacquainted with

them, and knowing other creatures (such as the grey parrot) confined to

the forested districts of Western Central Africa, there had his primæval

home, and thence started on his career of conquest and colonization over

Western, Southern, and Eastern Africa.

From the fact that there is a common name for “ox” (_ṅgombe, iṅkombo,

iṅkomo, omo, ṅombe_) throughout nearly all the Bantu languages, we may

safely infer that cattle-keeping was a feature of the primitive life of

the race, and also that they were agriculturists, because the terms

applied to various implements for tilling the soil, to “ploughing,”

“digging,” “sowing,” “reaping,” are retained, very little altered, by

some of their remotest descendants. We may gather from the same reasons

that besides the ox they possessed other domestic animals, namely, the

goat, possibly the sheep, the dog, the pig,[80] and the fowl. Of the

present cultivated plants, very few were known to them in the days

before their dispersal, perhaps only millet, pumpkins, edible arums, the

banana, and a few obscure roots and fruits.

They seem to have been acquainted with the use of iron and copper, used

smelting-forges of the primitive type still in vogue, and beat out

knives, spears, and arrow-heads as they do now. The bow was certainly in

common use, and its name is not only well-nigh universal throughout

Bantu Africa, but also seems to have sprung from a very old root.

Pottery, basket-weaving, and some form of clothing, either of plaited

grass, banana-fibre, or imported cloth, was in use. Canoes were familiar

to the early Bantu people, to judge by the universality of their

primitive name. A conception of a Supreme Being or Creator seems to have

existed, but a belief in spirits of the dead, in magic, witchcraft,

certain vague forms of “fetishism,” and phallic worship certainly

prevailed, and the “medicine-man,” “rain-maker,” or magician most

undoubtedly exercised as powerful a sway over the primitive Bantu as he

does throughout every branch of his widespread descendants.

Apparently in that golden age before their dispersal the Bantu people

were neither acquainted with small-pox, syphilis, nor many forms of

disease which plague them nowadays. They smoked hemp, possibly, but not

tobacco, and they drank one or two kinds of fermented liquors. They

anointed themselves with oil, rancid butter, red earth, and the dyes of

certain trees. They sang and they danced, and they possessed drums and

musical instruments with strings.

Circumcision is not universal among all Bantu nations at the present

day, and it is possible that it was not originally practised by their

common ancestors, though at the same time it may have been partially in

use. Initiatory ceremonies for youths on attaining manhood were

certainly in vogue. Just as the life of the early Aryans may be

conjectured from the examination of word-roots common to most of the

forms of speech which are descended from an Aryan mother-tongue, or in

the same way by a careful study of the modern Bantu languages, we are

able not only to reconstruct the primitive Bantu speech, but we can also

glean much information as to the relative culture and mode of life

existing in the original tribe of negroes from which most of the Bantu

races of Africa are descended.

It is just possible that some of my readers may wish to know the meaning

and origin of this term “Bantu” which has been so frequently used in

this book, and which is generally accepted as the designation of an

important family of African languages and a large section of the negro

race. “Bantu” (properly _Ba-ntu_) means “men, people, folk.” It is the

plural of _Mu-ntu_ “a man,” “a human being,” and is a term which under

different variations is present in nearly every one of the languages

belonging to this family. It may become _Wantu_, _Wandu_, _Watu_,

_Vantu_, _o Vantu_, _Vatu_, _Atu_, _Batu_, _Wanu_, _Vanu_, _Anu_, _o

Manu_, but it is always traceable back to the archaic form—_Bantu_. This

with the added article in some languages becomes a _Bantu_. Such it is

in Zulu, in Kaffir, and such it is in Ki-nyoro and Lu-ganda, on the

Victoria Nile and the Victoria Nyanza. On account of the universality of

this form, and of its being so characteristic of the structure of these

languages, it was proposed by Bleek as a fit designation for the great

South African family of prefix-governed tongues. Many other titles, of

course, have been suggested. Krapf proposes, firstly, “Nilotic,” which

is absurd, as only one or two outlying members of the family touch the

Nile; and Orphno-Cushitic, which is utterly unmeaning and very

cumbersome. Another writer suggests “Kaffir-Congo” as a fit appellation,

but how is this term to include the languages of Kilima-njaro and the

Cameroons? “Zingian,” “Zanjian,” are equally silly and inadequate. “The

prefixing languages” is not sufficiently restrictive, as several other

African groups are governed by prefixes—in short we return to “Bantu” as

the only satisfactory designation of this class of languages and of the

tolerably homogeneous races who speak them. The leading characteristics

of the Bantu languages have been much misinterpreted by various writers

on African philology. As a rule one original author takes the question

up in a superficial manner, studies one particular language, or at most

a small section of the entire group, draws a few hasty conclusions, and

those who succeed him in a consideration of the subject copy him like

unreasoning parrots, and spend neither time nor trouble in elaborating

an opinion of their own. Thus Bleek, who only made a detailed study of

Kaffir-Zulu, and was (through no fault of his) unacquainted with more

recently discovered tongues, states that he considers the Kaffir-Zulu to

be the most archaic form of existing Bantu speech and the nearest

approach to the original mother-tongue. Other writers succeeding him

blindly copy the same opinion and parade it as their own, whereas had

they taken the trouble to make any independent researches, using recent

material to aid them, they would have long since ascertained that

Kaffir-Zulu is very far from proving to be the Sanskrit of the Bantu.

Again, other authors, speak of the concord (a feature by no means

peculiar to the Bantu, but present in many other radically different

languages, as I have pointed out on page 459) as “euphonic

alliteration.” This is rubbish. Its origin is clearly not euphony, but

lies in the laborious reiteration which in so many savage languages is

used to obtain certainty of meaning; and as to alliteration, why in most

languages it does not exist because the nominal and other prefixes no

longer correspond in sound. For instance, in Lu-ganda, one of the most

archaic of Bantu languages, we should say—

Mu_ti_ gu_li_ mu_vundo_ gu_tuka_; _tu_gi_sale_.

Tree that rotten falls; let us it cut down.

= That rotten tree is falling; let us cut it down.

If it were a question purely of euphonic alliteration we should expect

to find _mu_ as the concord-prefix applied to “Muti,” a noun of the

third class. But, as you see, it is sometimes _mu_, sometimes _gu_, and

sometimes _gi_. This is explained to the careful student who finds by

research that the original form of the third prefix was _ṅgu_, which

became changed in some situations to _mu_, and in others to _gu_ or

_gi_. This is not only the case in nearly all the Bantu languages, but

it applies to many of the prefixes, and shows that anything like

alliteration does not often occur.

Another generally enunciated dictum about the Bantu languages was that

_all_ their roots were polysyllabic. This is, however, not the case.

While some of the simple concepts expressed in words of more than one

syllable cannot be dissolved any farther into their component elements,

at the same time many most important ideas are expressed by monosyllabic

roots which are certainly not abbreviations. Such are the widespread

forms found in nearly every member of the group: _-fa_, “dying, to die;”

_-pa_, “to give;” _-ndi_ and _-ba_, “to be;” _-ta_, “to slay;” _ńa_

(_nya_) “to evacuate;” _ya_, _za_, “to come,” &c., and numberless

noun-roots, such as _-ti_ (in _mu-ti_, “a tree”—anything to do with

wood; _ka-ti_, “a little stick;” _-ka_, diminutive prefix), _-ntu_, “an

object” (_mu-ntu_, “man;” _ki-ntu_, “thing;” _pa-ntu_, “place,” &c.),

and so on.

We may therefore reduce the real features of the Bantu family of

languages to these:—

I. They are agglutinative in their construction.

II. _None_ of their words ever end in a consonant except in rare

instances, where the termination through contraction becomes a nasal

sound.

III. No two consonants come together without an intervening vowel,

except where one of them is a nasal or a labial.

IV. Substantives are divided into many classes or genders, the full

number of which is sixteen. These are governed by characteristic

prefixes, differing in singular and plural, and observing the

“concord” throughout the sentence.

V. No sexual gender is recognized, but two particular classes of

prefixes (one singular, and one plural) indicate sentient forms of

animal life only, though these may also be expressed by nouns bearing

other prefixes as well.

VI. The pronominal-particles (which are really identical in origin

with the prefixes) must always precede the verbal-root, except in the

imperative mood.

VII. The verbal-root may modify its termination by change of vowel or

by suffixing certain particles; or it may even change its radical

vowel, either to form a tense or to alter the original meaning of the

simple stem, this being actually inflection.

VIII. Adjectives and numerals always _follow_ the noun.

The complete number of prefixes is, as before remarked, sixteen. Bleek

has made it eighteen, by adding two prepositions to the list, which in a

few of the languages appear to adopt the concord; but they are

independent prepositions, and not true pronominal-prefixes.

In the most archaic forms at present discoverable the sixteen prefixes

are as follows:—

Singular. Plural.

1. Mŭ. 2. Ba (Mŭ and Ba are only applied

to sentient beings).

3. Mū (Ṅgu).[81] 4. Mi (Ṅgi).

5. Di or Li (Ndi). 6. Ma (Ṅga).

7. Ki (Ṅki?). 8. Bi (Pi?).

9. N- (Ni?). 10. Ti, Ti-n (ϑi-n?).

11. Lu. 12. Tu (often diminutive in sense).

13. Ka (often diminutive in sense).

14. Bu (generally used to form abstract nouns from concrete roots).

15. Ku (a directive; identical with preposition meaning “to.” Used as

an infinitive with verb-roots).

16. Pa (locative; only applied to nouns or other forms of speech

indicating place or position).

There are few instances of the prefixes changing from plural to singular

in signification, or _vice versâ_, except that the 14th (Bu), which is

generally used to form abstract nouns, may occasionally serve as plural

to the 13th (Ka). The 15th and 16th (Ku and Pa) are of no number, being

practically prepositions. Ku is used with verbs in the sense of “to,”

and as an adverb of locality. Pa only serves as concord to nouns of

place, and as a preposition generally means “here” and “on.” The 9th

prefix often adheres to nouns in both numbers.

As regards the correspondence of singular and plural prefixes, it is by

no means constant, though the plan set forth above is considered by some

the normal one. The 1st (Mu) always takes the 2nd (Ba) as a plural, but

the 2nd prefix may occasionally become plural to the 9th (N-). The 5th

always takes the 6th and the 7th and the 8th as plural, but the 6th

prefix (Ma) and the 8th (Bi) sometimes correspond with other singular

prefixes. Thus Ma may often be the plural of Bu, or of N-, or of Lu.

Again, the 12th prefix (Tu) is very often the plural of the 13th (Ka),

and the 10th (Tin or ϑin) of the 11th (Lu). In some languages certain

prefixes drop out altogether, and are either represented by a hiatus or

replaced by another prefix. Indeed, there are very few Bantu languages

in which all the sixteen prefixes are present, and probably none in

which they all retain their archaic forms.

In Makonde, a language spoken about Cape Delgado in East Africa, the

entire sixteen are present, and possibly this occurs also in Ki-nyoro,

the tongue spoken in Bu-nyoro, on the Victoria Nile, Oči-herero, of

Damara-land, and probably a few languages of the Congo basin and the

Upper Zambezi possess this distinction. On the other hand, there are

many Bantu tongues in which the number of classes has become very much

diminished, while some of the prefixes have so changed their forms as to

become fused into others, and no longer recognizable. Thus, in Mpoṅgwe,

the corrupt tongue of the Gaboon, there are only twelve of the original

sixteen classes represented, and among these the 1st, 3rd, and 11th

assume the same form, and can only be distinguished by their

corresponding plurals or concord. In Swahili, also, the classes are

reduced to twelve, and in some other languages to eleven, and even ten.

Again, the forms of the prefixes often vary from the standard already

cited. Thus Ba will become Va, Wa, A, and even Ma. And ϑin or Tin change

to Zin, Din, Lin, or ϑon.

The Bantu languages have been divided for convenience of description

into four main branches, the Western, Southern, Eastern, and Central.

These are not altogether natural and homogeneous divisions, as some of

the languages though geographically close to one another are in reality

widely separated in manner and time of development. However, for the

present this arrangement, being a simple one, may stand.

It is, therefore, in the Eastern division that the Bantu languages of

Kilima-njaro are placed, though they exhibit certain points of

resemblance to the tongues spoken on the Victoria Nyanza. On the whole,

perhaps, their most decided affinities lie with the languages to the

east of them, namely, the Ki-kamba, Ki-taita, Ki-nyika, and Ki-pokomo.

The language spoken _on_ Kilima-njaro is Ki-čaga. This seems to be the

speech of all the Bantu inhabitants of the mountain, unless, indeed, the

Wa-rombo are to be excepted. These wild people seemed to me to use a

different dialect to the rest of the Wa-čaga. (_Vide_ Chapter XIV.)

To the south-east of the great mountain is the little agricultural

colony of Taveita. Ki-taveita is the language used by the Bantu half of

the population—Masai being the speech of the remainder. Ki-gweno closely

resembles Ki-čaga. It is the dialect of the Ugweno mountains to the

south of Lake ǰipé.

Ki-kamba is spoken by the A-kamba dwelling on the upper waters of the

Tzavo river, but as this language has already been described by Krapf,

and latterly by the Rev. A. Downes-Shaw,[82] I do not think it necessary

to include it in my vocabularies, otherwise than to point out an

occasional correspondence of terms.

For the system of orthography used in spelling these languages, I would

refer the reader to the explanation given on page 476 in connection with

the Masai vocabulary. In the phonology of these languages several facts

require to be noticed.

_Ki-čaga_, which has evidently been an isolated tongue for several

centuries, surrounded by an ocean of Masai, has developed rather a

peculiar pronunciation. Some of the vowels, especially _u_, have

acquired a much duller and more indistinct sound than is usual among

Bantu languages, where ordinarily the vowels have a clear, open sound,

as in Italian. In Ki-čaga it is often difficult to distinguish between

_a_ and _u_ (_ü_) and _i_. In many words where _u_ is the tonic vowel in

other forms of Bantu speech, it is changed to _i_ in Ki-čaga.

_G_ often becomes _h_, and sometimes γ. _H_ may replace several

consonants, but generally stands where a _g_ is used in other tongues.

_L_ as an initial is very frequently changed to _n_,[83] and sometimes

_r_, while _r_ is an exceeding common sound, being constantly

substituted for _t_, _d_, and _z_. Sometimes _d_ stands for _t_, and

after the former letter a “trilled” sound like an _r_ is often heard, so

that the listener hardly knows whether to write such a word as _wanda_,

“place,” _wanda_, or _wandra_. _F_ before _i_ often becomes _š_ (_ši_),

and _p_ changes to _w_. In Ki-taveita _g_ often becomes γ, but never

_h_. _D_ sometimes replaces _t_, and so does _s_ in a few words, but

otherwise _t_ holds its place and does not change to _r_ or _h_, as is

so frequently the case in Ki-čaga or Kinyika. _V_ has a tendency to

become _w_, and _p_ does not exist in the language, its place being

nearly always taken by _h_, in foreign words by _b_, and in a few cases

by _f_. Ki-gweno offers much the same features as Ki-čaga in its

phonology, except that _h_ instead of _w_ replaces _p_, and _t_ is not

so often changed to _r_.

A TABLE OF SUBSTANTIVAL PREFIXES IN KI-ČAGA, KI-GWENO, AND KI-TAVEITA.

┌──────────────────────┬──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┐

│ KI-ČAGA. │ KI-GWENO. │ KI-TAVEITA. │

├──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┼───────────────────────┤

│ Classes. │ Classes. │ Classes. │

├─────────┬────────────┼─────────┬────────────┼─────────┬─────────────┤

│Singular.│ Plural. │Singular.│ Plural. │Singular.│ Plural. │

│ 1 Personal 2 │ 1 Personal 2 │ 1 Personal 2 │

│Mu- │Wa- │Mu- │Wa- │Mu- │Wa- │

│M- │ │M- │ │M- │ │

│A- │ │ │ │ │ │

├─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┤

│ 3 │ 4 │ 3 │ 4 │ 3 │ 4 │

│Mū- │Mu- │Mū- │Mi- │Mū- │Mi- │

│ │Mwi- │ │ │M- │ │

│M- │M- │M- │ │ │ │

│ │Mi- │ │ │ │ │

├─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┤

│ 5 │ 6 │ 5 │ 6 │ 5 │ 6 │

│Ni- │Ma- │Ni- │Ma- │Ni- │Ma- │

│Nyi- │ │ │ │ │ │

│Li- │ │ │ │I- │ │

│I- │ │ │ │ │ │

│Ri- │ │Ri- │ │ǰi- │ │

│(—) │ │ │ │ │ │

├─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┤

│ │ │ │ │ │ │

│ 7 │ 8 │ 7 │ 8 │ 7 │ 8 │

│Nki- │Nši- │Ki- │Fi- │Nki- │Wi- │

│(Ngi-) │Ši- │ │ │Ki- │Vi- │

│Ki- │Fi- │ │ │ │ │

│Č- │ │ │ │ │ │

├─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┤

│ 9 │ 10 │ 9 │ 10 │ 9 │ 10 │

│N- │N- (M-) │N- │N- │N- (M-) │N- (M-) │

│(M-[84]) │Nǰ- │(M-) │(M-) │Ni- │Ni- │

│ │6 + 10 │ │ │ │ │

│ │Ma-n- │ │ │ │ │

├─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┤

│ 11 │ 10 │ 11 │ 6 + 11 │ 11 │ 6 + 11 │

│Nu- │N- │Lu- │Ma-lu- │Lu- │Ma-lu- │

│Nyu- │Nǰ- │Nu- │ │ │ 10 │

│Nyo- │(M-) │ │ │ │N-(M-) │

│(—) │ │ │ │ │ │

│U- │ │ │ │ │ │

├─────────┴────────────┼─────────┴────────────┼─────────┴─────────────┤

│ 13 Diminutive 8 │ 13 Diminutive 8 │ 13 Diminutive 8 │

│Ka- │Ši- │Ka- │Fi-? │Ka- │Tu- │

│ │ │ │ │ │ 8 │

│(Ki-?) │ │ │ │ │Vi- │

├─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┤

│ 14 │ 6 + 14 │ 14 │ 6 + 14 │ 14 │ 6 + 14 │

│Wu- │Ma-wu- │Wu- │Ma-wu- │Wu- │Ma-wu- │

│U- │Ma-u- │U- │Ma-u- │ │ │

├─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┤

│ 15 │ 6 │ 15 │ 6 │ 15 │ ? │

│ │Plural in │ │ │ │ │

│ │nouns. │ │ │ │ │

│Ku- │Ma- │Ku- │Ma- │Ku- │ │

├─────────┴────────────┼─────────┴────────────┼─────────┴─────────────┤

│ 16 Locative │ 16 Locative │ 16 Locative │

│Wa- │ │Ha- │ │Ha- │ │

└─────────┴────────────┴─────────┴────────────┴─────────┴─────────────┘

EXAMPLES OF THE ABOVE PREFIXES APPLIED TO NOUNS.

┌───────────────────────────┬────────────────────┬────────────────────┐

│ KI-ČAGA. │ KI-GWENO. │ KI-TAVEITA. │

├───────────────────────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤

│Class 1. Mu-ndu, _a │Class Mu-ka, _a │Class Mu-ndu, _a │

│ man_. │1. woman_. │1. man_. │

│Sing. M-gogo, _a │Sing. M-du, _a │Sing. M-fuma, _a │

│ girl_. │ man_. │ chief_. │

│ A-suko, _a │ │ │

│ devil_. │ │ │

│Class 2. Wa-ndu, _men_.│Class Wa-ka, │Class Wa-ndu, │

│ │2. _women_. │2. _men_. │

│Plur. Wa-gogo, │Plur. Wa-ndu, │Plur. Wa-fuma, │

│ _girls_. │ _men_. │ _chiefs_. │

│ Wa-suko, │ │ │

│ _devils_. │ │ │

│Class 3. Mu-ri, _a │Class Mu-ri, _a │Class Mu-ti, _a │

│ tree_. │3. tree_. │3. tree_. │

│Sing. M-tingo, _a │Sing. │Sing. M-furo, _a │

│ drum_. │ │ river_. │

│Class 4. Mi-ri, │Class Mi-ri, │Class Mi-ti, │

│ _trees_. │4. _trees_. │4. _trees_. │

│Plur. M-tingo, │Plur. │Plur. Mi-furo, │

│ _drums_. │ │ _rivers_. │

│ Mwi-ša, │ │ │

│ _thorns_. │ │ │

│ (Sing., │ │ │

│ Mu-ša.) │ │ │

│Class 5. Ni-fuo, _a │Class Ni-fumo, │Class Ni-ganza, _a│

│ bone_. │5. _spear_. │5. hand_. │

│Sing. Nyi-ho, _a │Sing. Ri-so, _an │Sing. I-gi, _an │

│ stone_. │ eye_. │ egg_. │

│ Li-boro, _an │ │ ǰi-so, _an │

│ egg_. │ │ eye_. │

│ I-ruṅ, _a │ │ │

│ leopard_. │ │ │

│ Ri-na, _a │ │ │

│ name_. │ │ │

│Class 6. Ma-fuo, │Class Ma-fumo, │Class Ma-ganza, │

│ _bones_. │6. _spears_. │6. _hands_. │

│Plur. Ma-ho, │Plur. Me-so, │Plur. Ma-gi, │

│ _stones_, &c. │ _eyes_. │ _eggs_, &c. │

│Class 7. Nki-mnyo, _a │Class Ki-ndu, │Class Ṅki-kitu, │

│ toe_. │7. _thing_. │7. _forest_. │

│Sing. Ki-ndu, _a │Sing. │Sing. Ki-ndu, _a │

│ thing_. │ │ thing_. │

│ Č-oondi, _a │ │ │

│ sheep_. │ │ │

│Class 8. Nši-mnyo, │Class Fi-ndu, │Class Vi-kitu, │

│ _toes_. │8. _things_. │8. _forests_. │

│Plur. Ši-ndu, │Plur. │Plur. Wi-ndu, │

│ _things_. │ │ _things_. │

│ Ši-ondi, │ │ │

│ _sheep_. │ │ │

│Class 9. N-umba, _a │Class N-yumba, │Class N-goma, _a │

│ house_. │9. _house_. │9. spirit_. │

│Sing. M-beho, _a │Sing. M-bua, │Sing. Ni-wui, _a │

│ wind_. │ _nose_. │ bed_. │

│ N-dofu, _an │ M-budyi, _a │ │

│ elephant_. │ goat_. │ │

│Class 10. N-umba, │Class N-yumba, │Class N-goma, │

│ _houses_. │10. _houses_. │10. _spirits_. │

│Plur. M-beho, │Plur. M-bua, │Plur. Ni-wui, │

│ _winds_. │ _noses_. │ _beds_. │

│Cl. 6 + 10. Ma-n-dofu, │ │ M-budyi, │

│ _elephants_. │ │ _goats_. │

│Class 11. Nu-čaa. │Class Lu-čaa, │Class Lu-tiko, _a │

│ _finger-nail_.│11. _nail of │11. zebra_. │

│ │ finger_. │ │

│Sing. Nyu-ruso, _a │Sing. Nu-ilimi, │Sing. Lu-hembe, _a│

│ thread_. │ _the │ hoe_. │

│ │ tongue_. │ │

│ U-tufo, _the │ │ │

│ heel_. │ │ │

│ Ošo, _sword_. │ │ │

│ │Cl. 6 + Ma-lu-čaa, │Cl. 6 + Ma-lu-tiko, │

│ │11. _nails_. │11. _zebras_. │

│ │Plur. Ma-lu-limi, │Plur. │

│ │ _tongues_. │ │

│Class 10. N-čaa, │ │Class M-bembe, │

│ _nails_, &c. │ │10. _hoes_. │

│Plur. Nǰ-ošo, │ │ │

│ _swords_. │ │ │

│Class 13. Ka-rika, _a │Class Ka-mwana, _a│Class Ka-handi, _a│

│ grave_, _a │13. little │13. knife_. │

│ little ditch_.│ child_. │ │

│Sing. │Sing. │Sing. Ka-ṅonǰe, _a│

│ │ │ lamb_. │

│ │ │Class Tu-ṅonǰe, │

│ │ │12. _lambs_. │

│ │ │Plur. │

│Class 8. Ši-rika, │Class Fi-mwana?, │Class Vi-handi, │

│ _graves_. │8? _little │8. _knives_. │

│ │ children_. │ │

│Plur. │Plur. │Plur. │

│Class 14. Wu-ki, │Class Wu-ra, _a │Class Wu-yaṅga, │

│ _honey_. │14. bow_. │14. _sorcery_. │

│Sing. U-sawi, _a │Sing. U-sawi, _a │Sing. │

│ ghost_, │ ghost, │ │

│ _spirit_. │ witchcraft_.│ │

│Cl. 6 + 14. Ma-wuki, │Cl. 6 + Ma-wu-ra, │Cl. 6 + Ma-wu-yaṅga,│

│ _honey-boxes_.│14. _bows_. │14. _sorceries_.│

│Plur. Ma-u-sawi, │Plur. Ma-u-sawi, │ │

│ _ghosts_. │ _ghosts_. │ │

│Class 15. Ku-ru, _an │Class Ku-ru, │Class │

│ ear_. │15. _ear_. │15. │

│Sing. and Ku-aša, │Sing., & in │All infinitives of │

│all _birth_, _to │infinitives of │verbs. │

│infinitives. be born_. │verbs. │ │

│Class 6. Ma-ru, _ears_.│Class Ma-ru, │ │

│ │6. _ears_. │ │

│Plur. │Plur. │ │

│Class 16. Wa-ndu, _a │Class Ha-ndu, _a │Class Ha-ndu, _a │

│ place_, │16. place_. │16. place_. │

│ _places_. │ │ │

│Sg. & pl. │Sg. & │Sg. & │

│ │pl. │pl. │

└───────────────────────────┴────────────────────┴────────────────────┘

THE CONCORD IN KI-ČAGA AND KI-GWENO.

┌────────────────┬──────────────────────┬─────────────────────┐

│ CLASSES. │ Sing. Plur. │ Sing. Plur. │

├────────────────┼──────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤

│ „ │ 1. 2. │ 3. 4. │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

├────────────────┼──────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤

│ Examples of │Mu-_ndu_. Wa-_ndu_. │Mu-_ri_. Mi-_ri_. │

│ Nouns. │ │ │

│ „ │ │Mu-. Nyi-. │

├────────────────┼──────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤

│_Adjectives._ │ │ │

│Good. │Mu-_ča_. Wa-_ča_. │Mu-_ča_. Mi-_ča_. │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│Bad. │Mu-_bi_. Wa-_bi_. │Mu-_bi_. Mi-_bi_. │

│_Possessive_ │ │ │

│_pronouns._ │ │ │

│My. │U-_ako_. W-_ako_. │Fu-_ako_. Y-_ako_. │

│Thy. │U-_fu_. Wa-_fu_. │Fu-_fu_. Yi-_fu_. │

│His, her, its. │U-_ake_. W-_ake_. │Fw-_ake_. I-_ake_. │

│Our. │U-_aru_. W-_aru_. │Fw-_aru_. Y-_aru_. │

│ │ │(Fu-_ru_.) │

│Your. │U-_nyi_. Wa-_nyi_. │Fu-_nyi_. I-_nyi_. │

│Their. │U-_wo_. Wa-_wo_. │Fo-_wo_. I-_wo_. │

│_Personal_ │ │ │

│_pronouns._ │ │ │

│_Nom._: │ │ │

│He, it, &c. │A-. W-a. │Fu-. I-, Y-. │

│_Acc._: │ │ │

│Him, &c. │-mu-, m-. -wa- │-u-. -i-. │

│ │ │ │

│_Demonstrative │ │ │

│pronouns._ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│This. │U-u. Awa. │U-fu. Ii. │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│That. │U-_la_. Wa-_la_. │Fu-_la_. I-_la_. │

│_Interrogative._│ │ │

│Which? │U-_ku_. Wa-_ku_. │Fu-_ku_. I-_ku_. │

│How many? │ Wa-_ṅga_. │ I-_ṅga_. │

│_Numerals._ │ │ │

│1. │U-_mo_. │Fu-_mo_. │

│2. │ Wa-_vi_. │ I-_vi_. │

│ │ │ │

│3. │ Wa-_raro_. │ I-_raro_. │

│ │ │ │

│4, &c. │ Wa-_na_. │ I-_na_. │

│ │ │ │

│Many. │ W-_eṅgi_. │ _Iṅgi._ │

│ │ (Wa-_iṅgi._)│ │

└────────────────┴──────────────────────┴─────────────────────┘

┌────────────────┬────────────────────┬────────────────────┐

│ CLASSES. │ Sing. Plur. │ Sing. Plur. │

├────────────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤

│ „ │ 5. 6. │ 7. 8. │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

├────────────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤

│ Examples of │Ni-_fuo_. Ma-_fuo_. │Ki-_ndu_. Ši-ndu. │

│ Nouns. │ │ │

│ „ │ Nki-. │Fi-. │

├────────────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤

│_Adjectives._ │ │ │

│Good. │Li-_ča_. Ma-_ča_. │Ki-_ča_. Ši-ča. │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│Bad. │Li-_bi_. Ma-_bi_. │Ki-_bi_. Ši-bi. │

│_Possessive_ │ │ │

│_pronouns._ │ │ │

│My. │Ly-_ako_. G-_ako_. │ǧ-ako. Š-_ako_. │

│Thy. │Li-_fu_. Ga-_fu_. │Ki-_fu_. Ši-_fu_. │

│His, her, its. │Ly-_ake_. G-_ake_. │Č-_ake_. Š-_ake_. │

│Our. │Ly-_aru_. G-_aru_. │Č-_aru_. Š-_aru_. │

│ │ │ │

│Your. │Li-_nyi_. Ga-_nyo_. │Ki-_nyi_. Ši-_nyi_. │

│Their. │Li-_wo_. Ga-_wo_. │Ki-_wo_. Ši-_wo_. │

│_Personal_ │ │ │

│_pronouns._ │ │ │

│_Nom._: │ │ │

│He, it, &c. │Li-, ly-. Ga-, G-. │Ki-, Č-. Ši-, Fi-. │

│_Acc._: │ │ │

│Him, &c. │-li-, -ga-. │-ki-. -fi-. │

│ │-ly-. │ │

│_Demonstrative │ │ │

│pronouns._ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

│This. │Ili. Aha or │Iki. Iši, Ifi. │

│ │ aga. │ │

│ │ │ │

│That. │Li-_la_. Ga-_la_. │Ki-_la_. Ši-_la_, │

│_Interrogative._│ │ Fi-_la_. │

│Which? │Li-_ku_. Ga-_ku_. │Ki-_ku_. Fi-_ku_. │

│How many? │ Ha-_ṅga_. │ Ši-_ṅga_. │

│_Numerals._ │ │ │

│1. │Li-_mo_. │Ki-_mo_. │

│2. │ Ga-_wi_. │ Ši-_vi_. │

│ │ │ │

│3. │ Ga-_raro_.│ Fi-_raro_.│

│ │ │ Ši-_raro_.│

│4, &c. │ n-_na_. │ Fi-_na_. │

│ │ │ Ši-_na_. │

│Many. │ _eṅgi._ │ Si-_ṅai_. │

│ │ │ │

└────────────────┴────────────────────┴────────────────────┘

┌────────────────┬─────────────────────┬─────────┬──────────┬─────────┐

│ CLASSES. │ Sing. Plur. │ Sing. │ Sing. │ Sing. │

├────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼─────────┤

│ „ │ 9. 10. │11, takes│13, takes │14, takes│

│ │ │ 10 as │8 as plur.│ 6 as │

│ │ │ plur. │ │ plur. │

├────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼─────────┤

│ Examples of │N-_umba_. N-_umba_. │Nu-_čaa_.│Ka-_rika_.│Wu-_ki_. │

│ Nouns. │ │ │ │ │

│ „ │ │ │ │ │

├────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼─────────┤

│_Adjectives._ │ │ │ │ │

│Good. │I-_ča_. Zi-_ča_. │Lu-_ča_. │Ka-_ča_. │U-_ča_. │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│Bad. │I-_bi_. Mȯi. │Lu-_bi_. │Ka-_bi_. │U-_bi_. │

│_Possessive_ │ │ │ │ │

│_pronouns._ │ │ │ │ │

│My. │Y-_ako_. Z-_ako_. │L-_ako_. │K-_ako_. │W-_ako_. │

│Thy. │I-_fu_. Zi-_fu_. │Lu-_fu_. │Ka-_fu_. │U-_fu_. │

│His, her, its. │Y-_ake_. Z-_ake_. │L-_ake_. │K-_ake_. │W-_ake_. │

│Our. │Y-_aru_. Z-_aru_. │L-_aru_. │K-_aru_. │W-_aru_. │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│Your. │I-_nyi_. Zi-_nyi_. │Lu-_nyi_.│Ka-_nyi_. │U-_nyi_. │

│Their. │I-_wo_. Zi-_wo_. │Lu-_wo_. │Ka-_wo_. │U-_wo_. │

│_Personal_ │ │ │ │ │

│_pronouns._ │ │ │ │ │

│_Nom._: │ │ │ │ │

│He, it, &c. │I-, Y-. Tzi-, Z-. │Lu-, L-. │Ka-, K-. │Wu-, W-. │

│_Acc._: │ │ │ │ │

│Him, &c. │-i-. -zi-. │-lu-. │-ka-. │-u-. │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│_Demonstrative │ │ │ │ │

│pronouns._ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│This. │Ii. Izi. │Ulu. │Aka. │Uu. │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│That. │I-_la_. Zi-_la_. │Lu-_la_. │Ka-_la_. │U-_la_. │

│_Interrogative._│ │ │ │ │

│Which? │I-_ku_. Zi-_ku_. │Lu-_ku_. │Ka-_ku_. │U-_ku_. │

│How many? │ Zi-_ṅga_-. │ │ │ │

│_Numerals._ │ │ │ │ │

│1. │I-_mo_. │Lu-_mo_. │Ka-_mo_. │U-_mo_. │

│2. │ Tzi-_wi_. │ │ │ │

│ │ϑi-vi. │ │ │ │

│3. │ Tzi-_raro_.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│4, &c. │ Tzi-_na_. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│Many. │ Ny-_iṅgi_. │ │ │ │

│ │ Nǰ-_iṅgi_. │ │ │ │

└────────────────┴─────────────────────┴─────────┴──────────┴─────────┘