The materials accumulated by Dr. Barth, enable us to give a more
distinct reply to the question: What relation does the Temáshight
(abbreviated in future as Temght) language bear to the idiom of the
Kabáíl of Mount Atlas, and to the Shilha of Morocco? The replies
hitherto given have seemed to a great authority, the Baron de Slane,
premature, and, therefore, arbitrary.
I will try to write as one recapitulating facts, so far as I can discern
facts, throwing the remarks under separate heads:—
1. The system of _Pronouns_ in the Temght differs sufficiently from that
of the Kabáíl, to put a broad separation between the languages. The
Baron de Slane has already given a valuable table, comparing the
Pronominal system in the (so called) Berber tongues; and there is
nothing to be added to this. Temght does not differ more decisively from
Kabáíl in this respect, than each differs from Shilha, &c. Nevertheless,
in the midst of the diversity, appear obvious and decisive marks of
common origin. In fact, the _suffixed_ pronouns differ but little.
2. The _Numerals_, in so far as they are not superseded by Arabic, are
fundamentally the same in all.
3. So far as Plural nouns can be formed regularly from the singular, the
two languages seem to observe substantially the same rules.
4. The mode of _Conjugating_ the principal tense of the Verb, has no
greater diversity in the Temght and Kabáíl than that found between mere
dialects of the same language.
The modes of forming the _Present_ Tense are perhaps imperfectly
understood as yet in all these tongues.
It is on the surface of the Kabáíl, that a Present Tense is formed by
prefixing _adhi_, _ayi_, or _aï_ to the principal tense. This prefix
precedes the pronominal mark of the verb. Similarly in the Temght we
have _ehe_ or _ege_ fulfilling the same function; and (especially since
the suffix pronoun of the Kabail, _ayi_ or _aï_ (“me”) is -_ahi_, in
Barth) this _ehe_ seems to be the same element as Kabáíl _ayi_.
_Adhi_ (in Kab.) often expresses a Future or Subjunctive idea. Yet the
element _ara_ or _ere_ is, perhaps, still more decidedly future. I have
found this element, _r_, in Barth, though rarely: for instance, _ubbok_,
smoking; and _rabakagh_, I smoke. In Hanoteau, _gh_ takes the place of
_r_—sounds often confounded. To etymology it is of interest to know
which sound is here more correct. If _gh_, then we are thrown back on
_aghi_ of Kabáíl, which has the same meaning as _ayi_, viz., “this.”
Also the element _ad_ means “this,” fem. _ati_. It seems then, that,
prefixed to a tense, they give the idea of Now or Presently.
Besides these external affixes, in an Appendix to my edition of Sídi
Ibrahím’s Narrative, published by the (London) Asiatic Society, I
elicited four internal methods of forming the Present Tense in Kabáíl,
viz., 1. by reduplication of the second radical; 2. by prefixing _t_ to
the root (with the sound of _ts_); 3. by prefixing _θ_ to the root
(sounded _t_ on the lowlands, but English _th_ in the highlands); 4.
transitive verbs, formed by _s_ prefixed to the root, affix _aï_ after
the root, or sometimes change the last vowel to _ā_. The Temght, with
which Dr. Barth’s ear was familiarized, disowns the distinction of the
thick _t_ (_ts_) from the common as well as the sound of English _th_.
We cannot, therefore (at least at present), distinguish in this language
between the second and third methods just recounted. But we may
positively assert, that in Dr. Barth’s specimens a _prevalent_ mode of
forming the Present tense, is by prefixing _t_ to the elementary part of
the verb. Thus: _aniyet_, ride ye (from a root which must be _inay_, he
rode); _etinne_, he rides, mounts; _enhi_ (or _eheni_), look thou, find
thou; _inha_, I have found; but _tehinnen_, they see; _atenhegh_, I
find; _inna_, he said, he spoke; _neketēnagh tinárahen_, I spake peace;
_iwwen_, he went up; _tewīnagh_, I climb up; _iḳōr_, it is dried;
_itōgar_, it is drying up.
On the other hand, where the prefix _t_ is not found, but where Dr.
Barth, notwithstanding, assigns a present meaning, I am sometimes struck
with a broad _ā_, which may perhaps denote present time, as in the
fourth method of the Kabáíl above noted: but the materials are so few,
that this needs confirmation. For example, _yeḍis_, he laughed;
_ḍāsagh_, I laugh; _iḳḳel_, he turned or returned, _ekālagh_, I come
back.
5. The Noun of Action is formed from the verb by a _t_ prefixed, and
becomes feminine. In this all the Berber tongues seem to differ little
from one another, or from Hebrew and Arabic.
6. The Transitive Verb is formed in Temght, as in Kabáíl, by prefixing
_s_ to the root. Thus: _arīd_, washed; _saradagh_, I wash (a thing);
_ádirif_, a freedman; _sidderfagh_, I set free: _idau_, he went in
company; _isdau_, he brought together.
7. A Passive Verb, formed like the Hebrew Niphal, is found sometimes,
but rarely, alike in Temght and in Kabáíl. Thus, from Barth’s _ibóyis_,
he is wounded, comes the transitive _sabayasagh_, I wound; and from this
again a passive, _ansabayāsen_, they were wounded. Indeed, also _war
nebúyis_, he was not wounded; formed direct from the primitive. Barth
has _ekshe_, eat thou; _éheri inekshe_, “the money is spent;” probably,
_inekshe_, is eaten.
8. A Reciprocal Verb or a Verbal Adjective is formed in both languages
by prefixing _m_ to another verbal root. The practical use of this is
comparable to the vagueness of the Greek Middle Voice. In Kabáíl it
seems to be oftenest Reflective, sometimes Passive; nor otherwise in
Temght. From _yohagh_, he seized, comes _témmihagh_ (explained by
Hanoteau as the Temght for), she was seized; where the _m_ is Passive.
But from _isitteg_, he traded, _imisitteg_, he exchanged: from _idau_,
he went in company (_idiu_, in Hanoteau), _amīdi_, a comrade;
_isharrag_, he fetched water, _amsharrag_, a water-carrier; _iḳḳel_, he
turned (generally neuter), _isōkal_, he caused to return, he replaced;
_simiskal_, barter thou (cause to replace _mutually_?); _ru_, weep, sob
(Kabáíl root), _itru_, he weeps (Kab.), _immerauen_ (persons) weeping
together; _irtay_, it was joined; _imirtayen_, mixed; _isken_, he
pointed, showed; _emsāken_, they deliberate.
In fact _n_ and _m_ of these two heads, appear to have no sharp
distinction. They are joined in Barth’s _anemang(h)a_, battle; from
_nūgh_, fight thou (Kab.), or from _engh_, kill thou. In Sídi Íbrahím’s
Shilha, _emmaghan_, they fought (for _emnaghan_?).
9. Reduplicate verbs are found in both languages, comparable to those of
Hebrew and Arabic. Thus from _inghal_, it leaks (Barth), [in Kab.,
_inghel_, it gushed,] we have, as feminine, _toraft tinghálnaghel_, the
boat leaks,—_qu._, is utterly leaky. Many reduplicate verbs occur, where
we have to conjecture the primitive; as in _eshisheriwuēgh_, I trot my
horse; _sheresherau_, work the pump handle, or pull the cord of the
well-lever; _imesharlárlarēn_ or _ereshaushauēn_, (the water) is
boiling.
The Temght sometimes repeats the third radical, as in _shékarash_, to
till the ground. That the root is _keresh_, we know, since this is the
sense of Kabáíl _kerez_; and Kab. _z_ often becomes _sh_ in Temght.
_Ergash_, walk thou; and _yushirgesh_, he took a ride. From _anjur_, the
nose-bone (_anzer_, of Kabáíl), by repeating the second radical, comes
_shinshar_, nostrils; _shinshor_, to clear the nose. Evidently
reduplication plays a large part in these languages. It sometimes
appears to excess; as from _ishwar_, he begins (_izwer_, he began,
Kab.); _sheshwāragh_, I begin.
10. The Temght heaps formation on formation to an extent exceeding what
appears in the specimens of Kabáíl which I have met. In fact I have
often had to refer to Kabáíl or to Ghadámsi for the roots of Barth’s
verbs. Thus he has _sanishlam_, look about; a double formation from
_ishlam_, which must be the same as Ghadámsi _izlem_ (also _illem_), he
saw; _esimmiktagh_ I call to memory; transitive from the Kab. _amekthi_,
a thought; from root _iktha_. Out of _Kél_ (a tribe, people) the Temght
develops _atkēl_, empire; _amanōkal_, ruler; _temanókălen_, government.
11. The Temght, as exhibited in Dr. Barth’s specimens, often seems to
degenerate into a Negro jabber. When the pronoun nominative is prefixed
to the verb, a mere crude form of the verb may seem to suffice, just as
though in Latin one were to say, _ego reg, ille reg_, instead of _rego,
regit_; and for the third person the element _y_ (for “he”) is often
dropped; as _amūt_, he died, for _yamūt_. Also, apparently from the
influence of vulgar Arabic, we find the first person plural form used
for the _singular_; as, _Nek noda(r)_, I fall (ego cadimus); _Nek
nuṭṭef_, I take (ego cepimus): sometimes also the Arabic form of the
second person singular supplants that of Berber, with the inconvenience
of seeming to be third person feminine.
12. In Kabáíl I find a rather rare form of the Passive by prefixing _wa_
to the root. Thus from _rebbi_, rear, nourish (Brosselard), comes
_itwarabba_, he is reared (Luke, iv. 16.): from _yūrez_, he chained;
_ittārez_, he chains; _itwarzan_, they are chained (Luke iv. 19.);
though here _w_ may seem to be in the root: _issen_, he knew;
_itwassen_, it is known (Luke, vi. 44.); _u atsayalaθ, sagha
attattusayalam_ (Matthew, vii. 1.), is intended to express, “Judge not,
that ye be not judged;” strictly, perhaps, _Non interrogate, ne-forte
interrogemini_; Sídi Hámed often uses the (Arabic?) verb _isayal_, he
asked, for he judged. Here also we have _ittusayal_, he is judged; which
yields _usayal_ or _wasayal_, as the passive root, and _wa_ as the
passive element. Again, _inwaddar_, it was trodden under foot (Luke,
viii. 5.), compared with _aṭar_, the foot, suggests that (_dd_ being
euphonic for double _ṭ_?) _n_ and _wa_ here combine for a passive idea.
I have recited these cases, because the form is rare, and might seem
doubtful. Now in Barth, besides _irna_, he exceeded, surpassed,
conquered (superavit), we find _itwarna_, he is conquered; which denotes
a like passive formation.
13. The system of Prepositions is not wholly the same in Temght as in
Kabáíl. Yet they have in common, _en_ or _na_, of; _si-_, from or by;
_ghūr_, apud (pronounced _rōr_, with Barth); _fel_, upon; _ger_,
between; _dau_, under; _g-_, in; _degh_ or _der_, at or in? _d-_, an
untranslateable prefix, sometimes meaning with. This may seem the same
as _id_, _d_, meaning and. Behind, _dar_, in Barth, is perhaps a
contraction of Kabáíl _daffir_. Kabáíl _azzaθ, zaθ_, front, before, is
_dat_ in Barth; seemingly the same element. All this shows a very close
relation of the two languages.
14. The vocabularies, with very great likeness, show also grave
diversities, making it impossible to regard the two idioms as mere
_dialects_ of one language. Undoubtedly a stranger is liable to overrate
in detail the significance of this, and unduly to assume that words of
the one are wholly foreign to the other. Thus, when the Tawárek say
_ishek_ (De Slane) for a tree, which in Kabáíl is _Θasṭa, Θasaṭṭa_, we
are struck by the contrast. Nevertheless, in Kabáíl, _ishīg_ means, a
branch: hence it is nearly as our colonists say bush for forest, wood.
Barth writes _ehishk_ for _ishek_, which still more obscures the
relation. But after all allowance, it remains that the two languages
have deviated so widely from their original, that their identity is only
an etymological, not a popular fact. If Negro words be duly ejected from
the Temght, and intrusive Arabic from the Kabáíl, Shilha, &c., the
remaining portion of the vocabularies greatly illustrate one another,
and seem adequate to reconstruct the chief material of the old Libyan
tongue. Barth has the high merit, to us, of giving very little as Temght
which can be accounted Arabic.
The Arabic words which do enter the Temght are not identical with those
of the Kabáíl; not even in religion. Thus prayer in Kabáíl is _tazallit_
(from Arabic صلى); but in Temght, _ʿumad_, from Arabic عمد; Confirmation
being confounded with Prayer, as elsewhere with Baptism. This word may
have come from Christianity; since also sin in Temght and Ghadámsi is
_bekkad_ (once _ebaket_ in Barth); which seems, like the Welsh _pechod_,
_bechod_, to be the Latin _peccata_. It is curious to observe in Temght
the root _ibekket_, he crouched or knelt; perhaps primitively as a
religious attitude. (Hanoteau has _ibekket_ of a lion crouching; and
Barth gives _asibaket_ for “sit with elbows on the legs _against
cold!_”) In this connection we may note that the Kabáíl name of God is
_Rabbi_, which in Arabic is “My Lord;” but in Temght, besides Ámanay, it
is _Mesína_ or _Mesínak_, which Barth takes for “our Messiah,” a
Christian importation.
15. The prefix _am_ before a substantive means in Kabáíl _a possessor_.
At least Hodgson gives many illustrations of this. I do not know that it
distinctly appears in Barth, though there are words thus explicable; as
_ahuyye_, the chase; _amahuyyen_, a sportsman. But the Temght has, to
express this sense, a very common prefix, _ila_, unknown to the Kabáíl,
as far as I am aware.
Thus from _Ehen_, a tent; _ilēhen_, tented (_i.e._ married). It indeed
seems to me that this prefix has the wider sense of changing some other
word into an adjective, nearly as the German suffix _-ig_. Thus from
_dar_, behind (prep.) comes _iladara_ (one who is?) behind; from _dat_,
before, _iladata_ (one who is?) in front. One may even suspect that
_ila_ here is the element of the verb “to be,” from _illa_, he was;
_ili_, be thou. (Barth also has _ilē_, “here;” and in Kabáíl and Shilha
_elli_ is the relative “who,” as in vulgar Arabic.)
The general conclusion seems to be that Temght, Shilha, Ghadámsi,
Kabáíl, &c., are distinct languages, related as (we will say)
Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian.
It may be here added, that Dr. Barth unfortunately has not been able (in
the rude pronunciation to which he listened) to discriminate _t_ from
_ṭ_, _d_ from _ḍ_, _k_ from _ḳ_, _z_ from _ṣ_ (if there is any ص), while
_gh_ was perpetually passing into _g_, _k_, or _r_. It appears to me
still doubtful how many consonants there are in Temght; whether there is
any _Ain_, and whether there is any such distinction as the _ts_ and
_th_ of the Kabáíl. If we knew the sounds accurately, certain families
of words might be less confused and confusing.
In general, the pronunciation of words presented to us by Dr. Barth is
softer than that of the Kabáíl, and has a fuller and clearer
vocalization. In one combination, indeed, the Kabáíl is the softer, and
it may deserve attention: it is the English _tch_ (written _ch_ by
Barth) for which he has _ksh_ or _tk_. Thus the Temght _ikshe_, he ate,
_itkar_, it is full, are in Kabáíl _ichche_, _ichchur_. From Arabic
_kheshen_, rough, the Kab. makes _ichchen_, he is ugly. Again it has
_ichchah_ and _ichcham_, he was hot in anger (answering to Arabic اجّا
and اجم), for which Barth gives the harsher sound _itkar_, meaning
perhaps _itkagh_ or _itkakh_. These cases are of interest, as pointing
out that the Temght has sometimes an older form of the word than that
found in Arabic.