^{page 541 note 1} Cust, R.N., The modern languages of Africa, 1883.Google Scholar

Drexel, A., ‘Gliederung der afrikanischen Sprachen’, Anihropos, xvi–xx, 1921–1925.Google Scholar

Delafossc, M., ‘Esquisse générale des langues de l'Afrique’, in his Enquéte coloniale dans I'Afrique française …, 1930 Google Scholar. (Also in Meillet, A. and Cohen, M., Les langues du monde, 1924.)Google Scholar

van Bulck, G., Les recherches linguistiques au Congo Beige, 1948.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 2} Müller, F., Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft, 1877.Google Scholar

Meinhof, C., Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen, 1906.Google Scholar

Meinhof, C.Grundriss einer Lautlehre der Bantusprachen, 1910 Google Scholar. (Original version, 1889; English version with N. J. van Warmelo, 1932.)

Meinhof, C.Die Sprachen der Hamiten, 1912.Google Scholar

Meinhof, C.Eine Studienfahrt nach Kordofan, 1916.Google Scholar

Meinhof, C.‘Sprachstudien im egyptisehen Sudan’, ZKS, VI–IX, 1915/1916–1918/1919.Google Scholar

Westermann, D., Die Sudansprache, 1911.Google Scholar

Westermann, D.The Shillulc people, 1912.Google Scholar

Westermann, D.Die westlichen Sudansprachen und Are Beziehungen zum Bantu, 1927 Google Scholar.

Werner, A., The language families of Africa, 1915.Google Scholar

Werner, A.Structure and relationship of African languages, 1930.Google Scholar

Johnston, Sir Harry, A comparative study of the Bantu and Semi-Bantu languages, 1919.Google Scholar

Homburger, L., Les langues negro-africaines, 1941.Google Scholar

Guthrie, M., The classification of the Bantu languages, 1948 Google Scholar.

Greenberg, J.H., Studies in African linguistic classification, 1955.Google Scholar

International African Institute, Handbook of African Languages:

Part I. Basset, André, La langue berbère, 1952 Google Scholar.

Part II. Westermann, D. and Bryan, M.A., Languages of West Africa, 1952.Google Scholar

Part III. Tucker, A.N. and Bryan, M.A., The non-Bantu languages of north-eastern Africa, 1956.Google Scholar

Part IV. M. A. Bryan, The Bantu languages (in course of publication).

^{page 542 note 1} Nubian would seem to be the only non-Semitic language in Africa with an archaic literature, dating from the sixth century. It has been studied very thoroughly by a great number of experts among whom may be mentioned:

Reinisch, L., Die Nvba-Sprache, 1879.Google Scholar

Lepsius, C.R., Nubische Grammatik mit einer Einleitung über die Vōlker und Sprachen Afrikas, 1880.Google Scholar

Armbruster, C.H., Grammar of Dongolawi (in the press, 1957).Google Scholar

Attempts have been made to relate it to Ancient Egyptian on the one hand and the Nilotic languages on the other.

^{page 542 note 2} The Vai script, dating from the early nineteenth century, and still in use, is a rare exception, as is the more recent ‘Somalia’ writing. The Arabic script, applied earlier in Moslem areas, has been found inadequate for African languages as a whole, and is now almost entirely superseded by roman.

^{page 543 note 1} ‘International Institute of African Languages and Cultures’ as it was then called.

^{page 543 note 2} Bleek, W.H.J., A comparative grammar of South African languages, 1862–1869 Google Scholar.

^{page 543 note 3} Among whom can be named Bourquin, Dempwolff, Homburger, Coupez, Meeussen, Greenberg, and Guthrie (the last three adding tonal values to their starred forms; Guthrie's starred ‘Common Bantu’ forms, however, do not purport to be historical reconstructions).

^{page 543 note 4} In fact the Bantu languages have had a great deal of comparative grammatical treatment (apart from phonetic studies and vocabulary comparison), and the following authors may also be mentioned here:

Madan, A.C., Living speech in Central and South Africa, 1911.Google Scholar

Werner, A., Introductory sketch of the Bantu languages, 1919.Google Scholar

Crabtree, W.A., Primitive speech, 1922.Google Scholar

Doke, C.M., Textbook of Zulu grammar, 1927.Google Scholar

Doke, C.M. Bantu linguistic terminology, 1935 Google Scholar.

Doke, C.M. Outline grammar of Bantu, 1943 Google Scholar.

and many other works.

Three main ‘schools’ of Bantu grammatical treatment may now be said to exist: the Meinhof ‘school’ in Hamburg, the Doke ‘school’ in Johannesburg, and the Guthrie ‘school’ in London.

^{page 544 note 1} Even so, one or two awkward ‘Hamitic’ morphemes like the -s masculine and -s feminine suffixes in Nama still need explaining away.

^{page 544 note 2} Indeed his final‘Handbook’ classification in 1952 differs but little from his 1927 classification.

^{page 544 note 3} The Shilluk people. Even here a distant ‘Sudanic’ relationship is envisaged, and some vocabulary comparisons with West African languages made, but on the other hand ‘Hamitic’ influence is also suggested. Kunama is not mentioned, but it is interesting to note that the wide grouping given here under ‘Nilotic’ (including Mittu and Madi) has now been taken over again and expanded by Greenbcrg into his ‘Macrosudanic’ (or ‘Chari-Nile’) family.

^{page 544 note 4} Examples taken by Dr. Berry, J. from Westermann's ‘Das Tschi und Guang’, MSOS, xxviii, 1925. It is significant to note that whereas the general impression among Africanists of the British school is that Westermann was over-optimistic in setting up his relationships, Greenberg regards him as ‘ an eminently cautious investigator’.Google Scholar

^{page 546 note 1} The name of Morris Swadesh is usually associated with this school, but a very lucid summary is given by Sarah Gudschinsky, C. in ‘The ABC's of lexicostatistics (glottochronology)’, Word, XII, 1956 Google Scholar. Greenberg himself has recently contributed to this school of thought (‘Historical linguistics and unwritten languages’, Anthropology today, 1953), but one can only infer that, since most of his Studies in African linguistic classification had already come out in serial form by 1950, it was too late to apply lexicostatistical methods to it. Certainly he makes no reference to the ‘Swadesh’ school here.

^{page 546 note 2} op. cit., 107.

^{page 546 note 3} In a later chapter (pp. 115–16) reduced to 7. In this reassessment Greenberg says that Munshi, Bitare, Batu, Ndoro, Mambila, Bantu (sic), and Jarawa ‘seem to form a distinct subgrouping within the Central branch’.

^{page 546 note 4} But note o-bi ‘person’ above.

^{page 547 note 1} See especially Richardson, I., Linguistic survey of the northern Bantu borderland, II, 1957.Google Scholar

^{page 547 note 2} Greenberg's work first came out in a series of articles in the Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, v–vi, 1949–1950 Google Scholar, with a final chapter in x, 1954.

^{page 547 note 3} The term ‘Nilo-Hamitic’ is not approved of by Greenberg, who rejects the ‘Hamitic’ implication in it. He has also recently changed the name ‘Macrosudanic’ to ‘Chari-Nile’, see ‘Nilotic, Nīlo-Hamitic and Hamito-Semitic’, Africa, xxvii, 1957.Google Scholar

^{page 547 note 4} At the same time he castigates Struck, B. for his ‘loose assumption of such prefixes and suffixes’ when the latter, in ‘Einige Sudan-Wortstamme’, ZKS, II, 1911/1912 Google Scholar, attempts to document Westermann's first Sudanic assumption.

^{page 548 note 1} Represented eη-g-oloη and eη-are by Greenberg.

^{page 549 note 1} Actually, according to the known philological laws, the Bari corresponding form to Maasai yerr is dεr ‘to cook’.

^{page 549 note 2} Wrongly recorded tou by Greenberg.

^{page 549 note 3} Hohenberger, J., ‘Comparative Masai word list‘, Africa, xxvi, 1956 Google Scholar (part of a larger MS work, Hamitisches Sprachgut im Masai). Hohenberger's further suggestion, however, that the Hamitic element may exceed even the Nilotic, is not substantiated by a close examination of the examples he quotes.

^{page 549 note 4} Provided there are enough; Greenberg is sometimes apt to be too impatient, as when he classifies Iraqw as Cushitic on the strength of only five correspondences, which subsequent vocabulary comparison has failed to substantiate. (See Meeussen, A.E.: ‘Hamietisch en Nilotisch’, Zaire, xi, 1957, in which Greenberg's classification is otherwise wholeheartedly supported.)Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 5} See also: ‘L'Inde et l'Afrique’, Journ. de la Soc. des Africanistes, xxv, 1–2, 1955 Google Scholar; ‘De quelques éléments communs à l'égyptien et aux langues dravidiennes’, Kêmi, xiv, 1957 Google Scholar; Quelques exemples de vocables dravido-africains, 195.

^{page 550 note 1} Bryant, A.T., Zulu-English dictionary, 1915 Google Scholar. (Bryant's main sources of comparison are Sanskrit, Arabic, Malay, Papuan, Polynesian, besides other languages of Africa, with occasional references to languages such as Hindustani, Lithuanian, and Old Irish. Doke, while complaining of these ‘fanciful comparisons’, speaks highly of the dictionary itself.)

Wanger, W., Comparative lexical study of Sumerian and Ntu (Bantu), 1935 Google Scholar

^{page 551 note 1} This borrowing is not necessarily confined to words o material culture; the old widespread habit of killing off the men and marrying the women of a defeated tribe could, and probably often did, menan to the conquerinf tribe new phonetic habits in the new generation and the substitution of words in those categories which most philologists come t regard as baic.

^{page 551 note 2} Tucker, A.N and Bryan, M.A., Linguistic survey o the northern Bantu borderland, IV, 1957, p. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 551 note 3} In English ‘eye’, ‘nose’, and ‘foot’ are useful words for showing Germanic descent, but ‘leg’ is not. This problem is alway to hand in Africa, but with no historical explanaion. Some words in Afraica, like ‘lion’ or ‘leopard’, are so set about with taboo restrictions, that their5 philological value in certain areas is nil.

^{page 551 note 4} See Swadesh, M., ‘Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating’, Internation Journal of Americal Linguistics, XXI 1955 Google Scholar, for a suggested ‘vital core vocabulary’ of 200 words.

^{page 552 note 1} Personal communication: The greatest number he has recorded in any one language is 600; the average correspondence lies between 200 and 500. Of course dialects and languages of the same group will evince a much higher vocabulary correspondence with each other, but the test Guthrie sets for a Bantu ‘starred form’ demands that it should be built up of starred vowels and consonants and be represented in languages from at least three different groups that have less than a certain degree of linguistic affinity. His definition of ‘group’ is already established in his Classification of the Bantu languages, while the degree of linguistic affinity is calculated from data obtained in the construction of the starred forms.

^{page 552 note 2} Dr. J. Berry, who examined a considerable amount of material in the Kwa group, reached the opinion (in his Ph.D. thesis, Structural affinities of the Volta River languages and their significance for linguistic classification) that, owing to the paucity of vocabulary items capable of direct philological correspondence between the languages of this ‘group’, and because of the probability of extensive acculturation in the area, it was not possible to relate Twi to Ewe or to Ga-Adangme on a satisfactory philological basis, although such relationship within the Akan languages is relatively easy to state.

Westermann, who never entirely gave up the idea of an ultimate ‘Sudanic’ unity, admitted in 1940 (Vōlkerkunde von Afrika, by Baumann, Thurnwald, and Westermann) that the term ‘bezeichnet Sprachen eines gemeinsamen Typus, deren genetische Einheit nur teilweise nachweisbar ist’.

Similarly Murray, G.W., in An English-Nubian comparative dictionary, 1923 Google Scholar, gives vent to the same sentiment when trying to establish the relationship of Nubian to the Nilotic languages when he says: ‘The task of establishing phonetic equations between one language and another is rendered almost impossible’.

^{page 552 note 3} See Linguistic survey of the northern Bantu borderland, IV, 72–4. Greenberg classes both languages as ‘Cushitic’ (and that on very slender evidence, as already mentioned).

^{page 553 note 1} These include most pronouns, also particles indicating gender or ease or plurality (in nouns or verbs) or negation, and are often more convincing than many of his word comparisons.

^{page 553 note 2} The latest version of this and other conventional ‘family’ characteristics is given in Tucker, A.N., The eastern Sudanic languages, i, 1940 Google Scholar; see also Alice Werner, op. cit.

^{page 553 note 3} Where such criteria are lacking, a mark of interrogation is inserted in the text, to indicate that the grouping is only tentative.

^{page 554 note 1} Greenberg at the moment classes them as separate branches of his ‘Eastern Sudanic’ family.