Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:10:05.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Proto-Omotic verb formative *d–

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

R. J. Hayward
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One major problem which comes to the fore in comparing Omotic languages is the wide diversity seen in the inflectional morphology of the verb. To the linguist coming from Ethiopian Semitic or East Cushitic the variety encountered from language to language in Omotic is bewildering. The problem may be illustrated by comparing paradigms of three languages of the Ometo cluster—a group which on the basis of lexicostatistic calculations is considered to be fairly close-knit. Two of the languages, Zayse and Koyra, have been classified (together with Haruro, Ganjule, Harro and Zargula) as East Ometo, a label which is intended to convey a genetic as well as a geographical affiliation. The third language is Gofa, which, as a member of the dialect cluster which includes Wolaitta, Kullo, Konta, Gemu, Zala, Malo, Oyda, etc., is classified as Central Ometo. The paradigms compared are: (i) the perfect (or past) declarative, (ii) the perfect (or past) interrogative, (iii) the imperfect (or present) declarative, (iv) the imperfect (or present) interrogative. The verb employed in the illustration is wod'-‘kill’.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 324 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

E. J., Allan 1976a. ‘Dizi’, in Bender, M. L. (ed.), 377–92.Google Scholar
E. J., Allan 1976b. ‘Kullo’, in Bender, M. L. (ed.), 324–50.Google Scholar
M. L., Bender(ed.). 1976. The non-Semitic languages of Ethiopia. (Committee on Ethiopian Studies. Monograph No. 5. Occasional papers Series.) East Lansing, Michigan: African Studies Center, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
E., Cerulli, 1929. ‘Note su alcune popolazione Sidama dell'A bissinia meridionale: II, i Sidama dell'Omo’, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 12; 1–69.Google Scholar
E, Cerulli. 1938. Il linguaggio dei GirangerÓ ed alcune lingue Sidama dell'Omo (Basketo, Ciara, Zaisse) (Studi Etiopici III). Roma: Istituto per l'Oriente.Google Scholar
E., Cerulli 1951. La lingua Caffina. (Studi Etiopici, VI.) Roma: Istituto per l'Oriente.Google Scholar
E., Cerulli 1936. ‘Contributi Per lo conoscenza della lingua Haruro’. (Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Ser. 6, vol. 12: 621–19.)Google Scholar
H. C., Fleming 1976a. ‘Kefa(Gonga) Languages’, in M. L. Bender (ed.), 351–76.Google Scholar
H. C., Fleming 1976b. ‘Omotic Overview’, in M. L. Bender (ed.), 298–323.Google Scholar
R. J, Hayward. 1982. ‘Notes on the Koyra Language’, Afrika und Übersee, 65, 2: 211–68.Google Scholar
J., Lydall 1976. ‘Hamer’, in M. L. Bender (ed.), 393–438Google Scholar
M. M, Moreno. 1938. Introduzione alla lingua Ometo. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
H., Plazikowsky-Brauner 1950. ‘Schizzo morfologico dello Šinaša’, Rassegna di studi Etipico, 9: 65–83.Google Scholar