Abu-Dabar and the Ogre Part II

Tǝ́kkǝr tǝmígni w-ǝtn-ís i-tiriwín-nǝs: kkǝ́rmǝt, xzǝ́rmǝt.

'The wife got up and said to her daughters: stand up and look!'

• Tǝ́kkǝr 'to get up' 3sg.pf.f.
• tǝmígni 'wife, woman'
• w-ǝtn-ís 'and she said'
• i-tiriwín-nǝs 'to her daughters'
• kkǝ́rmǝt 'to get up' imperative pl.f.
• xzǝ́rmǝt 'to look' imperative pl.f.

W-ǝkkǝ́rnǝt tiriwín id ǝmmá-tsnǝt qqăimánǝt ddawwarnǝt

'And they daughters and their mother got up and started to look around'

• W-ǝkkǝ́rnǝt 'and they got up'
• id ǝmmá-tsnǝt 'with their mother'
• qqăimánǝt 'they started'
• ddawwarnǝt 'they looked around'

u baʕadén nǝhínǝt ufánǝt alə́ġom yǝmmúta

'and then they found a dead camel'

• u baʕadén 'and then'
• nǝhínǝt 'they (f.)'
• ufánǝt 'they found'
• alə́ġom 'camel', commonly attested Berber word which continues to give me headaches. The Proto-Berber form should be something like *alǝġǝm, which has all the letters for CaMeL, but not in the right order, we also find a word *aġǝlǝm which usually seems to be a word for 'young camel' I believe. In that word, the root consonants are still in the wrong order. Haha.
• yǝmmúta 'to be dead' 3sg.m.pf.

u kkǝ́rnǝt, ǝrfə́ʕnǝt z-gan šummánǝt y-ámẓa

'and they stood up, and carried (it) from there and they cooked (it) for the ogre.'

• ǝrfə́ʕnǝt 'they carried', I'm missing a direct object here. Maybe the -ǝt is the 3sg.m. DO suffix, in which case the plural is the masculine plural, which would mean it also includes Abu-Dabar who is not explicitly mentioned in the story.
• z-gan 'from-there'
• šummánǝt 'they cooked' Again missing an object, as above.
• y-ámẓa 'for the ogre'

u taxzǝ́r ǝmmá-tsnǝt tmúrt-i u túfa ǝlmǝġġárǝt u tš-an gan tiríwt tǝmoqqărant

'and their mother looked around the grounds and found a cave and she made her oldest daughter entere there.

• tmúrt-i 'around the earth' I think tmúrt here is from tamúrt 'earth', no idea why the a is dropped though. Paradisi writes it as ä, which at least indicates that it's probably a short a.
• u túfa 'and she found'
• ǝlmǝġġárǝt 'cave'
• tš-an 'and she made enter' 3sg.f.pf. of the causative of yan/an 'to enter'.
• tiríwt tǝmoqqărant 'old daughter'

u yušád ámẓa u fkán-is ksúm wa mmána

'and the ogre came, and they gave him the meat that they prepared'

• yušád 'he came'
• ámẓa 'ogre'
• fkán-is 'they gave him', now in the 3pl.m. so perhaps the above expected 3pl.f. was indeed 3pl.m. with DO 3sg.m.
• ksúm 'meat'
• wa mmána 'that they prepared'

u yǝččí-t w-in-ísin: šummát-dik tiríwt táṭǝn, amišiw-ǝnnúk

'And he ate it and he said to them: prepare me another daughter, for my dinner'

• u yǝččí-t 'and he ate it'
• w-in-ísin 'and he said to them'
• šummát-dik 'prepare for me'
• táṭǝn 'another, the other' (fem. sg.)
• amišiw-ǝnnúk 'my dinner', curiously, no preposition to express 'for my dinner'

u gan-ís am táṭǝn.

'and they did to her like the other'

• u gan-ís 'and they did to her'
• am 'like'

U ṣbaḥ-ǝ́nnǝs: šummát-dik táṭǝn.

'and the next morning (he said): make me another'

• ṣbaḥ-ǝ́nnǝs litt. 'his morning/tomorrow', not sure why this possesive suffix is found here.

U gán-is am-alá gána i-wǝrtná-s

'And they did to her like they did to her sister'

• am-alá 'like' (is the different word chosen here because the following phrase is verbal instead of nominal?) alá functions as a relative pronoun usually, so this is not unlikely.
• gána 'they did'
• i-wǝrtná-s 'to her sister'

 u yúšad ámẓa u yǝ́čča amǝkliw-ǝ́nnǝs w-in-isín: šummát-dik amišiw-ǝnnúk.

'And the ogre came and ate his lunch and said to them: make me another for my dinner.

U šummán-is s-ar alə́ġəm yǝmmúta

'And the cooked for him (meat) from the dead camel'

• s-ar 'from' here to be read 'that from' meaning 'the meat from'.

u yúšad ámẓa u yǝ́čča amišiw-ǝ́nnǝs w-in-isín: ṣəbáḥ amǝklíw af tǝmigní-nnǝk

'And the ogre came and ate his dinner and said to them: tomorrow, (I will have) lunch on your wife'

• ṣəbáḥ 'tomorrow'
• amǝklíw af tǝmigní-nnǝk litt. 'lunch on your wife', I'm not really sure how this construction works.

U nan-is: báhi.

'and he said: fine'

Ṣbaḥ, šummán amǝklíw u túna ar tiriwín-nǝs.

'The next day, they cooked lunch and she entered   (the cave) with her daughters'

• túna 'to enter' 3sg.f.pf.

u yúšad ámẓa u yǝ́čča amǝkliw-ǝ́nnǝs w-in-ís ámẓa:

'And the ogre came and he ate his lunch and the ogre said to him:'

Amišíw fǝll-ík-kú, Abu-dabár

'I will have you for dinner Abu-Dabar'

• fǝll-ík-kú 'on you-you' Not sure how this expression works, but it is the same construction as amǝklíw af tǝmigní-nnǝk earlier. fǝll- is the pre-pronominal form of af.

U yəʕádd Bú-dabar yǝggád ġăstín id glim-ǝ́nnǝs id mlál w-igí-tǝn ǝlgǝdǝr-ǝ́nnǝs

'Abu-Dabar went and brought the bones and its skin (the camel's) and sand, and he put them in his cooking pot.'

• Bú-dabar oddly without initial a
• yǝggád 'to bring' 3sg.m.pf.
• id glim-ǝ́nnǝs 'and its skin'
• id mlál 'and sand'
• w-igí-tǝn 'and he put them'
• ǝlgǝdǝr-ǝ́nnǝs 'in the cooking pot', nothing in this sentence actually implies the 'in' part, again an expected -i not found here (Lameen suggested because of the possesive suffix, could this be true?) < Ar. qidr 'cooking pot'

u yúna ar tiriwín-nǝs

'and he entered the cave with his daughters'

u yúšad ámẓa u yǝ́čča ġəstín wǝ nǝttín itǝ́tta yəqqím itǝnn-ís: Ksum-ǝ́nnǝk aḥáš, kúll d-ġəstín.

'And the ogre came and he ate the bones and he while he was eating he started saying: Your meat is terrible, it's all bones!'

• itǝ́tta 'to eat' 3sg.m.impf.
• yəqqím 'to stay' 3sg.m.pf., inchoative. Although the translation feels a bit odd in English.
• itǝnn-ís 'to say' 3sg.m.impf.
• Ksum-ǝ́nnǝk  'Your meat', I wonder who he's saying this too, surely he thinks Abu-Dabar is dead now?
• aḥáš 'bad'
• kúll 'all'
• d- copula

W-ǝnhínǝt sǝnnáṭnǝt žlán n ámẓa.

'And they heard the words of the ogre'

• W-ǝnhínǝt 'and they' Feminine 3rd person plural, which is odd, as Abu-Dabar just joined them.
• sǝnnáṭnǝt 'to hear' 3pl.f.pf. 'to hear' is usually a root SL. [kato:] ELA ṣǝnnǝṭ ‘to listen’ (also Algiers Jewish ṣọ̌nnọ̌ṭ 'écouter'), probably metathesis of Classical naṣṣata.
• žlán 'story, words, speech'

 

 

 

 

Comments

[kato]

Been waiting for this!

ǝlgǝdǝr: another word for us to add to the g-dialect which influenced Awjili, cf. ELA gidr 'large cooking pot'.

sǝnnáṭnǝt: ELA ṣǝnnǝṭ ‘to listen’ (also Algiers Jewish ṣọ̌nnọ̌ṭ 'écouter'), probably metathesis of Classical naṣṣata.

aḥáš: wonder what the relationship is between this and Egy. waḥš 'bad', ELA weḥš 'monster', etc. ?

Proto-Berber *alǝġǝm/aġǝlǝm : any relation with Ar. ġǝnǝm 'flock, etc.' ?

[PhoeniX]

"aḥáš: wonder what the relationship is between this and Egy. waḥš 'bad', ELA weḥš 'monster', etc. ?"

Probably be related. Considering that ḥ is a non-Berber sound, it must be from Arabic somehow.

"Proto-Berber *alǝġǝm/aġǝlǝm : any relation with Ar. ġǝnǝm 'flock, etc.' ?"

How would you account for the l~n?

The word for camel is a problem. It can be reconstructed solidly for Proto-Berber, and therefore is Pre-Arabic. But, the camel isn't native to North-Africa, and the word therefore would be expected to be a loanword. Since all the consonants to form camel (which is ultimately a semitic loanword) are there, you'd expect it to be either loaned from Latin or from Punic. But there simply isn't a way to account for the erratic metathesis (and in the case of latin, the absence of a -u/-us ending that we do find in afullus 'rooster' < pullus 'young animal' but in vulgar latin 'chicken, rooster'

So if it isn't a loanword, why does Proto-Berber have a word for an animal not native to North-Africa?

Well, when they were introduced to North-Africa, maybe the Proto-Berber speakers had some sort of animal that they considered similar, and decided to use a native word to denote camels, then the original animal either went extinct, or took on a new name of some other origin.

I can't find of a good example of this in a more familiar language right now. I'll be sure to pos tit up once I do.

[kato]

Well, I think that Classical Ar. has ġǝnǝm, but quite a few dialects have ġǝlǝm instead, and besides n~l metatheses and dis/assimilations are quite common in a several North African dialects, including ELA.

Your scenario makes sense, as one option. I would also add that even though the word can be reconstructed for Proto-Berber, it isn't required that Proto-Berber speakers have actually had that word. We can reconstruct the Old Iranian word for 'trap, snare', for example, but have no way of knowing if Old Iranian actually had such a word.

But I guess if nearly all the disparate Berber languages have a reflex for it, then it must be either your scenario, or a loanword in Proto-Berber. But from whom? So I think the case for your scenario might be stronger; given that it is Semitic as well, maybe we're looking at a very Proto word for groups of four-legged animals?

Lameen, ideas?

[Glen Gordon]

I noticed a typo: "and the ogre came, and they gave him the **mead** that they prepared". That must be the Celtic version, hehe.

Phoenix: "How would you account for the l~n?"

I don't want to encourage loose theories (you know me, I abhor unelaborate ideas) but the confusion of /l/ with /n/ is terribly common cross-linguistically and especially in loans. Even sporadic, irregular changes within a language can happen very easily though. A modern example is between Mandarin ni 'you' (你) and Cantonese lei 'you'. In fact the Cantonese dialects may also say it as nei depending on region, dialect, level of formality, etc. (http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/phorum/read.php?1,56835). An ancient example of a loan with this alternation: Hattic ḫanfašuit becomes Hittite ḫalmašuiz.

[Lameen]

tmúrt-i : remarkable dropping of the a - looks parallel to what Mitchell describes for nouns like "hand" in Zuara, where the prefix ə- appears in citation form but is dropped when a suffix is added.

ǝlmǝġġárǝt 'cave': wonder why the gemination?

ṣbaḥ-ǝ́nnǝs: rather "its morning/tomorrow", ie the next day

I rather like Adam's idea of relating alɣəm to ɣanam - the n to l change is certainly well-attested in this word. But the semantics and the transposition makes it rather speculative (aɣlam isn't nearly as widely attested, and isn't necessarily from the same origin anyway.) If so, it would certainly not be a loan from Punic - Punic changes *ɣ to ʕ. Kossmann makes it pretty clear that it's not a loan from Latin either, as convenient as that would be.

[PhoeniX]

Yeah as much as anyone would want to somehow explain the word for camel as a loan, it's pretty difficult to uphold.

If anyone wants to read more on this, the work Lameen is referring to is Maarten Kossmann 2005 Berber Loanwords in Hausa. This book has quite a significant chapter dedicated to the word for camel.

"ǝlmǝġġárǝt 'cave': wonder why the gemination?"

No idea, but the next part of the text that I'll put up shortly also has the form without gemination.