What is the Nilo-Saharan language family, and where is it proposed to be spoken?

The Nilo-Saharan languages constitute a proposed family of approximately 210 African languages, spoken by around 70 million people. Its proposed geographic distribution spans Central Africa, north-central Africa, and East Africa, primarily along the upper reaches of the Chari and Nile rivers, extending across 17 nations from Algeria to Tanzania.

Who first proposed the Nilo-Saharan family, and what was the basis for this classification?

Joseph Greenberg named and proposed the Nilo-Saharan family in his 1963 book, 'The Languages of Africa'. His classification was based on grouping together all African languages not already classified within the Niger-Congo, Afroasiatic, or Khoisan families, essentially creating a category for languages that didn't fit into the other major proposed families.

What criticisms have been leveled against the Nilo-Saharan classification?

The Nilo-Saharan proposal has faced criticism, with some linguists referring to it as a 'wastebasket taxon' for languages not affiliated with other major families. Publications like Glottolog (2013) do not recognize the unity of the Nilo-Saharan family or even its Eastern Sudanic branch, and other researchers like Georgiy Starostin and Tom Güldemann have also expressed doubts about its coherence based on current evidence.

What is a key proposed characteristic of the Nilo-Saharan languages regarding number systems?

A characteristic feature proposed for many constituent families of Nilo-Saharan is a tripartite number system, which includes singulative, collective, and plurative forms. Roger Blench suggests this may have originated from a noun-classifier system present in the protolanguage.

How might the geographic distribution of Nilo-Saharan languages relate to ancient environmental conditions?

The distribution of Nilo-Saharan languages might reflect ancient watercourses present during the African humid period, before the 4.2-kiloyear event. This period, when the Sahara was more habitable, could have facilitated the spread and diversification of these languages.

Which Nilo-Saharan languages are noted as having over a million speakers?

Several Nilo-Saharan languages are reported to have over a million speakers. These include Luo (Dholuo), Kanuri, Zarma, Teso, Nubian, Lugbara, Nandi-Markweta (Kalenjin), Lango, Dinka, Acholi, Nuer, Maasai, and Ngambay.

What is the estimated number of speakers for the Luo language?

The Luo language, also known as Dholuo, is spoken by approximately 4.4 million people, primarily the Luo people of Kenya and Tanzania.

Which language is associated with the area around Lake Chad and has a significant number of speakers?

The Kanuri language is spoken by around 4.0 million people across all its dialects, with an additional 0.7 million if Kanembu is included. It is the major language of the ethnic group living around Lake Chad.

Where are the Zarma language speakers primarily located?

Zarma speakers, numbering around 6 million, are spread along the Niger River in Niger and extend into Nigeria, particularly in the southern region of the historic Songhai Empire.

What is the significance of the Dinka language in South Sudan?

The Dinka language is spoken by approximately 1.4 million people and represents the major ethnic group of South Sudan, highlighting its cultural and demographic importance in the region.

Which Nilo-Saharan language is associated with the historic region of Nubia?

The Nubian languages, spoken by about 1.7 million people, are associated with the historic region of Nubia. These languages are found today in southern Egypt and northern Sudan, with many speakers having migrated north after the construction of the Aswan Dam.

What early written language is linked to the Nilo-Saharan family?

Old Nubian is identified as the earliest written language associated with the Nilo-Saharan family. It has been attested in written records from the 8th to the 15th century AD, making it one of the oldest written African languages.

What was Westermann's 'Niloto-Sudanic' proposal?

In 1912, Diedrich Westermann proposed 'Niloto-Sudanic,' which included three Central Sudanic families within his expanded concept of Nilotic languages. This proposal was later linked to Nubian, Kunama, and Berta, forming the basis for Greenberg's Macro-Sudanic (Chari-Nile) concept.

How did Greenberg's 'Chari-Nile' proposal evolve into the 'Nilo-Saharan' family?

Greenberg's 1954 'Macro-Sudanic' (later 'Chari-Nile') proposal linked previously recognized groups like Eastern Sudanic and Central Sudanic. In 1963, he expanded this by connecting Chari-Nile to Songhai, Saharan, Maban, Fur, and Koman-Gumuz, coining the term 'Nilo-Saharan' for the resulting proposed family.

What is the status of the Kadu languages' inclusion in the Nilo-Saharan family?

The inclusion of the Kadu languages within the Nilo-Saharan family is considered somewhat controversial. While commonly assumed to be Nilo-Saharan after it was determined they were not Niger-Congo, this classification remains debated among linguists.

What characteristic morphological element is proposed for Proto-Nilo-Saharan by Blench?

Roger Blench proposes that Proto-Nilo-Saharan possessed noun classifiers, which he believes evolved into the diverse range of prefixes, suffixes, and number marking found in its various branches today.

What are the main proposed branches of Nilo-Saharan according to Greenberg's 1963 classification?

According to Joseph Greenberg's 1963 classification, the Nilo-Saharan family included Koman, Saharan, Songhay, Fur, Maban, and the Chari-Nile core. The Chari-Nile core itself comprised Central Sudanic, Kunama, Berta, and Eastern Sudanic (which included Kuliak, Nubian, and Nilotic).

How did Lionel Bender revise Greenberg's classification in his 1989 and 1991 proposals?

Lionel Bender's revisions included grouping Fur and Maban into a Fur-Maban branch, adding Kadu to Nilo-Saharan, separating Gumuz from Koman, and positing Kunama as an independent branch. By 1991, he further refined the Chari-Nile group and coordinated Fur-Maban as its sister clade.

What was Christopher Ehret's novel classification of Nilo-Saharan, and what was its reception?

Christopher Ehret proposed a classification with two primary branches: Gumuz-Koman and a 'Sudanic' group. Songhay was nested within a core group, and Kadu was excluded. This classification was not widely accepted by other researchers.

What typological features are suggested as common to both Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan by Blench?

Roger Blench suggests that typological features common to both Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan include ATR vowel harmony, the presence of labial-velars like /kp/ and /gb/, noun-class affixes (e.g., ma- for mass nouns), verbal extensions, and plural verbs.

What is the status of the Shabo language's classification within Nilo-Saharan?

The Shabo language is considered Nilo-Saharan by some linguists, though it remains unclassified within the family due to insufficient data. Others, like Dimmendaal and Blench, based on more complete descriptions, consider it a language isolate.

What is the debate surrounding the Meroitic language's affiliation?

The extinct Meroitic language of ancient Kush is considered Nilo-Saharan by some linguists, such as Rille, Dimmendaal, and Blench. However, other scholars argue for an Afroasiatic affiliation, and the language is poorly attested, making definitive classification challenging.

What are the main differences between Bender's and Ehret's reconstructions of Proto-Nilo-Saharan phonology?

Bender's reconstruction of Proto-Nilo-Saharan phonology is considered more secure and based on more reliable data by some linguists, featuring a specific set of consonants including plosives, fricatives, liquids, and nasals. Ehret's reconstruction, conversely, is described as maximalist and less clear, with potential sounds criticized as possibly being allophonic variations rather than distinct phonemes.

What stable morphological elements does Dimmendaal cite across Nilo-Saharan languages?

Dimmendaal cites several stable morphological elements, including a causative prefix (*i-), a deverbal noun prefix (*a-), number suffixes (*-i, *-in, *-k), a reflexive marker (*rʊ), personal pronouns (*qa for 'I', *yi for 'you'), a logophoric pronoun (*(y)ɛ), deictic markers (*n, *k), postpositions (*ne for possessive, *ta for locative), a preposition (*kɪ), and a negative verb (*kʊ).

What is the proposed relationship between Saharan and Songhay languages according to Blench (2010)?

According to Blench's 2010 proposal, the Saharan and Songhay languages are considered to be closely related, with Songhay being the closest to Saharan. This relationship had not been previously suggested by other linguists.

What did Glottolog 4.0 (2019) conclude regarding the relatedness of various Nilo-Saharan branches?

Glottolog 4.0, in its assessment of the literature, does not accept that many proposed Nilo-Saharan branches are demonstrably related through current research. This includes Berta, Central Sudanic (with exceptions), Daju, Eastern Jebel, Furan, Gule, Gumuz, Kadugli-Krongo, Koman (with exceptions), Kresh-Aja, Kuliak, Kunama, Maban, Mimi-Gaudefroy, Nara, Nilotic, Nubian, Nyimang, Saharan, Songhai, Surmic, Tama, and Temein.

What external relationship proposal has been made concerning Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo?

Gregersen (1972) proposed grouping Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo together as 'Kongo-Saharan'. However, Blench (2011) suggests that the similarities are more likely due to contact, specifically that the noun-class system of Niger-Congo may have developed from or been influenced by the noun classifiers of Central Sudanic languages.

What is the 'Macro-Sudanic' proposal by Starostin (2017)?

Georgiy Starostin's 2017 'Macro-Sudanic' proposal posits a genetic relationship between Macro-East Sudanic and Macro-Central Sudanic, based on lexicostatistical analysis. This classification includes Central Sudanic, Kadu, Maban, and Eastern Sudanic as major components, alongside other families like Koman-Gumuz, Saharan, Kuliak, Songhay, and Shabo.

What are the key typological features cited by Dimmendaal (2016) as stable across Nilo-Saharan languages?

Dimmendaal highlights several stable typological features, including a tolerance for complex syllable structures, a higher degree of inflectional and derivational morphology (including cases), verb-final word order (SOV or OSV), coverb + light verb constructions, and the use of converbs.

What is the proposed primary split in Nilo-Saharan according to Blench (2023)?

Blench's 2023 model suggests a primary split between Koman-Gumuz and the rest of the Nilo-Saharan languages. Kunama and Berta are provisionally placed as the next to branch off, with their status being somewhat uncertain due to partial sharing of features that unite the remaining family members.

What is the significance of the 'Plateau' branch proposed by Blench (2015)?

Blench (2015) proposed a tentative, extinct branch named 'Plateau' to explain a possible Nilo-Saharan substrate in the Dogon and Bangime languages of Mali. This reflects an attempt to account for linguistic influences that don't fit neatly into established classifications.

Which languages are considered 'Core Nilo-Saharan' in Bender's 2000 classification?

In Bender's 2000 classification, the 'Core Nilo-Saharan' group includes Eastern Sudanic, Koman, Gumuz, and Kadu. Other branches like Songhay, Saharan, Kuliak, Maban, Fur, Berta, and Kunama are placed outside this core group.

What does the comparative vocabulary table reveal about potential cognates across Nilo-Saharan branches?

The comparative vocabulary table presents sample basic words like 'eye', 'ear', 'nose', and 'water' across various Nilo-Saharan branches, such as Nilotic, Jebel, Temein, Daju, Kadugli, Nara, Nubian, Taman, Surmic, Kuliak, Shabo, Koman, Maba, and Kanuri. This data is used by linguists to identify potential cognates and reconstruct the proto-language, though variations and loanwords can complicate comparisons.

What is the proposed relationship between Maban and Eastern Sudanic languages according to Blench (2021)?

By 2021, Roger Blench suggested that the Maban languages might be closely related to the Eastern Sudanic languages. This refinement indicates ongoing research into the internal structure and relationships within the proposed Nilo-Saharan family.

What is the status of the Mimi-D and Plateau languages in Starostin's 2016 analysis?

In his 2016 analysis, Georgiy Starostin did not consider the Mimi-D and Plateau languages. He had previously proposed Mimi-D as an isolate, despite slight similarities to Central Sudanic, and his work focused on lexicostatistical links between other established language families.

What are the main proposed divisions of the Nilo-Saharan family as listed in the 'Nilo-Saharan branches' navbox?

The navbox lists several proposed divisions: Ethiopia-Sudan border region (Berta, Bʼaga, Koman, Kuliak, Kunama, Ongota, Shabo), Sahel region (Furan, Kadu, Saharan, Songhay), Central Sudanic (including Birri, Bongo-Bagirmi, Kresh, Lendu, Mangbetu, Mangbutu-Lese, Moru-Madi, Sinyar), and Eastern Sudanic (with sub-groups like Daju, Eastern Jebel, Nara, Nilotic, Surmic, and 'Astaboran' which includes Nubian, Nyimang, Tama, Temein).

Nilo-saharan Languages Wiki: Echoes of the Nile: Charting the Nilo-Saharan Linguistic Tapestry

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Overview

Proposed Family

The Nilo-Saharan languages constitute a proposed language family comprising approximately 210 languages spoken by around 70 million individuals. These languages are primarily found across Central, North-Central, and East Africa, spanning 17 nations.

The family's proposed geographic distribution centers around the upper Chari and Nile river basins, historically encompassing regions like ancient Nubia.

Geographic Spread

The Nilo-Saharan linguistic domain extends from Algeria and Benin in the west, through central regions including Libya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to Egypt and Tanzania in the east. Eight of its proposed constituent divisions are concentrated in modern-day Sudan and South Sudan, areas through which the Nile River flows.

Historical Context

The concept of Nilo-Saharan was formalized by Joseph Greenberg in his 1963 work, The Languages of Africa. He proposed it as a genetic family encompassing languages not classified within Afroasiatic, Niger-Congo, or Khoisan families. While sometimes termed a "wastebasket taxon," the hypothesis remains a significant area of research, with ongoing debate and refinement among linguists.

Proposed Branches & Classifications

Greenberg's 1963 Framework

Joseph Greenberg's seminal classification established Nilo-Saharan with several branches, including a core "Chari-Nile" group, linked to Saharan, Songhay, Fur, Koman-Gumuz, and Maban languages. This framework laid the groundwork for subsequent research.

Greenberg's proposed structure included:

Nilo-Saharan

Koman (incl. Gumuz)

Saharan

Songhay

Fur

Maban

Chari–Nile

Central Sudanic

Kunama

Berta

	Eastern Sudanic (incl. Kuliak, Nubian, Nilotic)

Later Revisions & Debates

Subsequent linguists like Lionel Bender, Christopher Ehret, Roger Blench, and Georgiy Starostin have proposed various classifications, refining or challenging Greenberg's model. These revisions often involve re-grouping branches, adding or removing languages, and debating the validity of proposed macro-families.

Bender (1989, 1991, 1996): Expanded on Greenberg, adding Kadu, reclassifying Kuliak, and proposing nested clades within Chari-Nile.

Ehret (1989, 2001): Proposed a novel classification with two primary branches: Gumuz-Koman and a 'Sudanic' group, though this was not widely accepted.

Blench (2006, 2010, 2015, 2023): Explored the "Niger-Saharan" macrophylum linking Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan, and later refined internal Nilo-Saharan classifications, suggesting relationships between Saharan and Songhay, and Maban with Eastern Sudanic.

Starostin (2016, 2017): Employed lexicostatistics, suggesting ten distinct families within Nilo-Saharan and proposing a "Macro-Sudanic" grouping, while questioning the coherence of Greenberg's Nilo-Saharan.

Glottolog (2019): Currently does not recognize the Nilo-Saharan family or even some of its major branches as demonstrably related based on available evidence.

Challenges and Acceptance

The Nilo-Saharan hypothesis is considered challenging to prove due to the vast geographic spread, linguistic diversity, and the age of the proposed protolanguage, potentially dating back to the Upper Paleolithic. Many linguists remain skeptical, citing insufficient evidence for genetic unity across all proposed branches.

However, proponents argue that the hypothesis remains promising and that ongoing research, particularly in comparative reconstruction, continues to strengthen the case for certain internal relationships.

Historical Development

Early Recognition (Pre-Greenberg)

Linguistic connections in Africa were noted by scholars long before Greenberg. Heinrich Barth recognized the Saharan family (Kanuri, Tebu, Zaghawa) in 1853. Karl Richard Lepsius identified Nilotic languages in 1880. Friedrich Müller proposed links within Central Sudanic in 1889, and Diedrich Westermann later grouped Central Sudanic languages with Nilotic, forming "Niloto-Sudanic."

Greenberg's Synthesis (1963)

Joseph Greenberg's The Languages of Africa synthesized previous work, proposing the Nilo-Saharan family. He included languages not fitting into Afroasiatic, Niger-Congo, or Khoisan, creating a broad classification that included Chari-Nile, Saharan, Songhay, Maban, Fur, and Koman-Gumuz.

Modern Research & Debate

Linguists like Lionel Bender and Christopher Ehret further developed classifications, proposing detailed internal structures. Roger Blench explored potential links to Niger-Congo ("Niger-Saharan") and refined internal groupings. Georgiy Starostin utilized lexicostatistics to propose alternative relationships. Despite ongoing research, the Nilo-Saharan hypothesis remains a subject of considerable academic discussion and scrutiny.

Phonological Reconstructions

Reconstructive Challenges

Reconstructing Proto-Nilo-Saharan phonology is complex due to the family's vast diversity. Two prominent reconstructions exist: one by Lionel Bender and another by Christopher Ehret. These reconstructions differ significantly in their proposed inventory of sounds.

Bender's Reconstruction

Bender's reconstruction suggests a consonant system including plosives (voiced/voiceless, some aspirated/ejective), fricatives, nasals, liquids, and semivowels. He noted the presence of distinct coronal plosives and potential implosives, ejectives, and prenasalized consonants in core groups, though not universally reconstructible for the entire family.

		Labial	Coronal	Palatal	Velar
Plosive	Voiceless		t, t₂		k, kʲ
Plosive	Voiced	*b	d, d₂	*ɟ	*g
Fricative		*f	*s
Liquid			r, l	*r₂
Nasal		*m	*n		*ŋ
Semivowel		*w		*j

Ehret's Reconstruction

Christopher Ehret proposed a more maximalist system, including a wider range of plosives (implosives, ejectives, aspirates), fricatives, and complex approximants. Critics like Bender and Blench have noted that Ehret's correspondences are less clear, potentially indicating allophonic variation rather than distinct phonemes.

		Labial	Dental	Alveol.	Retrof.	Palatal	Velar	Glottal
Plosive	Implosive	*ɓ		*ɗ	*ɗ̣		*ɠ
	Voiced	*b	*d̪	*d	*ɖ		*g
	Voiceless	*p	*t̪	*t	*ʈ		*k
	Aspirate	*pʰ	*t̪ʰ	*tʰ	*ʈʰ		*kʰ
	Ejective	*pʼ	*t̪ʼ	*tʼ	*ʈʼ		*kʼ
Fricative			*θ	s, z	*ʂ
Nasal	Simple	*m		*n		*ɲ	*ŋ
Nasal	Prenasal	*ᵐb	*ⁿd̪	*ⁿd	*ⁿɖ		*ᵑg
Liquid			*l̪	*l
Approximant	Plain	*w				*j
Approximant	Complex	*wʲ				*jʷ		*h

Morphological Features

Stable Elements

Despite internal diversity, certain morphological elements are considered stable across Nilo-Saharan languages, suggesting shared ancestry. These include prefixes for causative verbs and abstract/agent nouns, number suffixes, and specific pronoun forms.

Key proposed Proto-Nilo-Saharan morphological markers include:

Causative prefix: *i-
Deverbal noun prefix: *a-
Number suffixes: *-i, *-in, *-k
Reflexive marker: *ru
Pronouns: 1st sg. *qa, 2nd sg. *yi
Logophoric pronoun: *(y)e
Deictic markers: sg. *n, pl. *k
Postpositions: possessive *ne, locative *ta
Preposition: *ki
Negative verb: *ku

Number Systems

A characteristic feature noted by Dimmendaal is a tripartite number system: singulative–collective–plurative. This is hypothesized to stem from a noun-classifier system in the protolanguage, which evolved into various affixal forms across daughter languages.

Comparative Vocabulary

Lexical Evidence

Comparative vocabulary provides crucial, albeit often debated, evidence for genetic relationships. Below is a sample of reconstructed and attested basic vocabulary across various Nilo-Saharan branches, illustrating lexical similarities and differences.

Note: In table cells with slashes, singular form is given before the slash, plural form follows.

Language	eye	ear	nose	tooth	tongue	mouth	blood	bone	tree	water	eat	name
Proto-Nilotic³¹	(k)ɔŋ, pl. (k)ɔr	*yit	*(q)ume	*kɛ-la(-c)	*ŋa-lyɔp	*(k)ɔtɔk		*kɛw	kɛ-bɛt, ki-yat	*pi(-r)	*ŋam	*ka-rɛn
Proto-Jebel³²	*ed ~ er	**si(di ~ gi)		**ŋi-di	**kala-d	**udu	**k-afa-d	**(g-)am-	**kaca	*cii ~ kii	**ŋam	(siigə, saag)
Temein³³	nɪ́ŋɪ̀ŋà / kɛ̀bɛ́n	wɛ̀nà / kwɛ̀ɛn	kɪ́mɪ́ŋà / kɛkɪ́mɪ́ŋà	awɪ̀s / kɛ̀bɛ́ʔ	mɛ́ŋàŋà	ɪ̀ŋk / k(w)ʊ̀ŋɪ̀ŋ	mɔ́nɪ̀ŋà	àmɪ̀ŋs / kɛ́ŋa	mɛ́ŋɛ́ŋɪ̀ŋs / mɛ́ŋɛ́ŋ	mʊ́ŋ	lama	kàlɪ́ŋ, kàlɪ́ŋ
Proto-Daju³⁴	aŋune / aŋwe ~ *aŋun	wunute / wunuge	*mu-ne	ŋiʒte / ŋiʒke	ŋabire / ŋabirta	ikke / ikku	*tamuke	ŋai / ŋayu	ewete / ewe	*ma-	*si-	ange / angu
Kadugli (Talla)³⁵	ayyɛ / iyyɛ	naasɔ / isinɛ́	ámb-/nigáŋárɔk	tɔ- / ibbini	ádáʔuk / ni-	niinɔ / niginíínɔ	ariidɔ	tɔ́ŋguba / kuba	ffa / nááfa	ʃiidɔ	oori	ɛ́brɛ́ / nigirɛ́ŋɛ́
Proto-NES³⁶	*maŋ	*ŋog-ul	*em-u	*ŋes-il	*ŋal	ag-il ~ ag-ul	*ug-er	*kɛs-ɛr	*koŋ-er-	*mban	kal- / kamb-	*ŋɛr-i
Nara³⁶	no, nɔɔ / no-ta, nɔɔ-ta	tús / túsá	demmo, dɛmmo, dàmɛmɔ, dɔmmɔ	nɪ́hɪ́ / nɪ́hɪ́-ta; nɛ́ʃɪ́ / nɛ́ʃá	haggá, ággá, àdà, hadá	àŋlɔ / àŋl-lá; ágúrá / ágúrá-ta	kitto, kɛti	ketti, kɛti, kɛ́tíbɛ / ketta, kɛ́tɛ́	túm, tʊm; kɛ́l	ɛ́mbá, mbáá	kal, kál, kár	ade, ààdá
Proto-Nubian³⁶	maaŋ, sg. miŋ-di	ugul(-e), sg. ugul-di	?	ŋil, sg. ŋɪ́l-di	*ŋal, sg. ŋal-di	*agil	*ug-er	kiser, sg. kisir-ti	koor, sg. koor-ti	*es-ti	*kal-	*ɛr-i
Proto-Taman³⁶	me-ti, pl. mVŋ	*ŋusu-ti (sg)	*eme, sg. emi-ti (sg.)	ŋesi-t(i), pl. ŋes-oŋ	*laat	*auli	*agi	kei-ti, pl. kei-ŋ	gaan; kiŋɛ(-ti) (?)	kal /kaal	*ŋan-	ŋaat, pl. ŋari-g
Proto-Nyimang³⁶	*aŋV	*ŋɔŋɔr-	*(o)mudɔ- (?)	*ŋil-	?	*ŋabɛl	*wule	*amV	*tɔuma	*bɔŋ	sál- / sam-
Proto-SW Surmic³⁷	*kɛɓɛrɛ (pl.)	*itɔtɔɔt	*ŋɔŋɔtɔ (?)	*ŋiggadda	*ŋɛŋɛŋɛt	*(k)-ɔtɔɔk	*ɓɔŋ-	*ɛmmɛ	*kɛdɔ (?)	*ma	*ŋak-	*sara
Proto-SE Surmic³⁷	*kabari	*ŋabi (?)	*giroŋ	*ŋigidda (?)	*kat	*tuk-	*ŋaɓa	*giga (?)	*kɛdɔ (?)	*ma		*sara
Proto-Kuliak³⁸	ekw, pl. ekw=ɛk	beos, pl. beosɛk	nyab, pl. nyabɛk		*ŋɛ-ɛŋ	ak, pl. akɛk	*seh	*ŋɔk	ad, pl. ad=is	*kywɛh		yed, pl. yedɛk
Shabo³⁹	sɛ	kʼiti	sona	kʼɔu	hɔndɔ	kɔusɛ	dɔmo	ɛmɔhɔ; egege	kʼɔnɔ	wɔɔ		woŋɔse
Ongota⁴⁰	ˈʔaɪfa	ˈwɔɪwa	siŋa (loan?)	ʔitiˈma	ʔadabo (loan?)	ˈʔiɪfa		ˈmitʃa (loan?)	ˈhɔntʃa	tʃaɪha	wɔɪ	miʃa
Proto-Sara-Bongo-Bagirmi⁴¹	kamɔ; kamu; *kama	imbi; EmbE; mbili; mbElE; imbil-; EmbEl-	Samɔ; Samu; Somu; kanu; kunu; kVnV	kanga; nganga	*unɛ(C-)	*tara	manga; masu; mVsV; nɛuma	Kinga; Kunga; *Kingo	*kaga	mEnE; mAnɛ; *mani	Oŋɔ; ɔŋɔ; *VŋV	idi; wV
Proto-Mangbetu⁴²	*mɓɔ̀mɔ̀	*bɪ́	*amɔ̀mɔ̀	*kɪ́	*kàŋàrà	*tɪ́(kpɔ̀mɔ̀)	*áli	*kpɔ̀mɔ̀	*kɪ́rɪ́ɓɛ̀mɔ̀	*gɓɔ̀	*lɔŋɔ̀mɔ̀	*kɛ̀mɔ̀lɔ̀mɔ̀
Mangbutu⁴³	owɛ́kɛ́kí	ubí	tongi	usɛ́	kedrɔ́	utí	koto	ikpi	okpɔ́	uwɛ́	ano	aŋɛ́
Bale (Lendu)⁴³	ŋɔ́ɔ́	bɪ́	ndʊ́ntʊ́	kú	da	tso	zú	kpá	tsú	cú	wɔ́	ŋgbá / nzú
Ndru⁴³	nikpɔ́	ɓi(na)	ondʊ́ntsʊ́	ku	da	tsu	ázú	kpá	kpikpi	ʊyʊ́	l-úk(ic)	ɔ́vɔ́ŋá
Ma'di⁴⁴	mɪ́	bɪ́	ɔ̀mʊ̀mɔ́	sɪ́	lɛ́ŋɛ́	tí	árí	hɓa	kɓɛ́	ɛ́yɪ́	ŋá	rɔ́
Birri⁴⁵	mɛ́; mɓú	nvɔ́; nvu	ímɔ̀mɔ̀; ámɔ̀mɔ̀	sɪ́	ɪ́nɛ́ŋɔ́; ɪ́nɛ́ŋá	tyi(di)	ɔ́ɔ́	kpɔ́	kpi; kpɪ́	wu	ɔŋɔ	iri
Kresh⁴⁶	mumu	mbɪmbi	uŋú	ʃɛ́ʃɛ́	ndjindji	–	srama	kpɔkpɔ́	kpikpi	ʊyʊ́	l-úk(ic)	dɪ́ri
Dongo⁴⁶	mɔ́mu	mbimbi	uŋú	cɛ́ɛ́	ndjindji	–	ɔ́ɔ́s	kpɔkpɔ́	kpikpi	ʊyʊ́	l-úk(ic)	dɪ́ri
Aja⁴⁶	iŋi	mimbi	múmú	uku	ndindji	–	usa	gbɛbɪ́	cɪ́cɪ́	ɓaɓa	aŋ	kiri
Kunama⁴⁷	wá	úkúná	bɔ́bɔ́ná	má	ŋbɛɛlá	ú dá	kɔ́kɔ́bá	sáŋgɔ́	ɛ́lá	bɪ́á	íŋ(à)	kíidá
Berta⁴⁸	aŋɛ́	iile	amúŋ	ndu-fuudí	hala	n'du	kʼaɓa	kʼaara	sʼísʼía	fɪ́ʔri	θɪ́ŋba	huu (= foot)
Gumuz (Northern)⁴⁹	kʼwáá	tsɛ́á	ííta	kʼósa	kʼótá	sa	maʧá	gákwá	gá	aja	sá	tsɛ́á
Proto-Koman²⁸	*Dɔɛ	*cɛ́	*ʃɔnʃ	*ʃɛ	*lɛtʃaa	*tʃawa	ʃáŋ; báʃ	*ʃUImakʼ	*cwálá	*jiŋɛ	ʃa; kʼama	*Dɔuga
Gule⁵⁰	yan	igʊ́n	fufan		adad ayan	ɪ́ten				ai
Gule⁵¹	yan	igɔ́n	fufan		adad ayan	ɪ́ten				ai
Amdang⁵²	ni	dili, kiliŋɛ́	gárna	kalká	dɔlɛ́	sɪ́mi	tʃɔ́ɛ́	dártu	sɔŋ	sunu	zɛm	tʃɔluk
Proto-Maba⁵³	*kaʃi-k		*dʊrmi	sati-k; sadi-k / *sadi-ŋi	*delemi-k		*fári-ŋ			ta-k / ta-si	*-aŋɔ-	*mílí-ik
Maba⁵⁴	kaʃi-k/-ŋi	koi-k	boiŋ	sati-k	delmi-k	kan-a/-tu	árí	kaŋji-k	soŋgo-k	inji	aŋ	mílí-i/-si
Mimi of Decorse⁵⁵	dyo	fɛɛ	fir	ŋain		ŋyo			su	ɛŋi	ŋyam
Kanuri⁵⁶	ʃɛ́ɛm	sɛ́mɔ́	kɛ́nza	tɪ́mɪ́; ʃɛ́lɪ́	tɛ́lám	cɪ́	bú	ʃɪ́lla	kɛ́ská	njí	bú	cú
Zaghawa⁵⁷⁵⁸	í	kʊ́bɛ́	sɪ́na	márgɔ́	támsɔ́	áá	ɔ́gú	úru	bɛ́gidi	bɪ́	sɛ́gɪ́	tɪ́r
Dendi⁵⁹	mɔ́	haŋŋá	nɪ́nɛ̀	hɪ́nydɛ̀	dɛ́lɛ̀	mɛ́ɛ̀	kpɪ́rɪ́	bɪ́rɪ́	túúri	háárí	ɔ́wáá	máán
Tadaksahak⁶⁰	mɔ́	haŋgá	t-í-ŋnar	ɛ́-ʃan	ɪ́lɗɔ́	míya	kud-ɛ́n	biidí	tugadu	aryɛ́n	ɔ́ŋá	mâŋ

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Nilo-saharan Languages" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about nilo-saharan_languages while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

army medical department united states

xii corps united kingdom

charles de ath

amar preet singh

References

Diedrich Westermann, 1912. The Shilluk people, their language and folklore

Blench, Roger. 2023. In defence of Nilo-Saharan.

Otero, Manuel Alejandro. 2019. A Historical Reconstruction of the Koman Language Family. Doctoral thesis. Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.

Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan. 1988. "The lexical reconstruction of proto-Nilotic: a first reconnaissance." Afrikanistische (AAP) 16: 5â67.

Bender, M. Lionel. 1998. "The Eastern Jebel Languages of Sudan." Afrika und Ãbersee 81: 39â64.

Thelwall, Robin. 1981. The Daju Language Group. Doctoral dissertation. Coleraine: New University of Ulster.

Schadeberg, Thilo. 1994. Comparative Kadu Wordlists. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 40:11â48. University of Cologne.

Yigezu, Moges. 2001. A comparative study of the phonetics and phonology of Surmic languages. Bruxelles: UniversitÃ© libre de Bruxelles. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bruxelles.

Heine, Bernd. 1976. The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda. Nairobi: East African Publishing House.

Jordan, Linda, Hussein Mohammed, and Jillian Netzley. 2015. Sociolinguistic Survey of the Shabo of Ethiopia. SIL Electronic Survey Report 2015-019. SIL International.

Demolin, Didier. 1992. Le Mangbetu: etude phonÃ©tique et phonologique, 2 vols. Brussels: FacultÃ© de Philosophie et Lettres, UniversitÃ© libre de Bruxelles dissertation.

Bokula, Moiso & Agozia-Kario Irumu. 1994. Bibliographie et matÃ©riaux lexicaux des langues Moru-Mangbetu (Soudan-Central, ZaÃ¯re). Annales Aequatoria 10: 203â245.

Santandrea, Stefano. 1966. The Birri language: Brief elementary notes. Afrika und Ãbersee 49: 81â234.

Santandrea, Stefano. 1976. The Kresh group, Aja and Baka languages (Sudan): A linguistic contribution. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Bender, Lionel. 2001. English-Kunama lexicon. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 65: 201â253.

Bender, M. Lionel. 1989. Berta Lexicon. In Bender, M. Lionel (ed.), Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics, 271â304. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. 1932. Ethnological Observations in Dar Fung. Sudan Notes and Records 15: 1â61.

Seligmann, Brenda Z. 1911â1912. Note on Two Languages in the Sennar Province of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Zeitschrift fÃ¼r Kolonialsprachen 2: 297â308.

Edgar, John T. 1991. Maba-group Lexicon. (Sprache und OralitÃ¤t in Afrika: Frankfurter Studien zur Afrikanistik, 13.) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Maurice. 1907. Document sur les Langues de l'Oubangui-Chari. In Actes du XVIe CongrÃ¨s International des Orientalistes, Alger, 1905, Part II, 172â330. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Tourneux, Henry. 1992. Inventaire phonologiques et formation du pluriel en zaghawa (Tchad). Afrika und Ãbersee 75, 267â277.

Zima, Petr. 1994. Lexique dendi (songhay): Djougou, BÃ©nin: avec un index franÃ§ais-dendi. (Westafrikanische Studien 4). KÃ¶ln: RÃ¼diger KÃ¶ppe.

Christiansen-Bolli, Regula. 2010. A Grammar of Tadaksahak: a Northern Songhay Language of Mali. Leiden.

A full list of references for this article are available at the Nilo-Saharan languages Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer

Important Notice for Scholars

This document was generated by an AI language model, synthesizing information from publicly available academic sources, primarily Wikipedia. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and adherence to scholarly standards, the content is intended for educational and informational purposes at a postgraduate level.

This is not a substitute for primary linguistic research or peer-reviewed publication. The proposed nature of the Nilo-Saharan family and the ongoing debates surrounding its validity and internal structure mean that interpretations and classifications presented here reflect current academic discourse but may evolve. Users are strongly encouraged to consult original research papers and engage with primary linguistic data for a comprehensive understanding.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any interpretations, omissions, or actions taken based on the information provided herein. Always cross-reference with authoritative linguistic databases and scholarly works.

Echoes of the Nile

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Overview 🌍

🗣️ Proposed Family

🗺️ Geographic Spread

📜 Historical Context

Proposed Branches & Classifications 🌳

🏛️ Greenberg's 1963 Framework

⚖️ Later Revisions & Debates

⚠️ Challenges and Acceptance

Historical Development 📜

⏳ Early Recognition (Pre-Greenberg)

🚀 Greenberg's Synthesis (1963)

🔬 Modern Research & Debate

Phonological Reconstructions 🔊

🤔 Reconstructive Challenges

📊 Bender's Reconstruction

🔬 Ehret's Reconstruction

Morphological Features ⚙️

🧩 Stable Elements

🔄 Number Systems

Comparative Vocabulary 📚

↔️ Lexical Evidence

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice for Scholars

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Overview

Proposed Family

Geographic Spread

Historical Context

Proposed Branches & Classifications

Greenberg's 1963 Framework

Later Revisions & Debates

Challenges and Acceptance

Historical Development

Early Recognition (Pre-Greenberg)

Greenberg's Synthesis (1963)

Modern Research & Debate

Phonological Reconstructions

Reconstructive Challenges

Bender's Reconstruction

Ehret's Reconstruction

Morphological Features

Stable Elements

Number Systems

Comparative Vocabulary

Lexical Evidence

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Academic Disclaimer

Important Notice for Scholars