When number meets classification: The linguistic expression of number in Baïnounk languages

This is a contribution from Number – Constructions and Semantics. Case studies from Africa, Amazonia, India and Oceania. Edited by Anne Storch and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal.© 2014. John Benjamins Publishing Company

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

© 2014. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

chapter viii

When number meets classification

The linguistic expression of number in Baïnounk languages

Alexander Cobbinah & Friederike LüpkeSOAS, University of London Department of Linguistics

This paper presents an account of number marking in two Baïnounk languages, Gubëeher and Gujaher, also taking data from the Baïnounk language Guñaamolo into account. Number distinctions in these languages are coded epiphenominally through the paradigmatic relationships and combinatorial semantics of prefixes and roots within the nominal classification system. In addition, number can be marked through a dedicated plural suffix of the form -Vŋ. In line with observations made for Bantu and other Atlantic languages, we analyse number marking within the noun class system (and, to some extent also through the number suffix) as derivational, not inflectional. Additionally, we demonstrate that number values do not reside in noun class prefixes themselves, but arise through the paradigmatic relationships holding between prefix and root and between prefix-root combinations in a paradigm. This account goes against a widespread analytical template of assigning singular and plural values to prefixes and assuming number correspondences between them.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Baïnounk languages

The Baïnounk languages are a cluster of closely related languages spoken in the Casa-mance area of Senegal (West Africa). Detailed information on the languages, their distribution, alternative language names, and previous linguistic research on them can be found in Cobbinah (2010, 2013) and Lüpke (2010). Baïnounk languages belong to the Nyun cluster of Atlantic, which is an areal grouping of languages in a highly multilingual area with intense and longstanding language contact, in which only locally circumscribed clusters of languages such as the Nyun-cluster can be clearly genetically motivated (see Lüpke (forthcoming) for an overview).


Alexander Cobbinah & Friederike Lüpke

In this paper we present the results of our research on three Baïnounk languages: Baïnounk Gubëeher1 (GB conducted by Alexander Cobbinah), Baïnounk Gujaher (GJ conducted by Friederike Lüpke) and Baïnounk Guñaamolo (GN conducted by both authors).2 Our analysis is mainly based on data from Gubëeher and Gujaher, because fieldwork on Guñaamolo was curtailed due to security concerns. Neverthe-less, we occasionally include this Baïnounk language in our discussion, because previ-ous research by Serge Sauvageot (Sauvageot 1967; Sauvageot 1987a; Sauvageot 1987b) suggests scenarios for the development of innovative number marking outside the nominal classification system, a development also attested in Gubëeher and Gujaher. These three Baïnounk languages are spoken in the Lower Casamance, in the region of Ziguinchor, in areas not contiguous to each other: Gubëeher is spoken in only one village, Djibonker, situated ca. 15km west of Ziguinchor. In Gubëeher, the name of the village is Jibëeher, which makes the link between toponym and linguanym transparent: Gu-bëeher is (one of) the language(s) of Ji-bëeher. Gujaher, the second Baïnounk lan-guage included, is spoken in a vast territory to the east and north-east of Ziguinchor, stretching into neighbouring Guinea Bissau. Although the name also appears to follow a localist formula, as testified by the gu- prefix, no clear local reference for jaher can be established. Guñaamolo, spoken to the north of Ziguinchor, in the vicinity of Bignona, in Niamone (Ñamol in this Baïnounk language) and a handful of hamlets that are part of this communauté rurale, is clearly recognisable as Gu-ñaamol-o, the language of Ñamol (-o being the definite suffix particular to this Baïnounk variety). While Baïnounk languages clearly have common ancestry and remain very close in many areas of grammar and lexicon, in particular regarding the nominal classification

1. In our rendition of examples in Baïnounk languages we employ the official alphabet for Senegalese languages and follow the conventions of the Baïnounk orthography developed by the Baïnounk lobby group BOREPAB (Bureau d’Organisation, de Recherches, et d’Études sur le Patrimoine Baïnunck). See Lüpke (2011) for a description of these conventions and the correspondences of graphemes with IPA symbols. The linguanyms adopted by us were agreed upon in a meeting with representatives from the three language areas covered and Baïnounk representatives.

. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme (ELDP) for preliminary research on Guñaamolo by Friederike Lüpke and of the Sénélangues project of the French Agence Nationale pour la Recherche, for research on Guñaamolo by Alexander Cobbinah, and of the DoBeS Programme of the VW Foundation in funding the documentation project “Pots, plants and people, a documentation of Baïnounk knowledge systems”, led by Friederike Lüpke. Within this project, she collected data on Gujaher, while Alexander Cobbinah carried out his Ph.D. research on nominal classification and verbal nouns in Gubëeher and collected documentary data on this Baïnounk language. We would like to thank the audiences at the Surrey Morphology Group and the Number Workshop in Cologne in September 2011 where we presented precursors of the analyses con-tained in this paper for their inspiring comments.


When number meets classification 1

system, there is little mutual intelligibility beyond the comprehension of isolated cognate words between the different Baïnounk languages. Their speakers resort to a number of languages of wider communication – French, Wolof, Portuguese Creole, Mandinka, or one of the Joola languages – to converse with each other.

1. Introduction to noun class and number in Baïnounk languages

All Baïnounk languages have an extensive classification system3 in which nouns and non-finite verb forms are classified according to a number of semantic parameters. Some of these parameters pertain to the count-mass distinction and hence are similar to number distinctions, albeit different from number in a number of crucial aspects. In addition, the languages exhibit a suffix of the phonological shape -Vŋ – the vowel qual-ity being determined by vowel harmony with the final vowel of the preceding stem – that only encodes plural.

Noun class prefixes in Baïnounk languages occur in a number of paradigms. The size of the paradigm and the individual prefixes involved depend on semantic parameters of the bases they combine with. The smallest paradigms consist of only one prefix, as exemplified in (1):

(1) muŋ-xana cl.mun-oil ‘oil’ GJ, ANM elicitations4

Paired prefixed paradigms are very common and illustrated in (2).

(2) a. të-bën cl.ta-cloth ‘piece of indigo cloth’ b. jë-bën cl.ja-cloth ‘pieces of indigo cloth’ GJ, ANM elicitations

. Contrary to the convention in the treatment of noun classes in other African languages, most notably those of the Bantu family, but also those of other Atlantic languages, we do not number noun class prefixes since in the case of the Baïnounk languages such a numbering would be arbitrary in the absence of any historical basis. Furthermore, the paradigmatic approach of noun class adopted in the analysis is not compatible with the identification of a form with a numbered prefix, given that its function depends on the place in a paradigm. For those prefixes which participate in several paradigms this would raise exactly the methodological problems regarding polysemy and homophony of prefixes which are sought to be made irrelevant by assuming the paradigm as the basic unit of analysis.

. Groups of letters in sources for examples represent the initials of the speaker who pro-vided the example.



Paradigms consisting of three prefixes are the largest ones attested so far:

(3) a. di-kaju cl.di-cashew ‘cashew nuts’ (unlimited plural) b. bu-kaju cl.bu-cashew ‘cashew nut’ c. i-kaju cl.i-cashew ‘(several) cashew nuts’ GJ, ANM elicitations

Prefixes can enter different monadic, dyadic or triadic paradigms; and roots can enter more than one paradigm. The prefix bu-, appearing in (3) above as a member of the triad di-/bu-/i- productive for nouns denoting fruit in Baïnounk languages can also feature in a dyad – as in (4) – or monad (5):

(4) a. bu-dux cl.bu-pot ‘pot’ b. i-dux cl.i-pot ‘pots’ GJ, ANM elicitations

(5) bu-nëg cl.bu-sun ‘sun’ GJ, ANM elicitations

The root kaju ‘cashew’ introduced above in the fruit-paradigm (3) can also occur with the dyadic paradigm ci-/mun- in Gujaher (6), and then denote the tree in singular and plural: Cobbinah (2013) coins the term “paradigmatic network” for the totality of paradigms occurring with one root.

(6) a. ci-kaju cl.ci-cashew ‘cashew tree’ b. muŋ-kaju cl.mun-cashew ‘cashew trees’ GJ, ANM elicitations

The paradigms can be semantically related; the ones presented in (3) to (5) for instance, all contain nouns denoting circular items. The size of the different paradigms is then based on the configurations in which these nouns are construed to appear, and on whether they are perceived as countable or not. In addition, some networks are productively linked, such as the tree paradigm in (6) to the fruit paradigm in (3). In particular the paradigms



and paradigmatic networks of the botanical domain have large numbers of members, as typical for classification systems (Berlin 1977). Others contain only a few items, mak-ing it difficult to judge their productivity. There are slight differences in the forms and meanings of the 40-odd prefixes and the paradigms they enter across the languages, and a comparative overview of the language-individual paradigms is beyond the scope of this paper, in particular since research on two of the three languages is still in progress. Therefore, the reader is referred to Cobbinah (2013) for a detailed account of nominal classification in Gubëeher. Here, we limit ourselves to those features of the classification systems that are relevant for an understanding of number marking.

In all Baïnounk languages there is agreement within the noun phrase: numerals and stative verbs in attributive function have prefixed agreement markers (7); demon-stratives occur with suffixed agreement markers (8).

(7) bu-han bu-duka bu-de cl.bu-related.to.medicine agr.bu-one agr.bu-be.big ‘one big medicine jar’ GJ, elicitations

(8) bu-han im-bu cl.bu-related to medicine dem.prox-agr.bu ‘this medicine jar’ GJ, elicitations

It has become apparent from the nature of the meanings expressed in dyadic and triadic paradigms that number distinctions are at least partly encoded within the clas-sification system. In addition to expressing number values through the paradigmatic relationships of members of a paradigm, a large number of nouns in all Baïnounk lan-guages is situated at least partly outside the classification system. For these nouns, two types are attested: One group of nouns is prefixed (as evidenced through alliterative agreement), and is pluralised by means of a suffix with the phonological shape -Vŋ, as shown in examples (9) and (10).5

(9) ka-maafi ka-duka ka-de cl.ka-fish agr.ka-fish agr.ka-be.big ‘a/the big fish’ GJ, elicitations

(10) ka-maafi-eŋ ka-naak-aŋ ka-de-eŋ cl.ka-fish-pl agr.ka-two-pl agr.ka-be.big.-pl ‘two big fish’ GJ, elicitations

. Ka- in Gujaher is most likely the result of the fusion of two markers that are still attested as separate prefixes in the other two Baïnounk languages: ko-, in a dyadic paradigm with ño-, has diminutive semantics. Ka- is widespread in Joola languages and very likely borrowed into Baïnounk. In Gujaher, it has no paired form and is ambiguous between diminutive semantics and opaque meaning, probably due to the high concentration of loanwords from Joola lan-guages and from other contact languages.



The second group of nouns does not exhibit any noun class prefix altogether and contrasts a zero-marked singular form (11), which triggers non-alliterative agreement, with a suffixed plural form (12).

(11) siibo a-duka a-de cat agr.a-one agr.a-big ‘a/the big cat’ GJ, ANM elicitations

(12) siib-oŋ a-naak-aŋ a-de-eŋ cats-pl agr.a-two-pl agr.a-big.-pl ‘two big cats’ GJ, ANM elicitations

In Section 2, the interaction of both sets of devices – class prefixes in paradigms of varying size and the plural suffix – is explored. We start by investigating the expres-sion of number in the nominal domain in Section 2.1. We discuss the properties and possible origin of the number suffix in Section 2.2, where we present a scenario for the spread of the plural suffix and its interaction with prefixed paradigms. In Section 3 we discuss a number of issues that have been raised in accounts of number in the nominal classification systems of the better known Bantu languages, and which we consider of relevance for Baïnounk languages as well. These issues comprise the question of markedness of members of noun paradigms, and of the derivational nature of some or all noun class markers. The issue of derivation is tightly connected with the issue of word class in Baïnounk languages, as we elaborate in Section 4. In Section 5 we present our conclusion, a preliminary call for a unified account of number marking and clas-sification in Baïnounk languages that is insensitive to the issue of word class, which appears to play a marginal role, if any, in these and other Atlantic languages.

. Two ways of expressing number

In this section, we will investigate how number is encoded either through noun class prefixes or through a plural suffix, and how both systems interact.

.1 Number in the nominal classification system

Within the noun class system, number distinctions are epiphenomenally expressed through the paradigmatic relationships of prefixes in a paradigm. In dyadic prefixed paradigms, singular and plural can be said to be encoded by way of the prefixes, though not independently of noun class as in (13a) and (13b).

(13) a. si-lód cl.si-wall ‘wall’



b. mú-lód cl.mun-wall ‘walls’ GB, elicitations

Apart from the singular/plural paradigms, nouns denoting countable entities also occur in triads with up to two plural forms. This pattern is widespread in the domains of plants, fruits, animals, in particular all insects, as well as some other nouns designating small items which often occur in large numbers, as shown in examples (14) – (16).6

(14) a. ba-fudd ‘grains of maize/cobs of maize/maize plants’ (unlimited plural)

b. gu-fudd ‘grain of maize/maize plant’ (singular) c. ha-fudd ‘grains of maize/maize plants’ (count plural) GB, elicitations

(15) a. ja-lihan ‘wood’ (unlimited plural) b. gu-lihan ‘stick’ (singular) c. ha-lihan ‘sticks’ (count plural) GB, elicitations

(16) a. di-maŋgu ‘mangos’ (unlimited plural) b. bu-maŋgu ‘mango’ (singular) c. i-maŋgu ‘mangos’ (count plural) GB, elicitations

The count vs. collective/unlimited plural distinction clearly requires further research, as the analysis of the exact function of these forms is so far only in its beginnings. The ‘count’ plural has got its name from the fact that it is the form mainly used when counting items, though it has not been determined whether there is an upper limit for numerals to be used with the count plural. In elicitation, numbers lower than five have always been used. These count-plural forms however do indeed express a ‘limited’ plu-ral, as this form has been called by Sauvageot (Sauvageot 1967) for Guñaamolo: when not modified by a numeral, the interpretation in this case is that of ‘some items of X’. Examples (17) and (18), both featuring count plurals, were obtained as translations of the French clauses ‘donne-moi quelques mangues’ et ‘donne-moi quelques atons’ respectively.

(17) u-në′-t-ëm i-maŋgu 2-give-ven-1sg.obj cl.i-mango ‘Give me some mangos’ GB, field notes

. The paradigm types are fairly robust across Baïnounk languages, even if the lexical stems and/or prefixes are unrelated. Compare Gujaher di-baab/gu-baab/ha-baab for ‘maize’ with the Gubëeher forms in (14). The paradigm is triadic, just as the paradigms with identical noun class prefixes and identical – (16) – or cognate – (15) – stems in Gubëeher, cf. Gujaher- cf. ‘mango’ di-mango/bu-mango/i-mango and ‘stick’ ja-ligen/gu-ligen/ha-ligen.



(18) u-në′-t-ëm ha-lihan 2-give-ven-1sg.obj cl.ha-stick ‘Give me some sticks’ GB, field notes

The co-members of paradigms are unmarked in relation to each other, which makes it impossible to assume any one member of a pair or triad as basic and the others as derived on purely formal grounds. Instead it seems more adequate to consider them all as equipollent for lack of evidence or, possibly, resort to semantic criteria like marked-ness and salience in terms of frequency of usage and occurrence as citation form. For instance, it appears that even in paradigm elicitations based on translation equivalents, for many triadic paradigms, it is always the collective/unlimited form that is given first, although the form provided in the metalanguage French is in the singular. However, in the absence of more quantitative data, this observation must remain inconclusive.

A large number of non-countable nouns occur in monadic paradigms as ‘one-class nouns’. This group comprises e.g. abstract nouns, mass nouns or verbal nouns which do not distinguish number. Almost all noun class markers can occur with one-class nouns. A noun like gu-leeñ ‘blood’ in Gubëeher – mu’-leen in Gujaher – is neither singular nor plural, so referring to gu- or mun- respectively as a singular class marker makes only sense for items that occur in paired paradigms which actually express a number distinction in the first place.

The observations made above give rise to two fundamental questions. First, is number as expressed in the noun class system a derivational or an inflectional category? Secondly, what is the semantic relationship between the nouns in a noun class paradigm? These questions are discussed for Swahili and other Bantu languages by Schadeberg (2001), Crisma, Marten, and Sybesma (2011), and Hendrikse (2001), who have all questioned the inflectional status of number in various Bantu languages. Compare Crisma, Marten, and Sybesma (2011: 257) on number in Swahili:

As noted earlier, some classes appear as singular-plural pairs. This can be explained as a grammatical-inflectional relationship involving the grammatical category of number, or, alternatively, as a lexical-derivational relationship involving semantic notions of individuals and groups, while in terms of grammatical category, class, rather than number, is the relevant feature.

It is questioned whether number values can be attributed to specific class markers, constituting allomorphs of singular/plural inflection combined with noun class mor-phology in a portmanteau way which form regular paradigms. The coexistence of numerous one-class nouns prefixed with noun class markers which mark singular and plural forms is particularly revealing in this context, since one-class nouns do not distinguish number and an analysis of the prefixes as being specified for singular or plural in these cases is questionable. Taking into account data which exhibits discrep-ancies between noun class and agreement marking of animates and number marking,



Schadeberg (2001) comes to the conclusion that number marking in Swahili is epi-phenomenal in relation to noun class marking and can therefore not be considered an inflectional feature. Schadeberg (2001) and Hendrikse (2001) point out another prob-lematic issue conflicting with an analysis of number in Bantu noun class languages as inflectional – the existence of singular/plural relationships which are considered ‘irregular’ i.e. ‘deviating’ from the singular plural pairings defined as the ‘normal’ paradigms, as in (19).

(19) nku ‘sheep (sg.)’ linku ‘sheep (pl.)’ manku ‘flocks of sheep’ Sotho, Hendrikse (2001: 206)

Examples like this show that the noun class morphology encodes parameters “which are far more complex than a simple singular-plural dichotomy” (Hendrikse 2001: 205) and which can be shown to be encoded at the level of the paradigm and not of the sin-gle noun class prefix, which again contradicts an analysis of number in terms of inflec-tional category conveyed by isolated noun class prefixes. All of the addressed issues causing problems for an inflectional analysis of number in Bantu languages, are also relevant for Baïnounk languages. In addition, Baïnounk languages also show produc-tive three-way distinctions in triadic paradigms, as opposed to the (at least traditionally assumed) two-way number distinction encapsulated in Bantu ‘singular-plural’ para-digms. It is obvious that in Baïnounk languages, the number value and semantic speci-ficity vs. generality of a stem consisting of a prefix plus root depends on the type of paradigm it is part of and its place within the paradigm, and not on any fixed number value of the prefix. Compare also Kihm (2005:470) on the use of class prefixes in the count/non-count opposition in Manjaku:

Take ‘fingers’, for instance: if the plural refers to a discrete number of fingers that does not usually exceed ten, the normal number a human being is endowed with, then it is expressed in noun class 10 (e.g. kë-konj kë-wants ‘three fingers’); if it refers to an unknown or an indefinite number, generic interpretation (fingers in general) included, it is expressed in noun class 8 (i-konj ‘fingers’). This shows, at the very least, how inadequate it is to consider 8 as simply being “the plural” of 7. Not only can it be paired with other noun classes (9 and also 5 – see bë-rëk/i-rëk ‘river(s)’), but its precise meaning depends on the root it is merged with, since i-to, for instance, in contrast with i-konj, refers to any plurality of houses.

The existence of one-class paradigms, number distinctions beyond simple singular-plural dichotomies, including semantic features such as count vs. mass, collectivity, boundedness etc. make an inflectional account of number marking inap-plicable to Baïnounk languages and furthermore suggest a paradigmatic approach towards noun classification.



. The plural suffix

The situation in Baïnounk languages is rendered even more complex by the fact that aspects of number coded in prefixed paradigms and networks of paradigms (see Section 3 for the relationships between paradigms) interact with number as sig-nalled by the plural suffix. We will turn to a detailed account of the plural suffix now, including its morphological and semantic properties, and then describe how both sys-tems interact.

For those nouns which express plurality through suffixation of the morpheme -Vŋ as shown in (20) and (21), morphological markedness can be established. Here, the singular is unmarked relative to the plural – if any prefixed class marker is present, it is the same for singular and plural stems and does therefore not make any number distinctions. The only function of the plural suffix is number marking, i.e. it is inde-pendent of class and agreement marking. Nouns with plural suffixes constitute about a fifth of the nominal lexeme types in Baïnounk languages according to Sauvageot (Sauvageot 1967; Sauvageot 1987a) and our preliminary lexica. As in Gujaher, some of the Gubëeher nouns with suffixed plurals are prefixless (20), with default agreement in a-, whereas others are prefixed with alliterative agreement (21).

(20) a. koona ë-dé house agr.a-big ‘house’ b. koona-ŋ ë-dé-eŋ house-pl agr.a-big-pl ‘houses’ GB, elicitations

(21) a. ba-xon bë-dé cl.ba-African_fan_palm agr.ba-big ‘African fan palm’ b. ba-xon-oŋ bë-dé-eŋ cl.ba- African_fan_palm-pl agr.ba-big-pl ‘African fan palms’7 GB, elicitations

Cases like baxon in Gubëeher (21) or kamaafi in Gujaher (examples (9) and (10) are here repeated for convenience as (22) and (23), which seem to lie outside an assumed canonical noun class system given their suffixed plural have given rise to some far-reaching claims that in these cases, there is phonological ‘agreement’ with

. In Gujaher, there are two cognates for Gubëeher baxon: the stem kon in the paradigm ba-/gu-/ha- denotes the rhizome of the African fan palm, which is cooked and eaten. The stem xun has so far only been attested in the tree paradigm ci-/mun-.



the initial syllable of a monomorphemic root (Dobrin 1995; Dimitriadis 1997; Aronoff 1998; Sauvageot 1967).

(22) ka-maafi ka-duka ka-de cl.ka-fish agr.ka-fish agr.ka-big ‘one big fish’ GJ, elicitations

(23) ka-maafi-eŋ ka-naak-aŋ ka-de-eŋ cl.ka-fish-pl agr.ka-two-pl agr.ka-big.-pl ‘two big fish’ GJ, elicitations

The most plausible analysis for kamaafi and similar cases is to analyse it as belonging to a prefixed paradigm with a plural suffix (see Cobbinah (in prep.) and Lüpke (in prep.)) for a detailed account. This analysis is corroborated through insertion of the root in another paradigm (substitution test), for instance into the dyadic augmenta-tive paradigm with the prefixes da-/din-, which shows that the prefix ka- of kamaafi in (22) & (23) is substituted by the prefixes of the augmentative paradigm and the plural suffix is dropped (24) and (25).

(24) da-maafi da-duka da-de cl.da-fish agr.da-fish agr.da-big ‘a/the very big fish’ GJ, elicitations

(25) din-maafi din-nak din-de cl.din-fish agr.din-two agr.din-big ‘two very big fish’ GJ, elicitations

Although all the Baïnounk languages have prefixless and prefixed nouns with suffixed plurals, they differ considerably in the distribution and relative size of the agreement classes of these items. Whereas Gubëeher and Guñaamolo have several paradigms where nouns with plural suffixed show alliterative agreement with a substitutable prefix, in Gujaher, most concerned items do not occur with alliterative agreement. The majority of Gujaher nouns with suffixed plurals belong to the same agreement type as the Gubëeher nouns cited in (20) with non-alliterative agreement markers (for examples in Gujaher see (11) and (12)). Agreement of these nouns can either be in a-, tentatively analysed by us as a default agreement marking in the absence of specific noun class feature. Alternatively, the markers can be triggered by semantic features of the governing noun in the plural, for instance the features [+animate], which results in plural agreement in i- (29), identical or phonologically related to the plural noun class marker of the human paradigm u-/in- as in (26) and (27).

(26) u-dikaam u-duka u-de cl.u-woman agr.u-one agr.u-big ‘one big woman’ GJ, elicitations


1 Alexander Cobbinah & Friederike Lüpke

(27) in-dikaam i-nak i-de cl.in-woman agr.i-two agr.i-big ‘two big women’ GJ, elicitations

In the village of Agnack, there is some geographical variation in agreement: in the ward of Agnack Grand, a-/i-agreement with a singular as in example (28) and a plural as in (29) is more widespread, whereas in Agnack Petit, a-/-Vŋ agreement, with a sin-gular as in (28) and a plural as in (30), occurs more often.

(28) fëkr a-duka a-de monkey agr.a-one agr.a-big ‘one big monkey’ GJ, elicitations

(29) fëkr-ëŋ i-nak i-de monkey-pl agr.i-two agr.i-big ‘two big monkeys’ GJ, elicitations

(30) fëkr-ëŋ a-naak-aŋ a-de-eŋ monkey-pl agr.a-two-pl agr.a-big-pl ‘two big monkeys’ GJ, elicitations

As already argued by Sauvageot (Sauvageot 1967; Sauvageot 1987a), it is likely that the plural suffix constitutes an innovation owing its existence to language contact and the concomitant need to integrate loanwords. Baïnounk languages have for a long time absorbed a high number of loanwords from languages with prefixed noun class sys-tems (most prominently Joola languages, but also Manjaku languages), as well as from languages with non-prefixed noun class systems (Wolof) and without noun classes (Mandinka, Creole, French, Portuguese). The main strategies for loanword integration in Baïnounk languages are presented in Table VIII.1 below.

Not all strategies summarised below in Table VIII.1 represent the synchronic assignment strategies of Baïnounk languages. Rather, new strategies supersede old ones or coexist with them and are then manifest in synchronic variation, but the words representing old assignment strategies do not fall out of use at once, nor are they systematically re-assigned to other paradigms. This leads to sediments of different assignment strategies at work at different times whose traces can all be found in the present-day languages.

It is mainly strategies 1 and 2 that are productive in the synchronic languages. Strategy 1 – a suffixed plural – is productive without apparent restrictions. Words from a donor language without noun classes, like caabi (from Portuguese Creole) remain outside the noun class system and appear without a prefix in the singular form and a suffixed plural form. This strategy must have been productive for some time, as caabi is unlikely to be a recent loanword. Strategy 2 – semantic assignment – is mainly attested for trees and fruit, which exhibit productive semantic assign-ment into the tree and fruit paradigms respectively till to date. Loanwords with a CV



Table VIII.1. Different strategies for integrating loanwords in Baïnounk Gubëeher (GB), with one contrasting form from Baïnounk Guñaamolo (GN) and Gujaher (GJ)

type singular plural

1. Plural suffix caabi ‘key’ (GB) caabi-eŋ ‘two keys’2. Semantic assignment8 bu-limo ‘orange’ (GB)

si-limo ‘orange tree’ (GB)sin-fil ‘electric cable’ (GN)bu-er ‘glass’ (GB)

i-limo ‘oranges’mu ‘-limo’ orange trees’ñan-fil ‘electric cables’i-er ‘glasses’

3. Partly phonological assignment

a. phonological in singular, paired prefix in plural

ka-leroŋ ‘cauldron’ (GB)ka-raafa ‘bottle’ (GB)

ña-leroŋ ‘cauldrons’ña-raafa ‘bottles’

b. phonological in singular, plural suffix

ka-raafa ‘bottle’ (GN, GJ) karaf-aŋ ‘bottles’

4. Assignment to frequent paired class gu-furset ‘fork’ (GB) ha-furset ‘forks’

onset coinciding with noun class prefixes in Baïnounk or contact languages (kaleroŋ and karafa in Table VIII.1 from Portuguese Creole) reanalyse the onset as a prefix, as evidenced by the alliterative agreement in ka – but there is no dyadic or triadic Baïnounk paradigm in which they would fit on semantic grounds. Therefore, either an atypical paradigm is used in order to form a plural, as in strategy 3a in Gubëeher, in the case of kaleroŋ the rare paradigm ka-/ñan-. Or a suffixed plural – strategy 3b is the chosen solution, as testified for the same loanword by Gujaher and Guñaamolo, where the plural form of kaleroŋ is kaleron-oŋ. A correlation of the time of borrow-ing of an item, where such can be established, with the strategy of integration can potentially provide material for further historical analyses, assuming that different strategies have been more or less productive at different points of time.8

Sauvageot (1987a) develops the hypothesis that the plural suffix -Vŋ has been borrowed from the Mande language Mandinka, one of the important contact languages in Casamance. Mandinka is a language without noun classes, and with a suffixed plu-ral, cf. tubáabóo ‘European’ – tubáabóo-lu ‘Europeans’ (Creissels 2012). However, the phonological unrelatedness of -Vŋ and -lu makes matter borrowing an unlikely sce-nario. While it is plausible that Mandinka was inspiring for a pattern borrowing, we advance a different hypothesis for the origin of the plural marker -Vŋ. As laid out in more detail in 4, we assume the plural form Vŋ, widely occurring for plural marking in verbal clauses in Baïnounk languages as the source of the plural suffix -Vŋ in the nominal domain.

. The paradigm di-/ bu-/i- contains exclusively edible fruits, the paradigm si-/mun- (GB, GN) or ci-/mun (GJ) trees and wooden objects, the paradigm sin-/ñan- (GB) or cin-/ñan- (GJ) threads or elongated objects and bu-/i- many round items (see Cobbinah (2013) for details).



. The semantics of the plural suffix

In the present day Baïnounk languages, in particular in Gubëeher, apart from marking the plural of loanwords which are situated outside the noun class system, the plural suffix seems to have semantic connotations. It occurs frequently with nouns denoting kin relations, human and animate entities. In addition, in Gubëeher there is prelimi-nary evidence pointing to collective semantics for forms bearing the plural suffix.

This observed animacy bias is consistent with observations regarding the spread of a new suffixed plural in South Atlantic languages along the animacy hierarchy (see Childs 1983), which predicts a spread of number marking starting with kinship terms and associatives9 before reaching nouns designating humans and animates, with inanimate entities at the far end of the hierarchy (Smith-Stark 1974; Corbett 2000). Comparative studies of plural suffixes in different Baïnounk languages are needed to confirm this hypothesis for Baïnounk, but a concentration of suffixed plurals in the domain of animate nouns is obvious in Gubëeher and possibly in other Baïnounk languages as well (see Table VIII.2. for some examples).

Table VIII.2. Suffixed plurals and animacy in Gubëeher

Singular Plural

kinshipbëëb ‘father’ bëëb-ëŋ ‘fathers’asom ‘maternal aunt’ asom-oŋ ‘maternal aunts’

namesEko ‘Eko [first name]’ Eko-ŋ ‘Eko and his group’

Sagna ‘Sagna [clan name]’ Sagna-ŋ ‘the Sagna families’

humanbëjid ‘girl’ bëjid-ëŋ ‘girls’jidef ‘old person’ jidef-eŋ ‘old persons’

animal

bëkër ‘chicken’ bëkër-ëŋ ‘chickens’jifek ‘pig’ jifek-eŋ ‘pigs’

balaap ‘pigeon’ balaap-aŋ ‘pigeons’

. The prefixless paradigm is productively used for personal names to derive associative plurals which denote a clan when used with a clan name, or a group of people when used with a first name. The group might refer to a family, group of friends, or make reference to other attributes of the persons (age, character…) relevant for the definition of the group. Eko-ŋ from Table VIII.2 was used in a context to group together Eko, a boy from the family I was living with, and the other children within the family which have approximately the same age. In another context it might as well mean ‘Eko and his friends’ or ‘Eko and his family’.



In Gubëeher more than half of the nouns attested in the working lexicon so far with a plural suffix are animate (110/203), whereas the overall proportion of animate nouns is only about a fifth (213/1100). The proportion of animate nouns in the suffixed paradigms is therefore much higher than the overall distribution leads to expect, espe-cially considering that a large proportion of the inanimate nouns with suffixed plurals are loanwords, since this strategy is productive for the integration of loans.

The pluralisation of some human nouns, all prefixed with u- in the singular, exhibits some particularities in pluralisation in that they have doubly marked plurals, by both a prefix and the plural suffix, which in some cases point to further quantity dis-tinctions, or pluralise with irregular paradigms involving plural suffixes (Table VIII.3).

Table VIII.3. Multiply marked plurals and alternative paradigm with human terms in Gubëeher

Gloss Singular Purely prefixed plural Prefixed and suffixed plural

‘different sex sibling’ u-lina / a-lina-ŋ‘same sex sibling’ u-dëën / in-dëën-ëŋ‘friend’ u-diin / in-diin-eŋ‘friend’ u-ñaam ñan-ñaam in-ñaam-aŋ‘woman/wife’ u-dikaam (budikaam) in-dikaam in-dikaam-aŋ

At least for the plurals of udikaam ‘woman/wife’, the context the forms occur in suggests that the prefixed plural in-dikaam is used as a count plural (31) and the double-marked plural in-dikaam-aŋ as a collective plural (32), designating a group of women or wives. In the folktale these are the wives of the rabbit and the wives of the hyena.

(31) a-mu-t-ot u-diigén u-ruk a-jax-ot 3-exist-ven-inact cl.u-man agr.u-some 3-take-inact in-dikaam in-naak cl.in-woman agr.in-two ‘(Once upon a time) there was a man, he had married two women.’

GB, transcribed texts

(32) in-dikaam-aŋ ka ko-bor a-yen i mundum cl.in-woman-pl conn cl.ko-rabbit 3-say agr.in:conn hyena ‘The wives of rabbit say to the ones of hyena…’ GB, transcribed texts

In Gubëeher, within the botanical domain groups of trees occur with plural suf-fixes, which offers further evidence for a collective connotation of the plural suffix: ja-maŋgu-oŋ ‘group of little mango trees’ (cf. mum-maŋgu ‘mango trees’), ba-rac-aŋ



‘mangrove bushes’ (cf. mu’-rac ‘mangrove bushes’) ba-taat-aŋ ‘group of annona trees’ (cf. mun-taat ‘annona trees’). Comparable data are not available for the other items in question, but double marking has been encountered on other animate nouns too, cf. the ‘bird’ triad bu-puul/i-puul/ja-puul whose unlimited plural bearing the prefix ja- can be further suffixed with the plural morpheme to yield the form ja-puul-oŋ. The seman-tic difference between ja-puul and ja-puul-oŋ has not been conclusively discerned yet, but consultants point out that these items are not synomymous. A preliminary analysis points towards a sortal (e.g. types of birds) or collective (e.g. flocks of birds) seman-tics of the double-marked form ja-puul-oŋ. Some speakers would occasionally use the plural prefix and suffix on a plural diminutive (33c), although the more canonical plu-ral form is only prefixed (33b). Since these double-marked examples are marginal and not accepted as grammatical by most speakers, not much in detail can be said about these double pluralised forms. Whether a collective reading, like ‘groups of little goats’ can be applied to (33c) has to be determined.

(33) a. ko-feebi cl.ko-goat ‘little goat’ b. ño-feebi cl.ño-goat ‘little goats’ c. ño-feebi-eŋ cl.ño-goat-pl ‘little goats’ GB, field notes

. Classification, derivation, and number

The number value of a noun depends on the place of its prefix in a specific paradigm. The prefixes interact with root semantics and paradigm type in determining which semantic relationship between the members of the paradigm is appropriate for the specific root (singular/plural; singular/plural/unlimited, mass noun, singulative/plural), though without issues of markedness. Due to the ability of roots to appear not only in different noun class paradigms but also in a variety of syntactic contexts (verbal frames, nominal frames, adjectival frames), number marking even operates across word classes. It has been shown that number is epiphenomenal to class mark-ing, and that both prefixed as well as suffixed pluralisation has derivational functions as shown in Table VIII.4. below.

The analysis of noun class markers in Southern Bantu by Hendrikse (2001) acknowledges the importance of a systemic perspective on noun class systems, by considering noun class markers as multidimensional, polysemous categories.



‘Systemically polysemous’ relates to the observation that some of the functions of the noun class system are partly lying outside the scope of the single noun class markers and have to be located on the level of the complete classification system they are part of and the paradigmatic relationships between noun class markers instead of within single prefixes (Hendrikse 2001: 197). The assignment to a specific paradigm can thus con-tribute to the construal of an entity as discrete, bounded, mass or substance. This means that the root is in these cases unspecified for these properties, and that it can be con-strued in different ways by way of choice of a paradigm type. The role of the paradigm in assigning configurational information is obvious: One-class paradigms characterise a noun as non-countable, such as an abstract notion, a substance or a mass. Paired paradigms identify a noun as countable and triads as countable and usually occurring in large amounts, which warrants a distinction between a count plural used for limited numbers and an unlimited plural. Example (15), here repeated for convenience as (34), shows how the noun class paradigm not only derives nouns specified for values of sin-gular vs. plural, but that it can also convey configurational parameters. The Gubëeher form ja-lihan in (34c) is part of a triad denoting the unlimited plural ‘sticks’ of gu-lihan/ha-lihan, but it can also be read as a substance-denoting word meaning ‘wood’, which clearly has a different semantic relationship to the singular and count plural forms guli-han and halihan, assumed to form a paradigm with jalihan, than its unlimited reading.

(34) a. gu-lihan ‘stick (singular)’ b. ha-lihan ‘sticks (count plural)’ c. ja-lihan ‘wood (substance)/sticks (unlimited plural)’ GB, elicitations

Even more instructive for a demonstration of the correlations between paradigm type (one-class, paired or triadic, with the additional parameter of the suffixed plural)

Table VIII.4. Derivational vs. inflectional characteristics of number-marking strategies in Baïnounk languages

Derivational characteristics Inflectional characteristics

Number marking through prefixes

prefixes can express more than singular plural dichotomyno markedness relationsis tied to class-markingno one-to-one relationship between form of prefix and number valuemain function is semantic classification

?

Suffixed plural collective semanticsassociative pluralsindividuation of masses and substances

regular, no functions other than plural



and configuration- and number-relevant semantics is the paradigmatic network of Gubëeher rac ‘mangrove’ in Table VIII.5. When referring to countable instances of single plants a paired paradigm is employed (si-/mun-); when referring to the fruits, which are small and usually occur in large numbers, a triad (gu-/ha-/ba-) is used; a mangrove bush which is a spatially bounded collection of several single mangrove plants is in the one-class paradigm bu-; and the unbounded concept of ‘mangrove grove’ is conveyed by a one-class paradigm with suffixed plural. It can hardly be denied that the type of paradigm conveys the information about the configuration of the entity.

Table VIII.5. The paradigmatic network of the Gubëeher root rac

NC paradigm Root Plural suffix Meaning

si-/ mu’-

rac

/ ‘mangrove plant’gu-/ ha-/ ba- ‘mangrove fruit’bu- ‘mangrove bush’

ja- ‘(sticks of) mangrove wood’ba- -aŋ ‘mangrove grove’ja- -aŋ ‘grove of little mangrove trees’

To give another example involving a suffixed plural, the noun kuul which in its standard use refers to the unbounded element ‘fire’ can also be construed as the bounded concept of ‘instance of fire’ which is countable and has a suffixed plural kuul-oŋ (35) (as in ‘two fires are burning behind the house’).

(35) kuul-oŋ kun-naak-aŋ fire-pl agr.kun-two-pl ‘two fires’ GB, elicitation

Likewise the unbounded element ba-rux ‘water’ can also be construed as referring to countable portions of water by suffixing the plural suffix (36).

(36) u-babb-ëlahiin ba-rux-oŋ 2-be.same-der cl.ba-water-pl ‘You mix the (portions of) water.’ GB,elicitation

The one-class paradigm ho- is in fact specialised in construing continuous and unbounded entities as bounded by deriving nouns referring to portions or limited amounts of a substance: Cf. mind ‘milk’ and ho-mind ‘some milk’; barux ‘water’ and ho-rux ‘some water’; ba-geec ‘hibiscus sauce’ and ho-geec ‘a portion of/some hibiscus sauce’.



. Word class and number

It has become apparent from the argument developed in the preceding sections that noun class morphology serves as a word formation device in Baïnounk languages. Noun class and agreement prefixes create – or derive – words from acategorial roots with potentially very general semantics: the larger the paradigmatic network of a root the more general is its semantic content. As a logical consequence, word classes can only be established as syntactic categories, following from the insertion of roots into particular syntactic frames, not as lexical categories at the root level, favouring a con-structional approach to word classes. This multifunctionality of the Baïnounk noun class system (specifying number, semantic content and word class), as illustrated in Tables VIII.6 and VIII.7, makes additional derivational morphology largely redundant.

Table VIII.6. The Gubëeher root ceen ‘red’ in different syntactic frames

Root Category Gloss Example

ceen (Property) noun

‘redness/colour red’

ba-ceencl.ba-red‘redness’

Infinitive ‘redden’ bu-ceen g-a-raad-icl.bu-red foc.obj-3-aux-perf‘It is reddening.’

Verb ‘be red’ a-ceen-i3-red-perf‘It is red/it has become red’

Adjective ‘red’ gu-sol gu-ceencl.gu-shirt agr.gu-red‘red shirt’

Noun class prefixes do not only classify entities in nominal frames, but also events and states in infinitival frames according to related semantic criteria. Infinitives in Baïnounk are defined here as verbal nouns derived from eventive roots which occur as complements of modal and auxiliary verbs. They have both nominal and verbal characteristics and are integrated into the verbal conjugation paradigm as part of periphrastic tense/aspect.

As for the suffix -Vŋ which mostly pluralises prefixless nouns and those whose prefixes do not distinguish number, a phonologically identical form is found in the verbal paradigm. Compare the second person singular and plural in Table VIII.8. Note also the affix -n- marking the first and third person plural.

These findings call for a unified account of plural marking, partly transcending syntactic word class, just as they call for a unified account of classification, as presented in Cobbinah (2013).



Table VIII.7. The semantic contribution of noun class prefixes with nouns and verbal nouns in Gubëeher10

NC With entity- denoting roots in a nominal frame

Example With eventive/ stative roots in an infinitival frame

Example

ba- unlimited plural of fruits, grains

ba-joŋko ‘manioc’bë-xënju ‘cashew nuts′-

collective and agricultural activities, pluractionals

ba-ñaŋ ‘dance’.ba-xaac ‘clear a field’

ja- unlimited plural grass and leaves

ja-fos ‘grass’ja-maŋgu ‘mango leaves’

collective actions (agriculture)

ja-naaf ‘cultivate’.ja-mul ‘harvest’

ta- water birds ta-ferta-wuc

related to fishing ta-jah ‘fish with arrows’të-biir ‘fish with dam’

mun- liquids mun-jilén ‘tears’ ‘urinate’ mu-sel ‘urinate’ji- many humans,

mammalsji-xoox ‘palm rat’ji-paab ‘glutton’

human/animate participants

jin-deg ‘hit (person)’jim-bux ‘insult’

ran- kinds of woven mats

raŋ-koot ‘mat’ weaving ra’-liin ‘weave’

sin- ropes, strings, reciprocal relations

sin-cind ‘string’sim-moot ‘cotton string’

reciprocals (strings between people or actions)

sin-wuul-ay ‘see e.o.’sin-deg-ay ‘hit e.o.’

Table VIII.8. Person/number morphology in the verbal paradigm in Gubëeher

Singular Plural

Prefix Prefix Suffix

1. Person i- incl. i-n- -Vexcl. i- -min

2. Person u- u- -Vŋ3. Person a- a-n-

. Conclusion

Number in Baïnounk is marked using two fundamentally different devices:

– By noun class prefixes, organised into paradigms. These prefixes are highly multi-functional portmanteau morphemes with various semantic and often taxonomic

1. The nouns are not provided here with their full paradigms, for details see Cobbinah (2012).



functions, such as the semantic specification of unspecified roots. They also have derivational functions, such as the creation of the syntactic categories of nouns and verbal nouns out of undifferentiated roots. Recall that roots with eventive and stative meaning can also occur with TAM morphology in verbal constructions.

– By a plural suffix, which combines inflectional and derivational characteristics. It functions as an inflectional plural marker for those nouns for which plurality is not expressed inside the prefixed paradigms. In Gubëeher, this suffix is also used alongside prefixes to redundantly mark plural. In addition, in Gubëeher, the plural suffix seems to have the semantic value of associative or collective in some cases.

In view of these facts, an analysis of noun class prefixes as inflectionally encoding singular or plural values of a certain gender appears inapplicable. Number distinctions hold through the paradigmatic relationships in dyadic and triadic prefixed paradigms only. Without knowing the paradigm(s) in which a root appears, the number value of a particular prefix-root combination cannot be determined. While there is evidence that the plural suffix has an inflectional character to some extent, it also appears to serve derivational functions, such as the creation of associative and collective terms for roots of certain semantic types, which makes it classificatory in these cases.

Our observations for Baïnounk languages are compatible with analyses advanced by Schadeberg (2001) and Crisma, Marten & Sybesma (2011) for Bantu languages and by Kihm (2005) for Manjaku (and Atlantic). What all these accounts have in common is that they question the inflectional character of noun class prefixes and the primary function of noun class systems as number-differentiating devices. Yet, the dominant template for the description of these systems assumes that affixes have a specification for number and that one or several plural affixes correspond to one singular affix (or, in some cases, several singular affixes). Such an account fails to reveal the derivational nature of these nominal classification systems that is sensitive to a number of semantic parameters, number not being a central one. It also masks the paradigmatic nature of these systems, where values and contrasts are not absolute and coded by an affix alone, but expressed through the compositional semantics of a prefix and a root and through the paradigmatic relationships holding between prefix-root combinations.

References

Aronoff, Mark. 1998. Gender agreement as morphology. In Proceedings of the First Mediter-ranean Conference on Morphology, Geert Booij, Angela Ralli & Sergio Scalise (eds) Patras: University of Patras.

Berlin, Brent. 1977. Speculations of the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature. In Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Change, Benjamin Blount & Mary Sanches (eds), 63–102. New York NY: Academic Press.



Childs, G. Tucker. 1983. Noun class affix renewal in south West Atlantic. In Current approaches to African linguistics II, Jonathan D. Kaye, Hilda Koopman, Dominique Sportiche & André Dugas (eds), 17–29. Dordrecht: Foris.

Cobbinah, Alexander. 2010. The Casamance as an area of intense language contact. The case of Baïnouk Gubaher. Journal of Language Contact 3: 175–201.

Cobbinah, Alexander. 2013. Nominal Classification and Verbal Nouns in Baïnounk Gubëeher. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Oriental and African Languages, University of London.

Cobbinah, Alexander. In preparation. Agreement of nouns with suffixed plurals in Nyun from a historical and genetic perspective.

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP.Creissels, Denis. 2012. Matériaux pour un dictionnaire mandinka. ⟨http://www.deniscreissels.

fr/public/Creissels-lexique_mandinka_2012.pdf⟩.Crisma, Paola, Marten, Lutz & Sybesma, Rint. 2011. The point of Bantu, Chinese and Romance

nominal classification. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 23(2): 251–299.Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1997. Alliterative concord in phonology-free syntax. Paper presented at the

GLOW workshop on the morpho-syntax of African and Afro-Asiatic languages at Rabat, Morocco.

Dobrin, Lise. 1995. Theoretical consequences of literal alliterative concord. Chicago Linguistic Society (regional meeting) 31(1): 127–142.

Hendrikse, Andries Petrus. 2001. Systemic polysemy in the Southern Bantu noun class sys-tem. In Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguisic Theory 177], Hubert Cuyckens & Britta Zawada (eds), 185–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kihm, Alain. 2005. Noun class, gender, and the lexicon-syntax-morphology interfaces. A com-parative study of Niger-Congo and Romance languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Com-parative Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds), 459–513. Oxford: OUP.

Lüpke, Friederike. 2010. Language and identity in flux. In search of Baïnouk. Journal of Lan-guage Contact 3: 155–174.

Lüpke, Friederike. 2011. Orthography development. In Handbook of Endangered Languages, Peter K. Austin & Julia Sallabank (eds), 312–336. Cambridge: CUP.

Lüpke, Friederike. Forthcoming. Atlantic. In Handbook of African Languages, Rainer Vossen (ed.). Oxford: OUP.

Lüpke, Friederike. In preparation. Nothing to agree with – literal alliterative concord in Baï-nounk revisited.

Sauvageot, Serge. 1967. Note sur la classification nominale en baïnouk. In La classification nomi-nale dans les langues négro-africaines, Gabriel Manessy (ed.), 225–236. Paris: Editions du CNRS.

Sauvageot, Serge. 1987a. La linguistique en tant que témoignage historique: Le cas du baynunk. Cahiers du C.R.A. 5: 17–22.

Sauvageot, Serge. 1987b. Esquisse du système verbal du baïnouk. Paris: CNRS.Schadeberg, Thilo C. 2001. Number in Swahili Grammar. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 68:

7–16. Köln.Smith-Stark, Cedric T. 1974. The plurality split. CLS 10: 657–671.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344

Documents

When number meets classification: The linguistic expression of number in Baïnounk languages