Studies in African Linguistics

Volume 19, Number 1, April 1988

MAJANG NOMINAL PLURALS, WITH COMPARATIVE NOTES*
Peter Unseth
Institute of Ethiopian Studies
Addis Ababa University
This paper describes the complex Majang system of noun
plural formation. Majang uses singulative suffixes,
plural suffixes, and suppletive plural stems to mark
number on nouns. Majang is seen to exemplify in many
ways the *N/*K pattern of singular and plural marking
as described by Bryan [1968] for many Nilo-Saharan lan-
guages. Tiersma's [1982] theory of "Local Markedness"
is shown to provide an explanation for singulative mark-
ing on some nouns in Majang and other Surma languages.
A comparison of Majang noun plurals with plural forms
in other Surma languages allows the reconstruction of
some number marking for Proto-Surma.
1. Introduction
Building on the work of Cerulli [1948] and Bender [1983b], this paper
describes the marking of number on nouns in Majang, a Nilo-Saharan language
spoken by 20,000-30,000 people in western Ethiopia. It is classified with-
in the Eastern Sudanic phylum, a member of the Surma group [Bender 1983a].
Fleming [1983:533] groups all Surma langauges except Majang into Southern
Surma, placing Majang in a crucial position for the reconstruction of Proto-
*1 conducted Majang fieldwork under the Institute of Ethiopian Studies,
Addis Ababa University, from August 1984 to March 1986. Much of the data
on noun plural formation was gathered with Anbessa Tefera, who was spon-
sored by the Research and Publications Committee of the Institute of Lan-
guage Studies, Addis Ababa University. I am grateful to the local offi-
cials who cooperated in making the fieldwork possible. Nicky De Jong and
Hans-Georg Will gave me examples from Didinga and Me'en from their research.
Carol McKinney of SIL and the University of Texas at Arlington provided
many useful comments on an earlier draft. An anonymous SAL reviewer gave
several useful suggestions, as did the editor, Dr. Schuh. My wife Carole
was supportive through it all, from field work to proofreading.
76 Studies in African Linguistics 19(1), 1988
Surma.
In this paper, section 2 describes the marking of number on Majang
nouns, the behavior of liquid substances as syntactic plurals, and many man-
ifestations of Bryan's [1968] *N/*K number marking pattern. Section 3
gives comparisons of number marking in other Surma languages.
1
Evidence is
given for a Proto-Surma plural suffix -Vk marking derived nouns and for a
singulative suffix. Tiersma's [1982] theory of Local Markedness is shown
to provide an explanation for these singulative suffixes.
2. Marking of Number
The marking of number on nouns in Majang is complex, as in other Surma
and Eastern Sudanic languages. Singular and plural nouns are differentiat-
ed in a number of ways: suppletive stems for singular and plural, singula-
tive suffixes, plural suffixes. Some words have both singulative and plur-
al suffixes.
A certain amount of variation for marking number on some nouns is no-
ticeable, even by one speaker, as noted by Bender [1983b:127]. Generally,
the variation consisted of alternate suffixes. For examples, I have record-
ed the plural of taame 'face' as taama, taametun ,and taamekak. The
nouns that have suppletive singular and plural forms were consistent in geo-
graphically separate areas of my research, as well as with Bender's exam-
ples, such as taQitogi 'cow,cattle'. Comparing data from the far north
of Majang territory and the central area (near Tepi, Illubabor), I found
little variation in the formation of noun plurals, no more than within one
local area.
The present complexities of marking number on nouns may very well re-
flect an archaic noun class system, as suggested for Didinga and Murle by
lIn Majang, Bender [1983b:1l6-117] described [s], [ ~ ] , [sY] , and
[c] as variants of a single phoneme lei. When citing examples from Ben-
der, they will be given with Bender's transcriptions. In my data, I use
the symbol lei for all forms. Tone and ATR vowel articulations are not
fully understood yet. For descriptions of plural marking in other Surma
languages, see Arensen [1982:27-47] on Murle, Odden [1983:170-173] on Di-
dinga, Turton and Bender [1976:544, 545] on Mursi, and Will [forthcoming]
on Me'en.
Majang Nominal Plurals 77
Tucker [1933:894].
2.1. Suppletive stems between singul&r and plural. For three words in my
data, plurals are shown by suppletive stems, viz. Qaai 'woman' Qon
'women', taQ 'cow' togi 'cattle', and idit 'person' joop 'persons',
though Cerulli [1948:155] listed jo as a Majang singular form. Presuma-
bly, such cases can be traced to different stems historically.2 For exam-
ple, Hieda [1983:327] lists *ltaQ as Proto-Nilotic 'cow', cognate to the
singular in Majang and several other Surma languages. The Majang plural
form togl is very similar to the Gaam plural t ~ g [Bender and Malik 1988:
151] and also to the Proto-Nilotic * d h ~ k [Hall et ale 1975:7]. This is
not to say that Majang borrowed these stems directly from a Nilotic lan-
guage or from Gaam, but to illustrate that both of the Majang forms can be
compared to an extant root in languages that are both geographically close
and genetically related.
2.2. Singulative suffixes. Similar to the situation described by Dimmen-
daal [1987:196, 197] for the Bari group of Nilotic languages, in Majang,
"there are certain nouns whose principal form has a plural meaning, but
these nouns take a singular suffix in order to indicate one item" from a
group. That is, the uninflected noun is plural, as in (1), below.
(1) singular plural
weena ween 'ear'
I)EtlQ QE:t i 'louse'
A few nouns are marked with singulative -t , such as kEEt 'tree,3 and
2,Cow' and 'cattle' are suppletive in a number of Eastern Sudanic lan-
guages, Didinga [Odden 1983:172], Gaam [Bender and Malik 1980:151], and
many (all?) Nilotic languages, (including, by implication, Proto-Nilotic
[Hall et al. 1975:6]). The singular and plural are also suppletive in un-
related English, again showing the cross-language tendencies of local mark-
edness.
3The Proto-Surma forms must have been *kEE+t 'tree' and *kEE+n
'trees', with the consonants functioning as number suffixes. Several Kalen-
jin languages of Southern Nilotic have a form keet for 'tree', adding a
suffix - i t to form the "secondary" singular form keet it [Van Otterloo
78 Studies in African Linguistics 19(1), 1988
keen 'trees'. Another example is 'hand'. The singular is arit (though
the final -t is lost in most grammatical environments), and the plural is
arn
The most common singulative suffix is -n Many Majang nouns that
have singulative -n also have a suffix -k for plural, such as tutukan
'egg', tutukak 'eggs' [Bender1983b:124]. Many of the Majang nouns that
are marked with singulative -n are als.o marked for singulative in other
Surma .languages (see 3.2 below).
(2) singular plural
pi il)on pi il)ok 'leaf'
I)i idan I)i idan 'tooth'
waikun wai kuk 'seed'
marion mariok 'star'
gopan gopak 'path'
2.3. Plural suffixation. The usual way to distinguish singular from plural
nouns in Majang is by adding a suffix to the singular form, as in ugul
'crocodile', uguler 'crocodiles'. Bender [1983b:127] correctly pointed out
Cerulli's oversight in listing -ke as the only plural suffix. Rather,
there are a variety of such suffixes, including many examples of -(V)r for
animate objects and body parts, fitting Greenberg's [1970:114] Eastern Su-
danic pattern of r for animate plural. There is a wide variety of plural
suffixes, with twelve clearly attested types identified thus far, most in-
volving either a final vowel, -r ,or -k.
(3) suffix
-n/-k
-k
singular
tutuka+n
d'i'ane
plural
tutuka+k
d'i'ane+k
'egg'
'beehive'
1979:Appendix 1, p.4]. Tucker and Bryan [1962:160] with more opportunity
to study phonetic detail, give the Kalenjin "primary" singular as ke:t, a
match with the Majang form. I do not yet have sufficient evidence to decide
whether Proto-Surma interpreted a root final consonant as a suffix or wheth-
er the Kalenjin languages are descended from a stage where a singulative
suffix -t was interpreted as part of the root.
Majang Nominal Plurals 79
-ak gaput gaput+ak 'bat'
-kok tol tol+kok 'hole through'
-ako ri i ri l+ako 'shadow'
-atok gati gat i+atok 'debt'
-r kornoi kornoi+r 'clan'
-Vr ugul ugul+er 'crocodile'
-ter 'tongue'
-i atiil) at i i I}+i 'bachelor'
-e tuusi tussi+e 'house pole'
-tun ato ato+-tun 'mouth'
Some generalizations concerning various plural noun classes are noticeable.
Some of the plural classes are grouped by phonological criteria and others
by semantic criteria. These criteria are usually not 100% predictive as to
which plural suffix a noun will take. Rather, these criteria are descrip-
tive of the groups of nouns which are found within a class and which take a
common suffix. For example, nouns whose roots end in oi- often take the
plural suffix -r and nouns take the plural suffix -ako all have
monosyllabic roots. There is also a tendency for (seemingly) reduplicated
nouns to form plurals by the suffixation of -e
(4)
keket i 'snake' keket ie 'snakes'
t L I tL I 'root' tLltLle 'roots'
'burrow' 'burrows'
pol pol 'finger/toe' pol pole 'fingers/toes'
si i lsi I 'lizard (sp.) , si i lsi Ie 'lizards (sp.)'
The only rule that is 100% predictive for a large group of nouns is that any
derived noun will take the suffix -ak, a pattern found in other Surma lan-
guages, as well (sec. 3.1).
(5) singular plural
d'i'owarkanak 'hunter'
ibaalkan i baa I kanak 'dancer'
nonkan nonkanak 'liar'
laa Itan laaltanak 'crack' (n)
80
aga I tan
jambulon
Studies in African Linguistics 19(1), 1988
agaltanak
jambulonak
'loot' (n)
'teacher'
The form muktan 'marriage song'; appears to be a derived noun formed with
the product suffix -tan, but I have found no root muk- Its plural is
muktanak , but this may be by analogy with the many other (derived) nouns
which end in -tan.
2.4. Double plurals. Double plurals are those where a language adds a plu-
ral marker to a form that is already plural, such as feets or datas .
This process seems to have happened to create a double plural on 'termite'.
the singular of which is mootak and the plural mootakok. The singular
seems to end with the common plural suffix -ak. Since the word most com-
monly occurs in its plural form, the earlier plural form was re-analyzed as
a singular and then pluralized.
Another probable case of Majang adding a plural suffix to an already
plural form appears in 'flying termite'd1umutun/d1umutunak. The -tun
at the end of the singular is probably an example of the plural suffix
-tun, as in waar/waartun 'dog'dogs', ato/atotun 'mouth/mouths', kool il
koolitun 'tail/tails'. This suggests an earlier singular form dumu for
'flying termite'. The plural of this earlier singular dumu was dumutun
Later, the plural suffix -ak was added to dumutun. What had been a plu-
ral was later reinterpreted as singular, then an additional plural suffix
was added.
The fact that 'termite' and 'flying termite' have both received -ak
as a plural suffix suggests that semantic classes may be involved in the
selection of some plural forms.
Tiersma [1982:837-839] has pointed out that creation of such diachronic
double plurals is quite common on nouns which are more commonly referred to
in the plural than in the singular, what he terms "locally unmarked" nouns.
2.5. Inherently plural nouns. Bender [1983b:126-l27] pointed out that
some Majang nouns are inherently plural, e.g. 'twins', 'water', 'name',
'spirit', and 'thing'. He also listed a group of nouns as "not having plu-
rals", most of which are "mass nouns or unique things". Some of the nouns
Majang Nondnal Plurals 81
"not having plurals" are plurals, at least syntactically. It could be as
easily argued that they do not have singular forms. This can be demonstrat-
ed by the use of a possessive frame. As Bender [1983b:129] explained,
"There is a distinction according to singular thing possessed and plural
things possessed . The use of possessives shows up inherently plural
nouns." The possessive pronoun for a singular third person possessing a
singular object is neek, possession of a plural object is marked by
geeQk. This is shown below with the countable noun 'bull'.
(6) jegoy neek
jegoyir geeQk
'his bull'
'his bulls'
Since most liquid substances take the plural possessive form, this indicates
that they are syntactic plurals. The following list of liquids with plural
possessed forms demonstrates that most liquids are syntactic plurals, as
they are also in related Mursi [Turton and Bender 1976:545]:
(7)
erce geeQk 'his milk'
mooe geeQk 'his coffee'
maaw geeQk 'his water'
ogol geeQk 'his honey mead'
toyo geeQk 'his urine'
notu geQk 'his faeces'
pa i tankak geeQk 'his vomit'
The last example is based on the verb root pai- 'vomit'. It has the pro-
duct suffix -tan and carries the standard plural suffix -ak. Because
liquids are plural, the derived noun is marked for plural.
There are a few liquids, all loan words, which are exceptions to this
pattern of liquids as syntactic plurals. This foreign origin explains Ben-
der's [1983b:129] one exceptional liquid 'blood'. Again, the use of a pos-
sessive frame indicates a noun's singular status.
(8) yc:rum neek
caayi neek
tajan neek
'his blood'
'his tea'
'his beer'
82 Studies in African Linguistics 19(1),1988
Fleming [1983:544] has pointed out that 'blood' yerum is from Omotic,
found in the Majoid languages, Majang being adjacent to the Majoid language
Sheko. 'Tea' is obviously from Amharic say. The use of the singular with
tajan 'beer' is more interesting. It appears to be borrowed from the Am-
haric t?aj 'honey A Majang man told us that it is better to say
tajan neek rather than tajan because beer is sold by the bottle and
counted to calculate cost.
Liquids also show themselves to be plural in some other syntactic con-
structions. For example, liquids can trigger plural markers in subject suf-
fixes of verbs:
(9) ku+er+ko moor+it 'it did not boil'
NEG+3pl+PST boil+NEG
Liquids are also plurals in adjective phrases. Singular adjectives are in-
troduced by co, as in co 'good one'. Adjectives modifying
plural nouns are introduced by cigo, as in cigo 'good ones'.
Liquids take the plural form cigo, as well as the pluralized form of the
adjective:
(10) ?utaako ogol cigo
I-d.rank mead REL good+PL+ADJ
dlamaako tar ci
I-ate meat REL good+ADJ
'I drank good mead'
('I drank mead which is good')
'I ate good meat'
Liquids trigger plural agreement on nouns marked for case. When a noun
that carries a case marking suffix is plural, a suffix -k- (glossed PC)
is inserted between the root and the case suffix (see 2.6 below).
(11)
arome coffee+PC+GEN
'aroma of coffee'
2.6. Plural marking on other NP constituents. Number is marked on other
constituents of nouns phrases in addition to nouns. These include such con-
phonological correspondences are as follows: glottalized conso-
nants lose their glottalization when borrowed into Majang, and the Amharic
"first order" vowel (a fronted schwa) is pronouned as a short /a/
Majang Noun Plurals 83
stituents as demonstratives. possessive pronouns. case markings. and rela-
tive markers.
Demonstratives are marked for number. as explained by Bender [1983b:130].
(12) ci n i 'this'
cinoi 'that'
cigi
cigo!
'these'
'those'
When a demonstrative is marked as a locative, there is an additional suffix
marking number on both singular and plural forms:
(13) ci nene 'in this' cigege 'in these'
Adjectival constructions are generally formed by relative clauses with in-
transitive verbs [Unseth forthcoming a]. These are marked for plural by a
plural affix which follows the intransitive suffix (IS). One exception to
this is the word for 'big' obi i , which becomes bobel" for plural, re-
taining a Proto-Surma process of stem reduplication for plural [Unseth
forthcoming b).
(14) co
which good+IS+REL
'one which is good'
cigo
which good+PL+IS+REL
'ones which are good'
Example (14) again illustrates what was pointed out above in 2.5, that sin-
gular relative clauses are introduced by co and plurals by cigo.
Majang nouns are overtly marked for case when they indicate genitive (GEN),
locative (LOC), or oblique (OBL) cases [Unseth forthcoming a]. If nouns
that are marked with these cases are plural (including liquids). they are
marked with a -k- suffix (glossed PC) preceding the case marker.
(15) mooyi taQ+a
give+ls salt cow+OBL
'I give salt to the cow'
tog i
cows chief+GEN
'cows of a chief'
mooyi togi+k+a
give+ls salt cows+PC+OBL
'I give salt to the cows'
togi
cows chief+PL+PC+GEN
'cows of chiefs'
84 Studies in African Linguistics 19(1), 1988
komo i kL b
color pot+GEN
'color of a pot'
komo i
color coffee+PC+GEN
'color of coffee'
Possessive pronouns show number for both the possessors and the possessed
objects [Bender 1983b:129], a pattern found in other Surma and Eastern Su-
danic languages, e.g. Didinga [Odden 1983:168], Murle [Arensen 1982:98],
Mursi [Turton & Bender 1976: 531], Me 'en [Will forthcoming], Anyuak [Lusted
1976:499].
2.7. Bryan's *N/*K number marking pattern. In a discussion of Majang
noun plurals, it is useful to consider a brief summary of ways in which Ma-
jang uses the *N/*K pattern, *N to mark singular and *K to mark plural.
Foreshadowing Bryan, Cerulli [1948] had noted several examples of k for
marking plural constructions. Bryan [1968:169] used *N and *K to refer
to proto-segments whose reflexes vary from language to language. For exam-
ple, Majang often has a voiced velar stop 9 as a reflex of *K, such as
in possessive pronouns. Bryan [1959] earlier wrote about a possible sub-
stratum using a TIK marking pattern, but here I refer mostly to her later,
more developed work.
The following types of constructions have been explained above, all of
which show evidence of the *N/*K pattern:
(16) Demonstratives
ci ni 'this' cigi 'these'
(17) Locative demonstratives
cinene 'in this' cigege 'in these'
(18) Noun plurals when marked for case
gabl+aa mooyi tal)+a
give+ls salt cow+OBL
'I give salt to the cow'
(19) Relative markers
co (singular)
gabl+aa mooyi togi+!+a
give+ls salt cows+PC+OBL
'I give salt to the cows'
cigo (plural) (see (12) above)
(20)
(21)
Majang Noun Plurals 85
Possessive pronouns
tal) "naak 'my cow' tog i gaal)k 'my cows'
toon naak 'my child' toomok it.aal)k 'my children'
Number suffixes
singular
tutukan

pi i


plural
tutukak

pi i

I
'egg'
'path'
'eyelash'
'leopard'
'bracelet'
In addition to these, some question words are also marked for plural when
the expected answer is plural. Marking for plural on question words is
based on suffixes containing reflexes of *K.
(22) mE I+k+i+ko
come+LOC+3s+PAST who?
'who (sg) came?'
b'i'okot+u+ko j i k
kill+3s+PAST what?
'what (sg) did he kill?'
mEI+k+ir+ko wod'i'+ak
come+LOC+3p+PAST who?+PL
'who (pI) came?'
jik+onak
kill+3s+PAST what?+PL
'what (pI) did he kill?'
On the question word 'which?', there is also a suffix -n for singular:
(23)
kEt+E kEEt wo+n
chop+3s tree which?+SG
'which tree did he chop?'
kEt+E kEEn wo+g
chop+3s trees which?+PL
'which trees did he chop?'
3. Comparison with Other Surma Languages
A comparison of Majang data with the limited data available on other
Surma languages reveals several points in common.
3.1. Plural suffixes. For Surma languages, the most thorough description
of plural formation is Arensen's [1982:27-47] Murle Grammar, in which he dem-
onstrates that some plural classes are based on semantic categories, some
based on phonological criteria, yet others seem totally arbitrary. Since
Murle's 18 plural classes are well documented, much of the same data was
86
Studies in African Linguistics 19(1), 1988
gathered in Majang for comparison. I compared Majang's plural classes to
Mur1e examples to see if the" same nouns had similar suffixes or if the same
sets of nouns grouped t o g e t h e r ~
Only two of the Mur1e noun plural classes appear comparable with Majang.
The first is a semantic class of flying creatures. Both Mur1e and Majang
have a class of flying creatures, though some of the specific members of
this class varied in the two languages.
Second, the use of -ak to mark plurals of derived nominal forms in Ma-
jang (see 2.3) closely parallels the Mur1e suffix -ok for plurals of de-
rived nouns [Arensen 1982:87] and also the suffix -k for derived nomina1s
in Didinga [Nicky De Jong, p.c.].
(22) singuiar plural
Murle paay+i n paay+i n+ak 'judgement' [Arensen 1982:87]
keeb+i n+et keeb+in+ok 'reading'
Didinga igor+ya+hit ogor+ya+k 'thief' [De Jong, p.c. ]
ben+yo+hit ben+yo+k 'singer'
This strongly suggests that Proto-Surma marked plurals of derived nouns
with a suffix *-Vk The Didinga examples contain another example of a
singulative suffix.
3.2. Singu1ative suffixes. All other Surma languages (for which there are
adequate descriptions) also have singu1ative suffixes, Murle [Arensen 1982:
40-44], Didinga [Odden 1983:170], Me'en [Will forthcoming], and Mursi [Tur-
ton & Bender 1976:544). Many of the same nouns that are marked for singu-
lative in Majang are also marked for singulative in other Surma languages.
The following are only a few of the many examples:
(23) Majang Mur1e Didinga Me'en
'tree' sg. keet keet xeet ket
pI.
keen keen xeenA kena
'egg' sg. tutukan buurnet buurryanit mulac
pI. tutukak buuro burru mula
Majang Noun Plurals 87
'seed' sg. waikun xinomooc du?ut
pI. wa i kuk xinomo du?u
'leaf' sg. pi ll)on bolotot sal ic
pI. pi il)ok b::>lok saalaa
Tiersma [1982] provides an explanation of this consistent use of singulative
suffixes on the same nouns in the four languages. He compared languages
where singular nouns are more "marked" (more complex) than their plurals.
He labels these cases "locally unmarked", since they are an exception to
the universal trend of marking plurals rather than singulars. He has noted
that such locally unmarked plurals generally fall into certain classes,
' ~ h e n the referent of a noun occurs in pairs or groups, and/or when it is
generally referred to collectively, such a noun is locally unmarked in the
plural" [1982:835].5 The examples in (23) all fall into this category. In
fact, Tiersma [1982:842] specifically cites 'leaf' as a word that is fre-
quently unmarked in the plural in the world's languages. This concept of
locally unmarked plurals is at least a partial explanation for a group of
nouns that share singu1ative marking.
The Didinga forms for 'seed/s', xinomooc/xinomo , are an interesting ex-
ample of local markedness, since the Surma singu1ative suffix has been ap-
plied to a loan word. According to Dimmendaal [1982:104], these forms are
borrowed from Eastern Nilotic languages. He gives Eastern Nilotic cognates
for 'seed', such as kinom in Toposa, nomo in Bari and Lotuxo. Didinga
borrowed the Eastern Ni10tic root as its own unmarked form and added a sin-
gulative suffix to make the singular form. The root was borrowed into Di-
dinga, and Didinga speakers must have affixed their own singulative suffix.
A similar situation holds for mulac 'egg' in Me'en, since mula, the plu-
ral, is an Omotic loan. Tiersma's principle of local markedness gives an
explanation for the suffixed, longer singular form. In both of these cases,
5Greenberg [1970:114] had earlier recognized the same principle at work
in many Nilo-Saharan languages, observing that singulative suffixes are of-
ten affixed to a noun whieh is "a single particle of an extended or collect-
ive entity".
88 Studies in African Linguistics 19(1), 1988
the Surma singulative suffix and the general principles of its use are car-
ried over onto loan words.
Singulative suffixes in various Surma languages show that Proto-Surma
not only had the widespread -n singulative (found more in Majang than in
other Surma languages), but also *T, as in kEEt 'tree'. The pattern of
*T
for singular was also part of B.ryan's [1968] work, found commonly on
nominals. In several Surma languages, this *T is realized as lei, e.g.
Didinga 'louse' and i')a 'lice' [Odden 1983:170].
Linguists with a background in Ethiopian languages may be reminded of
Ferguson's [1976:74] article on the Ethiopian Language Area (ELA), where he
listed the singulative markers as one of the grammatical features of the
ELA. Zaborski [1986:292] has shown that in theCushitic languages (the lar-
gest part of the ELA), "a group of singulative suffixes contains the old
Afroasiatic or Hamito-Semitic morpheme -t- ". It is indeed striking to
find the same morpheme -t- for an uncommon grammatical category such as
singulative in two language groups that are supposedly unrelated.
Bryan [1968:215] had found some Cushitic languages that fit her T/K
number marking pattern, but called them "aberrant". If, however, as Zabor-
ski states, they are reflexes of an Afroasiatic morpheme, they are not aber-
rant when viewed in the Afroasiatic context. Since Majang and Surma -n
and -t singulative markers are part of a larger pattern, and
since the Cushitic singulative -t- is part of a larger Afroasiatic pat-
tern, any discussion of relationship between the Surma singulative and the
ELA singulative is inappropriate. We should probably credit this merely to
coincidence.
3.3. Supp1etive singular and plural stems. Tiersma's work helps explain
the co-existence of suppletive singular and plural stems for 'cow' (ta!)1
togi) , 'person' (iditljoop) , and 'woman' (!)aai/!)on). He points out
[1982:841] that when a word is used often enough in the plural, there is a
greater tendency to preserve and tolerate morphological irregularity in its
forms. The comparative evidence confirms this with Mur1e also showing sup-
pletive stems for the singular and plural of 'person' (eet/:> I) and 'cow'
Majang Noun Plurals 89
(tal)/t i in)
3.4. Double plurals. There, is at least one example of a double plural (a
plural form marked with a second plural marker) that becomes evident by com-
paring Majang data with that of other Surma languages. shown in (24) below:
(24) singular
Murle ibaa
Majang baadt'i
plural
ibaati
baadt'iak
'arm'
'bicep'
The Murle plural for 'arm' is clearly cognate to the Majang singular
'bicep'. Based on these two forms. the Proto-Surma plural of 'arm/bicep'
was approximately *baaOi (the medial consonant being some type of alveo-
dental stop). Majang has apparently added a typical plural suffix -ak to
what was already a plural in Proto-Surma.
6
Tiersma [1982:834. 835] specifi-
cally cited 'arm' as a word that is often locally unmarked in the plural.
so it is not surprising to find double plural marking on this form.
3.5. *N/*K patterning. Just as Bryan's *N/*K pattern for marking sin-
gular and plural was found in Majang, it is also common in other Surma lan-
guages. marking number on some of the same constructions. such as interro-
gative pronouns. demonstratives. possessive pronouns [Bryan 1968:180-1831.
4. Summary
In summary. this paper has shown that Majang marks number on nouns by
three methods (singulative suffixes. plural suffixes. suppletive stems). has
shown the Majang singulative suffixes to fit a larger African pattern, has
shown that Tiersma's "local markedness" c.oncept gives explanations for some
Alternative1y.Mur1e reinterpreted the Proto-Surma singular as its plu-
ral, then removed the final syllable -ti to form a singular. This is
less likely for two reasons. First. it 'is the reverse of what is suggested
by the concept of local markedness. whieh would be that a noun which is
used more often in the plural would be more basic in the plural and there-
fore a candidate for double plural affixation. Secondly, -ti , the final
syllable of the Mur1e plural i baat i , is a normal Murle plural suffix for
body parts [Arensen 1982:36], so this also suggests that ibaa was the ori-
ginal singular.
90 Studies in African Linguistics 19(1),1988
points, has given evidence of a Proto-Surma plural suffix -VK for derived
nouns, and has shown several ways in which most liquids are s y n t ~ c t i c plu-
rals.
REFERENCES
Arensen, Jon. 1982. Murle Grammar. Occasional Papers in the Study of Su-
danese Languages, 2. Juba: College of Education, Summer Institute of
Linguistics, and Institute of Regional Languages.
Bender, M. Lionel. 1983a. "Introduction." InM.L. Bender (ed.), Nilo-
Saharan Language Studies, pp. 3-10. Committee on Northeast African
Studies, Monograph 10. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michi-
gan State University.
Bender, M. Lionel. 1983b. "Majang phonology and morphology." M.L. Bender
(ed.), Nilo-Saharan Language Studies, pp. 114-147. Committee on
Northeast Af:dcan Studies, .Monograph 10. East Lansing: African Stud-
ies Center, Michigan State University.
Bender, Lionel and Malik Agaar Ayre. 1980. Preliminary Gaam-English-Gaam
Dictionary. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.
Bryan, Margaret. 1959. "The TIK languages: a new substratum." Africa
29:1-21.
Bryan, Margaret. 1968. "The *N/*K languages of Africa." Journal of Afri-
can Languages 7:169-217.
Cerulli, Enrico. 1948. "11 1inguiaggio dei Masongo nell 'Etiopia occiden-
tale." Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 7:131-166.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit. 1982. "Contacts between Eastern Nilotic and Surma
groups." In J. Mack and P. Robertshaw (eds.), Culture History in the
Southern Sudan, pp. 101-110. Memoir 8. Nairobi: British Institute
of Eastern Africa.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit. 1987. "Drift and selective mechanisms in morphologi-
cal changes: the Eastern Ni10tic case." In Anna Giacalone Ramat,
Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini, (eds.), Papers from the 7th In-
ternational Conference on Historical Linguistics, pp. 193-210. Cur-
rent Issues in Linguistic Theory, 48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ferguson, Charles. 1976. "The Ethiopian language area." In M.L. Bender,
J.D. Bowen, R.L. Cooper, and C.A. Ferguson (eds.), Language in Ethio-
pia, pp. 63-76. London: Oxford University Press.
Majang Noun Plurals 91
Fleming, Harold. 1983. "Surma etymologies." In Rainer Vossen and Mari-
anne Bechhaus-Gerst (eds"l, Nilotic Studies, pp. 523-555. Kolner
Beitrage zur Afrikanistik, Band 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Greenberg, Joseph. 1970'. The Languages of Africa, 3rd ed. Bloomington:
Indiana University and The Hague: Mouton.
Hall, R.M.R. et a1. 1975:. "Toward a reconstruction of Proto-Nilotic vocal-
ism." In R.K. Herbert (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on
African Linguistics,pp. 1-15. Working Papers in Linguistics, 20.
Columbus: Ohio State University.
Hieda, Osamu. 1983. "Some historical changes in nominal stems in Nilotic
languages." In Rainer Vossen and Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst (eds.),
Nilotic Studies, pp. 311-335. J.(6lner Beitrage zur Afrikanistik, Band
10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Lusted, Marie. 1976. "Anywa." In M. Lionel Bender (ed.), The Non-semitic
Languages of Ethiopia, pp. 495-512. Committee on Ethiopian Studies,
Monograph 5. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State
University.
Odden, David. 1983. "Aspects of Didinga phonology and morphology." In M.
L. Bender (ed.), Nilo-Saharan Language Studies, pp. 148-176. Commit-
tee on Northeast African Studies, Monograph 10. East Lansing: African
Studies Center, Michigan State University.
Tiersma, Peter. 1982. "Local and general markedness." Language 58:832-
849.
Tucker, A. N.
Sudan."
896.
1933-1935. "Survey of the language groups in the southern
Bulletin of the School of oriental and African Studies 7:861-
Tucker, A.N. and M.A. Bryan. 1962. "Noun classification in Kalenjin."
African Language Studies 3:137-181.
Turton, David and M. Lionel Bender. 1976. "Mursi." In M.L. Bender (ed.),
The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, pp. 533-561. Committee on
Ethiopian Studies, Monograph 5. East Lansing: African Studies Center,
Michigan State University.
Unseth, Peter. forthcoming a. "Majang grammar sketch." In M.L. Bender
(ed.), Nilo-Saharan Language Studies 2.
Unseth, Peter. forthcoming b. "Reduplication in Majang." In Franz Rot-
t1and and Lucia Omondi (eds.), proceedings of the 3rd International
Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium. Germany,.
Van Otterloo, Roger. 1979. A Kalenjin Dialect Survey. Language Data,
Africa Series, microfiche 18. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics
Will, Hans-Georg. forthcoming. "Me' en grammar." In M.L. Bender (ed.),
Nilo-Saharan Language Studies 2.
Zaborski, Andrzej. 1986. The Morphology of the Nominal Plural in the Cush-
itic Languages. Veroffentlichungen der Institute fur Afrikanistik und
Agyptoligie der Universitat Wien, 39. Vienna: Afro-Pub.