Interpreting reconstructed kin lexicon Christopher Ehret New Directions in Historical Linguistics Lyon, May 2008

Characteristics of kinship reconstruction Kin terms, like any other words in a language, undergo shifts in meaning and usage over time But the systemic fit of kin terms within overall terminological systems greatly constrains the possible directions and variety of meaning changes that can take place Semantic shifts in kin terms tend to follow recurrent patterns: –Extension of a term’s reference from a primary blood relation to a secondary blood relation –Extension of a term’s reference from a blood relation to an affinal relation

Some recurrent examples: parents’ siblings terminology In general, primary kin relations with concrete individual referents— father, mother, sibling, and child—can be extended to collateral relations of the same or alternate generations –Societies commonly extend the word for ‘father’ to include ‘father’s brother,’ creating what is called a collateral merging terminology for the parents’siblings –A word for ‘father’s brother’ can in turn expand its reference to include the ‘mother’s brother’ also, in that case reflecting a shift in the kin system from a collateral merging to a generational reckoning of parents’ siblings But the opposite direction of change, with a word for ‘father’s brother’ (or ‘uncle’ more generally) developing into the primary term for ‘father,’ probably never occurs

Some recurrent examples: parents’ siblings’ children Similar constraints govern semantic change in same-generation primary kin relations: –Societies commonly extend the words for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ to include the parallel cousins (father’s brother’s and mother’s sister’s children), as is the case in ‘Iroquois’ or Dravidian kinship systems –The application of terms originally for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ can also be extended to all cousins, as is characteristic of a ‘Hawaiian’ kin system But the opposing direction of change, from ‘parallel cousin’ to ‘brother/sister/sibling’, probably never occurs

Other recurrent patterns of kin semantic shift, 1 Crow terminology: –In a Crow cousin system, the same term names both one’s father’s sister and her children –The trajectory of semantic shift is unidirectional: ‘father’s sister’ is primary in this case, and the meaning ‘father’s sister’s child’ is secondary –Hence, if the reflexes of a certain kin root word mean ‘father’s sister’ in language A, but ‘father’s sister’s child’ in a related language B, a particular sequence of meaning changes must be posited: In language B the application of the term must earlier in history have expanded to include ‘father’s sister’s child’ as well as ‘father’s sister’ Subsequently, a new term was innovated for ‘father’s sister,’ leaving the original term with just the secondary, derived meaning, ‘father’s sister’s child’ These semantic outcomes thus imply the former existence of a Crow cousin naming system in language B

Other recurrent patterns of kin semantic shift, 2 Omaha terminology: –In an Omaha cousin system, one calls one’s mother’s brother (MB) and his children (MBC) by the same term –Direction of semantic change is again unidirectional: ‘mother’s brother’ is primary in this case, and the meaning ‘mother’s brother’s child’ is secondary –Hence, if the root that names ‘mother’s brother’ in language A applies to just ‘mother’s brother’s child’ in language B: Language B went through a period in which the term came to cover both ‘mother’s brother’ and his child, implying a former period of Omaha terminology in that language

Social history implications of Crow and Omaha terminologies Crow terminology: –Crow terminology consistently occurs with matrilineal descent –The reconstruction of an earlier Crow naming pattern implies the former presence of matrilineal clan or lineage organization Omaha terminology: –Omaha terminology consistently goes with strong patrilineal descent institutions –The reconstruction of Omaha terminology at a previous historical stage implies the presence of patrilineal clan or lineage organization in that era

Semantic shift, consanguineal to affinal kin Shifts of the referent of a kin term from blood relation to marriage relation always rest on or reveal customary patterns of marriage Societies have, very broadly stated, three different preferential marriage patterns, each with different effect on kin term semantic shift –No marriage of first cousins is allowed –Cross-cousin marriage is allowed: preferred marriage partner is the child of one’s parent’s opposite-sex sibling—child of mother’s brother or father’s sister (or a person seen as belonging in some analogous way to that social category) –Parallel cousin marriage is allowed: preferred marriage partner for a man is his father’s brother’s daughter (or someone belonging at a deeper level of relationship to the father’s kin group)

Semantic shifts, consanguineal to affinal kin: examples No marriage between first cousins: –No meaning shifts, consanguineal to affinal kin –Or, alternatively: father-in-law (EF) is called ‘father’; mother-in-law (EM) is called ‘mother’; etc. Preferential cross-cousin marriage: –‘mother’s brother’ (MB) > ‘spouse’s father’ (EF) –‘father’s sister’ > ‘spouse’s mother’ (EM) –‘father’s sister’s child’ (FZC) or ‘mother’s brother’s child’ (MBC) (cross cousin) > ‘spouse’ (E) –‘father’s sister’s child’ (FZC) or ‘mother’s brother’s child’ (MBC) (cross cousin) > ‘spouse’s sibling’ (EG) Preferential marriage to father’s brother’s child (FBC): –‘father’s brother’ (FB) > ‘spouse’s father’ (EF)

Real-time examples Parents’ siblings

Proto-Nilo-Saharan aunt-uncle lexicon The proto-Nilo-Saharan (PNS) terms for father’s and mother’s siblings formed what is called a bifurcate collateral system In this kind of system, there are distinct terms for each member of the next ascending generation: –Father (F): * EEya; * baab (voc.) –Mother (M):* ya –Father’s brother (FB):*k’ was –Father’s sister (FZ):* tat h a –Mother’s sister (MZ):* zOp –Mother’s brother (MB):* nam

Uduk: present-day aunt-uncle system

PNS aunt-uncle terms preserved in Uduk PNS * zOp MZ > Uduk sop h FZ –Implication: Uduk passed through a period of linear PG terminology (like that in modern-day English, with a single term for both kinds of aunts) (MZ > FZ/MZ > FZ) PNS *k’ was FB > Uduk k ’ was - PosG in terms for cross-cousin –Same implication as for * zOp MZ: Uduk passed through a period of linear PG terminology (like that in modern-day English, with a single term for both kinds of uncles) (FB > FB/MB > MB)

PNS aunt-uncle terms preserved in Uduk, 2 PNS * tat h a FZ > Uduk atat h a MB –Implication: Uduk passed through a period in which PNS term for father’s sister became a category term for parent’s opposite-sex sibling (FZ > FZ/MB > MB) PNS * EEya F > Uduk iiya FB –Implication: Uduk passed through a period of bifurcate merging terminology (in which F = FB, M = MZ)

Sequencing the evolution of Uduk PG terminology, 1

Sequencing the evolution of Uduk PG terminology, 2

Sequencing the evolution of Songay PG terminology, 1

Sequencing the evolution of Songay PG terminology, 2

Inferring unilineal descent, 1 Crow terminology (FZ = FZC) implies matriliny

Sequencing evolution of Songay cousin terminology, 2

Sequencing evolution of Songay cousin terminology

Direct testimony of former Songay matriliny Songay has a distinct word, tu!be!y, for the children of a man’s sister This word is a transparent noun derivative of Songay tu!bu! ‘to inherit’ (by addition of the Songay noun suff. -ey (< *ay) A man’s sister’s children were thus formerly his heirs Inheritance from a man to his sister’s children is a defining feature of matrilineal descent

Inferring unilineal descent, 2 Omaha terminology (MB = MBC) implies patriliny

Evidence of Omaha cousin terminology in earlier Gaam Gaam term today for husband, j id, appears originally to have been the word for mother’s brother, i.e., MB > H This outcome requires a two-stage history –First, the term for ‘mother’s brother’ expanded its meaning to include ‘mother’s brother’s son’ (MB > MB and MBS) In other words, Omaha cousin terminology came into existence, indicative of a strongly patrilineal period in Gaam history –Second, the term shifted further in meaning, to include ‘husband’ (MBS > H) In other words, the earlier Gaam followed the custom of preferential cross-cousin marriage, in which the husband frequently is a mother’s brother’s son The striking historical point is that the Gaam descent today is bilateral, even though the Gaam must once have had patrilineal descent

Sequencing evolution of Gaam cousin terminology

Inferring preferential marriage patterns (we just presented the case of Gaam)

Further Nilo-Saharan examples For (Darfur language)— – arus ‘sister’s child’ (ZC) and ‘daughter’s husband’ (DH) – maŸre⁄ ‘spouse’s mother’: from earlier meaning ‘father’s sister’ (FZ) Kunama— – aiba ‘husband’s father’ (HF): from earlier *a- yEmb -, NS *a- attrib. pref. plus old NS root * yEmb ‘mother’s brother’ (MB) –Interestingly, Kunama does have imba for MB, but this shape is a loanword from the neighboring Nara language

An Afroasiatic example of a much rarer marriage preference Proto-Semitic * ©am ‘father-in-law’; * ©am-t ‘mother-in-law’ –This meaning is restricted to Semitic within the Afroasiatic family, except for Beja which borrowed it from Arabic in the past 1000 years Proto-Southern Cushitic * ©am- ‘father’s brother’ Normative directions of semantic shift in kin terms: from blood kin to affinal kin referents –Implication: Southern Cushitic meaning ‘father’s brother’ would have been the original Afroasiatic referent –Shift to ‘father-in-law’ took place in line of descent leading to proto- Semitic

Further implications The linguistic inference in this case closely tracks the comparative cultural and other historical testimony –The shift from ‘father’s brother’ to ‘father-in-law’ makes sense only in a customary situation of preferential marriage to one’s father’s brother’s daughter (FBD) –The FBD marriage preference is strictly Semitic within the family, except for the historically recent adoption by certain Berber peoples and the Beja, who have been profoundly influenced by Arabs since the emergence of Islam –Everywhere else the comparative cultural, as well as lexical evidence shows Afroasiatic speakers to have either prohibited all first cousin marriage or, in some instances, allowed cross-cousin marriage –In other words, there is no historical depth to the custom anywhere among Afroasiatic speakers, except among the Semites The existence of normative directions of semantic shift in kin terms often allows the history of a particular root term to be inferred even if it is preserved today in very few languages