Arabic-Berber-Songhay contact and the
grammaticalisation of “thing”

Lameen Souag

► To cite this version:

Lameen Souag. Arabic-Berber-Songhay contact and the grammaticalisation of “thing”. Stefano Manfredi; Mauro Tosco. Arabic in Contact, 6, John Benjamins, pp.53-71, 2018, Studies in Arabic Linguistics, 9789027201355. 10.1075/sal.6.04sou. halshs-01966539

HAL Id: halshs-01966539

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01966539

Submitted on 8 Dec 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Arabic-Berber-Songhay contact and the grammaticalisation of "thing"

Lameen Souag

The development of double negation in Arabic has attracted increasing attention in recent years (Lucas & Lash 2010; Wilmsen 2014; Diem 2014). The striking parallels between negation in Berber and North African Arabic invite an explanation in contact terms, and such explanations have indeed been proposed (Lucas 2010; Lucas 2013) and disputed (Brugnatelli 2014). However, in addition to serving as a postverbal negative, reflexes of *šay?* have a number of other functions across North African dialects not directly related to negation, notably indefinite quantification and polar question marking. The marking of these functions, too, shows striking Arabic-Berber parallels generally neglected in discussions of the phenomenon, and absent even from Kossmann's (2013) comprehensive overview of contact effects on Berber. Taking these into account produces a more complete picture of Arabic influence on Berber, and provides clues to the relative chronology of the developments in question in both. As in other cases, it appears that Arabic influence on non-Arabic varieties sometimes preserves usages obsolete in present-day regional Arabic dialects.

## 1. Introduction

Over more than a millennium of intense contact, Berber and Arabic have profoundly influenced one another in North Africa. In some cases, Berber varieties preserve forms and constructions long since abandoned by their present-day Arabic-speaking neighbours (Souag 2009; Souag 2015a). Berber evidence is nevertheless often neglected in attempts to unravel the history of Arabic dialects. In the case of double negation, while many discussions ignore Berber entirely (eg Diem 2014; Wilmsen 2014), the importance of Arabic influence on Berber in the development of double negation has already been highlighted (Lucas 2010:50–64; Lucas 2013). In both Arabic and Berber, in precisely the same contexts, a word originally meaning “thing” has developed into a postverbal negative particle, apparently following the familiar cycle of count noun (/_NEG) > emphatic negator (/_NEG) > NEG2 (/_NEG) > NEG2 outlined by Jespersen (1917); notwithstanding the scepticism of Brugnatelli (2014), this seems unlikely to be coincidental. Contact grammaticalisation of this kind is widely attested worldwide and is reasonably well-understood (Heine & Kuteva 2005); it is driven primarily by the calquing of polyfunctionality.

However, negation is far from being the only function developed by Arabic *šay?* “thing”: as already highlighted by Obler (1990), this morpheme's descendants have a wide variety of functions in Arabic dialects, of which the most widespread besides negation include indefinite quantification and polar interrogation. If the development of “thing” in Berber has been influenced by Arabic, one might expect it to have developed the same functions in Berber as well. This expectation is in fact borne out by the data. However, discussion of the role of contact in grammaticalisation from “thing” in the Arabic and Berber literature focuses almost exclusively on negation. Kossmann (2013:305–306) briefly discusses the possibility of Arabic influence on the development of polar interrogation marking in Berber, but gives little space to the Arabic dialectological evidence for this. In Korandje – a heavily Berber- and Arabic-influenced Northern Songhay variety spoken in the Algerian Sahara – parallel developments are also observable, and have not yet been discussed anywhere. In this paper, evidence will be presented for the claim that the grammaticalisation of “thing” within Arabic has influenced Berber, and thence Northern Songhay, not only in the domain of negation but also in the domains of quantification and interrogation.

## 2. The pre-contact functions of Arabic šay? and Berber *kǎra*
Prior to intensive contact between Arabic and Berber, each seems to have developed – presumably independently, or at most mediated by more remote areal factors – a word covering the senses “thing”, “something”, and, under negation, “nothing”. The evidence for this is direct in the case of Arabic, and indirect but strong in the case of Berber.

## 2.1 Arabic

As Al-Jallad (2014) points out, Arabic šayʔ “thing” appears to be historically a deverbal noun from the root šyʔ “to want, to will”, attested in earlier Safaitic with the more specific meaning “to experience lack or want”. The implied development of “need” > “thing” precisely parallels the more recent history of widespread dialectal Arabic ḫājah. By the beginning of the Islamic era, it had acquired a further function as an indefinite pronoun “anything”; both usages are well-attested in the Qurʾān and would become standard in Classical Arabic:

(1) ʔin t-ubd-ū šayʔ-a-n ʔaw t-uxf-ū-hu... if 2impf-reveal-2pl thing-acc-indef or 2impf-conceal-2pl... Whether you reveal anything or conceal it... (Qurʔān 33:54)

As such, the indefinite accusative ending allowed it to form adverbial “at all”:

(2) fa-l-yawm-a lā t-uḍlam-u nafs-u-n šayʔ-a-n
for-DEF-day-ACC NEG 3FSG.IMPF-wrong.PASS-DECL soul-NOM-INDEF thing-ACC-INDEF
This day no soul will be wronged in any way / at all (Qurʔān 36:54)

Of course, written sources represent only a small part of the dialectal diversity of early Arabic; it is possible that šayʔ had already acquired more functions in some dialects. However, these can at any rate be taken as the minimal set of functions for šayʔ when Arabic first came into contact with Berber during the early Islamic era.

## 2.2 Berber

No relevant documentary evidence on Berber exists for the early Islamic period, so it is necessary to take a more indirect approach to the reconstruction of the functions of *kǎra. This etymon is found everywhere in Berber except in Tuareg, whose hārāt “thing, something, a little of” cannot be regularly related to *kǎra despite its obvious phonetic and semantic similarity. The subclassification of Berber remains problematic, but Zenaga (in Mauritania) stands out as a clear outlier (Basset 1952; Kossmann 1999), along with its recently discovered close relative Tetserrét (Lux 2013); only slightly less divergent are the Libyan varieties of Ghadames and Awjila. Moreover, Zenaga and Awjila are both spoken at the extreme peripheries of Berber, making it relatively unlikely that contact should affect them both in identical ways. Zenaga is particularly valuable in that it also shows unusually little Arabic influence. Any function of *kǎra shared by Zenaga with at least one of the Libyan varieties mentioned is thus effectively certain to be proto-Berber. All four of them share the nominal sense “thing” for this etymon (whose various senses will for convenience be glossed below as KRA); this sense may thus be taken as original:

(3) Zenaga: tôbbəl tə-skər ... əgālləj̧h ən əḍ karəh
(Mauritania) servant.F 3FSG-make ... many GEN PL KRA
The maidservant made... many things. (Nicolas 1953:73)

(4) Tetserrét: karad wad an tə-gas-ət
(Niger) KRA DEM.M CENTRIF 2-find-2SG
the thing that you have found (Khamed Attayoub 2001:143)

(5) Ghadames: i-ssə-mûd kara-y-o
(W Libya) 3MSG-CAUS-pray KRA-EP-DEM
This thing/act makes prayer valid. (Lanfry 1973:159)
(6) Awjila: **kéra-y-âya** ddîwa

(E Libya) KRA-EP-DEM what
What is this thing? (van Putten 2013:263)

At least three out of these four varieties also share the more grammaticalised sense of “something”,
or with negation “nothing”, with most of the more central branches of Berber:

“something”:

(7) Zenaga: y-ukf-iʔh kārāh
3MSG-give-1SG.DAT KRA
He gave me something. (Taine-Cheikh 2008:299)

(8) Tetserret: har i-daš karad
until 3MSG-touch KRA
Until he touched something... (Lux 2013:556)

(9) Ghadames: awādəm i-ttă-thăššəm d-i-ftăk kara harmān
human 3MSG-IMPF-feel.shame IRR-3MSG-beg KRA deprivation
A person is ashamed to beg for something out of deprivation (Lanfry 1968:4)

“nothing” (under negation):

(10) Zenaga: wär-iʔh y-ukfi kārāh
NEG-1SG.DAT 3MSG-give KRA
He gave me nothing. (Taine-Cheikh 2008:299)

(11) Tetserret: iwwat ešli ad wur n-ila-t karad
one.F womanDEM NEG PTCP-have-3SG.ACC KRA
a woman who had nothing (Khamed Attayoub 2001:135)

(12) Awjila: wur gâr-i kéra
NEG at-1SG KRA
I have nothing (van Putten 2013:263)

The extension from the noun “thing” to the indefinite pronoun “something/nothing” can thus
plausibly be considered to have taken place before the breakup of proto-Berber. These two senses
are, in fact, the only ones well-attested in both of the two peripheries, and thus the only ones that
can be confidently reconstructed for the proto-Berber stage. While “thing” is commonly expressed
in modern northern Berber varieties by Arabic loans, a number of varieties from Tashelhiyt in
southern Morocco through to Chaouia in eastern Algeria use the Latin loan *ta-ɣawsa < causa
(Kossmann 2013:71). The grammaticalisation from “thing” to “something” in Berber must
therefore have taken place before Latin ceased to be influential in North Africa, and hence most
probably before Arabic contact became significant. At the time of first Arabic-Berber contact, the
three main senses of Arabic šayʔ - “thing”, “something”, and “nothing” - could therefore, at least in
some areas, be translated by Berber *kāra (though the sense “thing” may already have been lost in
other areas).

3. From indefinite pronoun to indefinite quantifier

The leap from indefinite pronoun to indefinite quantifier is fairly natural, but by no means
inevitable, as attested by its absence in many varieties. It is widely attested in Arabic and extremely
widespread in Berber; however, its distribution within Arabic includes dialects that can hardly be
taken to have undergone influence from Berber, whereas the reverse is not true.

3.1 Arabic

The earliest examples of the use of šɛ̈/šī as an indefinite quantifier directly preceding the noun
documented by Diem (2014:103–105) date to the 12th and 13th centuries, eg:

(14) Andalusi lāḥ l-ak šī 'imāra
appear.3MSG.PF to-2SG thing sign
There appeared some sign to you (Al-Shushtarī, d. 1269)

The early examples cited by Diem include Andalusi poetry and Geniza letters, variously probably or certainly from the Maghreb; there are no unambiguously Egyptian examples. All involve inanimates, in both realis and irrealis contexts. The construction continues to be widespread in modern Maghrebi Arabic; it is described in detail for Moroccan Arabic by Caubet (1983). Within the Maghreb, it is best attested in Morocco and western Algeria (Madouni-La Peyre 2003:251), areas where a Berber substrate is prominent. In the eastern Maghreb, it is less widely reported; however, it is attested in Malta, eg *xi mkien* (&lt;x&gt;=š) “somewhere” (Haspelmath & Caruana 1996:215), and even in Benghazi in eastern Libya: *šī yowm* “some day” (Benkato 2014:88). In both the latter regions, Berber substratum influence hardly exceeds a few lexical items.

This use of šē/šī is, however, also attested in the Middle East. In Levantine Arabic, the use of šē/šī
as an indefinite quantifier directly preceding the noun is well-established, and is a well-known
feature of the regional koines. Among more local dialects, it is specifically reported (as ši) for Kfar
`Abida in northern Lebanon (Feghali 1919:279), (as šī) for Damascus (Cowell 1964:467), (as šē)
for Mharde in east-central Syria (Yoseph 2012:54), (as šī) for the central Syrian oasis of Soukhne
(Behnstedt 1994:123). It is, moreover, used (as ši) in Cypriot Maronite Arabic (Borg 2004:303),
whose separation from the rest of Levantine is rather early. Further east, however, this usage is
absent; in Iraqi Arabic koine, it is rather the more classical construction šī min which is used
(Woodhead & Beene 1967:254), while for Mardin, in Turkey just across from northeastern Syria, no
such usage of šī is reported (Grigoire 2009:241). A similar development with a different word order
may be attested in Tillo in southeastern Turkey, as suggested by the following example:

(15) ġīb=li kbrīt šī mən qwnak!
bring=1SG.DAT match some from there
give me some matches over there! (Lahdo 2009:229)

In south Arabia, šē/šī is not attested as an indefinite quantifier. However, it is attested throughout much of the region in a closely related function: as an irrealis existential, typically followed directly by the noun it predicates. For the Hadramawt dialect, Landberg (1901:628) notes that “Il est à remarquer que *n’est ainsi employé* [comme “il y a”] qu’après une conjonction et dans une proposition interrogative ou négative” [It is to be noted that šy is used in this way (as “there is”) only after a conjunction and in an interrogative or negative proposition]; this use of šī is widely attested in Yemen (Behnstedt 1996:690). For Dhofar, likewise, existential šē is documented by Davey (2013:170), and the examples given are consistently irrealis. As far north as Al-Baha in the southern Hijaz, mā š(ī) is used as the negative existential (Nadwi 1968:138–139). In parts of eastern Oman, we even find this use of šī combined with suffixed šī negation: šīši “there is not” (Brockett 1985:91).

Given the Yemeni and Syrian data, it appears impossible to explain the Arabic development through
contact with Berber. Its distribution within North Africa proper – specifically, its concentration in
the northwest – is thus to be explained not by the stronger influence of Berber in the northwest, but
rather by indefinite quantifier šī being a pre-Hilalian archaism within North African Arabic, brought
from the east by some of the earliest Arabic-speaking immigrants and later receding under the
influence of more recent arrivals using other strategies. Its attestation in Maltese, which has been
isolated from other Arabic dialects since before the 11th century arrival of the Banu Hilal,
strengthens this interpretation.
### 4. From indefinite pronoun to indefinite adverb

In Classical Arabic, as noted, the adverbial usage of šay'-an is well-attested. Diem (2014:13–21) gives a close study of its usage in the earliest Classical texts. In this period, it is found sentence- finally with positive declarative clauses in the sense “a bit, somewhat” as well as with interrogatives and negatives in the sense “at all, whatsoever”. The predicate is always gradable. If the verb is transitive, it must have an explicit object, normally definite. Examples (Diem 2014:17–18) include:

(21) fa-danaw-tu min-hu šayʔ-a-n
so-approach-1SG.PF from-3MSG thing-ACC-INDEF
I approached him a bit (Musnad Ibn Ḥanbal no. 15339)

(22) fa-hal dālika nāfiʕ-u-hā šayʔ-a-n?
so-Q that benefit.PTCP-NOM-3FSG thing-ACC-INDEF
Does this profit her a bit? (rather: ...at all?) (Musnad Ibn Ḥanbal no. 15358)

(23) mā naqam-nā min-hu šayʔ-a-n
NEG revenge-1PL.PF from-3MSG thing-ACC-INDEF
We took no revenge whatsoever on him (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim no. 3407)

In positive contexts, this usage was replaced in the post-classical period by reflexes of the diminutive šuwayʔ (Diem 2014:64). In negative contexts, it remained in usage much longer, behaving as little more than an emphatic negative particle and tending to cliticize to the verb; eg (Diem 2014:39):

(24) Andalusi: la ta-n-qasám-ši
NEG 2MSG-PASS-divide-thing
you are not divided at all (al-Shushtarī, d. 1269)

This emphatic negative usage is obsolete. By the 17th century, it had already been reduced to an unmarked postverbal negator in Egyptian Arabic (Diem 2014:47–56), and no dialect of which I am aware continues to limit it to emphatic negation: either it marks negation in general, a phenomenon already amply discussed elsewhere, or it has no surviving negative adverbial function (although in some cases a full reflex ši/šay may mark emphatic negation in contrast with a coeval reduced reflex -š).

In interrogative contexts, however, reflexes of šayʔ are quite widely used to mark polar interrogation, including in the Levant, Cairo, Malta, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and (arguably) Yemen (Singer 1958:81–91). Singer derives this function directly from the sense “something”. In Moroccan Arabic, however, polar interrogative ši occurs only with gradable predicates (Caubet 1993:II.76), whereas no dialect seems to restrict it to antipassives; it thus appears more probable that this usage derives from the adverbial usage of the indefinite pronoun discussed earlier. In some cases, these reflexes are still straightforwardly adverbial: standalone adverbial reflexes of šayʔ-a-n remain in use as polar interrogation markers in Levantine dialects, eg Syrian:

(25) ṭʔūmt-ī ḫəž-ət mən ṣand əl-kawwa ši?
suit-1SG.POSS come-3FSG.PFV from at DEF-cleaner Q?
Have my suits come back from the cleaners? (Cowell 1964:378)

In North Africa, this usage is still possible in Eastern Libyan Arabic:
(26) šif-t ahmad amis ši
see-2MSG.PFV Ahmad yesterday Q
Did you see Ahmad yesterday? (Owens 1984:102)

However, as in the negative usage, it shows a strong tendency to be reduced to a postverbal clitic; even in Eastern Libyan Arabic, it can also appear as a postverbal clitic -š.

**5. From indefinite adverb to polar interrogative marker**

We have seen that the use of Classical Arabic šayʔ-a-n in interrogatives in the sense of “at all, in any way” survives adverbially among Arabic dialects as a polar interrogative marker. This adverb has in turn frequently been reduced to a postverbal clitic, both in Arabic and among the more strongly Arabic-influenced easterly Berber varieties.

**5.1 Arabic**

In most North African examples, interrogative šayʔ appears immediately after the verb, eg:

(27) Algiers<fnref n="2" />: <djaoueb chi>
jawəb ši
answer.3MSG.PFV Q
Did he answer? (Delaporte 1845:82)

or:

(28) Tunis: t-uqʕɔ́d=ši úlla t-ímši
2SG.IMPF-stay=Q or 2SG.IMPF=walk
Will you stay, or leave? (Stumme 1896:143)

It can also directly follow a non-verbal predicator in some contexts, as in:

(29) Algiers: <And-ek=chi bezzaf menn-ou?>
ʕand-ək=ši bəzzaf mənn-u?
at-2SG=Q a.lot from-3MSG?
Do you have a lot of it? (Cotelle 1847:94)

Moroccan Arabic also shows a clause-initial interrogative particle waš (Caubet 1993:II.86). This form's precise relationship to interrogative ši is debatable; in at least some dialects, it is distinct from aš “what?” Wilmsen (2014:97) suggests a derivation from 3msg huwa (itself used phrase- initially to mark polar questions in several Arabic dialects) + interrogative -š; this is semantically plausible, but the loss of the h is difficult to explain.

**5.2 Berber**

In Berber, similar uses of *kǎra are much rarer than in Arabic, but are nevertheless well-attested in a number of varieties, most of them particularly Arabized. The early 19th century Kabyle dialect of Bejaia described by Brosselard et al. (1844) seems systematically to mark polar questions with a morpheme kra, a usage unknown in modern Kabyle (note that the town of Bejaia proper was predominantly Arabic-speaking at the time):

<footnote n="2">² The 19th century usage exemplified in these examples is obsolete in modern Algiers.</footnote>
(30) Kabyle of Bejaia: <Te-zemmer-eth kra a-yi-t-sahhah-eth ouayi?>
(Algeria) 2-can.IMPF-2SG KRA IRR-1SG.ACC-2-correct-2SG this
Can you correct this for me? (Brosselard 1844:21)

More frequently, we find a polar question marker š, optional or restricted to certain contexts, in varieties which also use š as NEG2 (cf. briefly Kossmann 2013:306):

(31) Beni Snous: i-llä-š ġr-es ụ́égŕùm
(W Algeria) 3MSG-be-Q at-3SG bread.ANN
Do you have any bread? (Destaing 1907:132)

(32) Chaoui of Batna: <adz-i-ouett-ech>
(E Algeria) ad-i-wətt-əš
IRR-3MSG-hit-Q
Will he hit? (Torchon 1871:82)

(33) Tamezret: i-qam-ak-š
(S Tunisia) 3MSG-lift-2MSG.ACC-Q
Has he lifted you up? (Ben Mamou 2005; Kossmann 2013:306)

(34) Zraoua: t-ufí-š-š ḫáža?
(S Tunisia) 2-find.NEGPFV-2SG-Q something
Did you find anything? (author's field notes)

(35) Sened: t-esen-et-ch manet i-nr'a ?
(Tunisia) 2-know-2SG-Q who 3MSG-kill.PFV
Do you know who killed him?<fnref n="3" /> (Provotelle 1911:88)

In Nafusi, this marker alternates with ši, indicating an Arabic borrowing:

(36) Fassato Nafusi: aġr-ék-ši agmâr?
(W Libya) at-2MSG-Q horse
Do you have a horse? (Beguinot 1942:139)

(37) ad-i-nġû-n-ši?
IRR-1SG.ACC-kill-3MPL-Q
Will they kill me? (Beguinot 1942:113)

In Zuara and Djerba, however, it is ša, suggesting Berber origin; it is written as an independent word in available sources, but always seems to appear immediately following the verb:

(38) Zuara: tə-ssə́n-əd ša ləmmi mášəy șaləh a?
(W Libya) 2-know-2SG Q when going Salih Q?
Do you know when Salih is going? (Mitchell 2009:104)

(39) yə-lla ša smášan g-tiddárt a?
3MSG-be Q Sem'an in-house Q?
Is Sem'an in the house? (Mitchell 2009:97)

<footnote n="3">³ This example is translated as a positive question, but since Sened allows negation with -š alone, its interpretation is potentially ambiguous.</footnote>
(40) Djerba: *r'er-ouen cha* *midden eggeth* *g elh'oumeth* *enn-ouen?*
(S Tunisia) *at-2MPL* *Q people many* *in neighbourhood* *GEN-2MPL*
Do you have many people in your neighbourhood? (Calassanti-Motylinski 1897:382)

The distribution of this development strongly suggests that it started in Arabic and proceeded to Berber. In some regions it was calqued from Arabic, in others it was borrowed directly.

The Arabic clause-initial particle *waš* has likewise been borrowed directly into Saharan varieties near the Algerian-Moroccan border such as Figuig and Igli, as observed by Kossmann (2013:305). At first sight, the clause-initial polar interrogative marker *ka* of Senhadja and Ghomara (northern Morocco) might likewise appear to derive from *kra*, as Kossmann suggests, in which case they could have been argued to be partial calques. However, in these languages *ka* also means “if”, from Arabic *kan*; interrogative and conditional *ka* are both non-spirant, while indefinite *kra* has a spirant *k* (Mourigh 2015:269, 347; Evgeniya Gutova p.c.). In neighbouring Tarifit, the clause-initial interrogative is *ma*, whose other senses include “if” (Serhoual 2002:283–285). It thus appears more plausible to interpret *ka* as derived from “if” than from *kra*.

## 6 Calquing in Korandje

The close-knit Songhay language family developed in the Sahel and is almost entirely spoken there. While Berber and Arabic have had some impact on all Songhay varieties, their influence is profound only in Northern Songhay, and remains relatively minimal in southerly varieties such as Zarma. One variety, however, is spoken far enough north to be located within the Maghreb proper, deeply under the influence of northern Berber and Arabic: Korandje (Souag 2010). For perhaps 800 years, the speakers of Korandje have lived at the small oasis of Tabelbala in southwestern Algeria; for 500 years or more, they were politically subordinate to neighbouring nomadic groups, notably the Arabic-speaking Ghenanma and the Berber-speaking Ait Atta, and their leading families claim Arab or Berber descent (Champault 1969; Souag 2015b). The extensive resulting influence on their language includes partial calquing of the grammaticalisation patterns of “thing”.

### 6.1 The pre-contact situation

Throughout non-Northern Songhay, reflexes of *hàyà* are used in the sense of “thing”:

(41) Gao: *Sorko kul nga bis-ey nda haya hinza*
Sorko all 3SG pass-3PL with thing three
All the Sorko surpass them by three things. (Prost 1956:402)

(42) Zarma: *hày-a wò*
thing-DEF DEM
this thing (Sibomana 2008:163)

In Korandje this usage is absent, but traces of it survive in other Northern varieties, cf. Tasawaq *hòò-γó* “this thing” (Kossmann 2015:92) and Tadaksahak *h-o* “this (thing)” (Christiansen-Bolli 2011:144). It must therefore be reconstructed for proto-Songhay.

All Songhay varieties, without exception, continue to use *hàyà* in the sense of “something”:

(43) Gao: *haya g' a ra*
thing EXIST 3SG LOC
There's something in it. (Prost 1956:402)
(44) Zarma: **kande ay** se **hay hann-o**
bring 1SG DAT thing good-ADJ
Bring me something good. (Bernard & White-Kaba 1994:151)

(45) Korandje: **nə-ddzɔm** **haya** **nə-s-ddzɔm** **haya?**
2sg-sow thing 2sg-neg-sow thing?
Did you sow anything, or did you sow nothing? (Souag 2010:442)

yielding, under negation “nothing”:

(46) Gao: **haya š'** a ra
thing NEG.EXIST 3SG LOC
There's nothing in it. (Prost 1956:402)

(47) Zarma: **a si-nda** hay fo
3SG NEG.EXIST-with thing one
He has nothing. (Bernard & White-Kaba 1994:151)

(48) Korandje: **a-s-ks=i.s** haya
3SG-NEG-leave=3PL.DAT anything
He left them nothing (author's notes).

In many varieties, a slightly more lexical sense “wealth, property” is also attested; it is an open question whether this is original, or derives from “thing”. In either case, Proto-Songhay too seems to have covered the same core senses for *hàyà as Arabic for šay' and Berber for *kǎra.

**6.2 From indefinite pronoun to indefinite quantifier**

Within Songhay, only one language has extended *hàyà to quantifier use: Korandje, as briefly discussed in Souag (2010:231). As a quantifier or as a pronoun, the reflex takes the form *hą* in subject position and *haya* otherwise.

(49) Korandje: **lwərt** hą s-ba
inheritance any NEG-exist
There was no inheritance. (author's notes)

**ndza man hą bą...**
if fat any exist...
If there's any fat... (Souag 2010:232)

Comparable Arabic and Berber examples have already been seen above; cp:

(50) Ait Atta: is t-uf-it ka n usafar?
(SE Morocco) Q 2SG-find.PFV-2SG some GEN medicine.ANN?
Did you find any medicine? (Amaniss 1980:746)

The influence of Arabic and Berber on Korandje is profound, and the distribution of this phenomenon within Songhay makes it impossible to interpret this as anything other than an example of that influence. However, what has been calqued is the colexification (François 2008) of “any” with “anything”, rather than the whole construction. In Korandje *haya* follows what it quantifies, rather than preceding it as in Arabic and Berber. This corresponds to wider syntactic patterns: in Korandje, the specific indefinite article (homophonous with “one”), and lower numerals in general, follow the noun, whereas in Arabic and Berber they precede it.
## 6.3 From indefinite pronoun to indefinite adverb

In Korandje, *hàyà can be used as an indefinite adverb in negative and interrogative positions:

(51) Korandje:
*a-sə-bya* *haya*
3SG-NEG-big any
It's not big at all. (Souag 2010:232)

This usage is infrequent in Korandje, and unattested anywhere else in Songhay. However, it does seem to be attested for Andalusi Arabic, and corresponds perfectly to what Jespersen's cycle would lead us to predict for the earlier stages of development in both Arabic and Berber.

Korandje has also borrowed the polar interrogative particle waš from western Maghrebi Arabic, but in this case there is no question of calquing.

## 7 Conclusion

Prior to mutual contact, Arabic, Berber, and Songhay all shared the colexification of the noun “thing” and the indefinite pronoun “something, anything, nothing”; only Arabic, however, additionally colexified this with an adverbial “at all”. From the indefinite pronoun, many westerly Arabic dialects developed an indefinite quantifier “some, any”; from the adverbial, it developed an emphatic negative marker and a polar question marker, both of which tended to become postverbal clitics (ultimately leading to the much-discussed postverbal negative marker). Under longstanding Arabic influence, some Berber varieties copied all of these developments. Korandje, under heavy influence from first Berber and later Arabic as well, copied the first two, both of which are attested in nearby Atlas Tamazight. Korandje, moreover, preserves a usage obsolete in modern North African Arabic, but already inferred from our knowledge of Jespersen's cycle: the use of “thing” as an emphatic negative marker.

## List of abbreviations

ACC accusative

ADJ adjective

ANN annexed state

CENTRIF centrifugal

COP copula

DAT dative

DEF definite

DEM demonstrative

EP epenthetic

EXS existential

F feminine

GEN genitive

INDF indefinite

IPFV imperfective

IRR irrealis

LOC locative

M masculine

NEG negation

NOM nominative

PASS passive
PFV perfective

PL plural

PTCP participle

Q question marker

SG singular

References

Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2014. What's a caron between friends? (Review Article of Wilmsen, D. 2014. Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators: A Linguistic History of Western Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.). https://www.academia.edu/9617780/Whats_a_caron BetweenFriends_Review_Article_of_Wilmsen_D._2014._Arabic_Indefinites_Interrogatives_and_Negators_A_Linguistic_Histor of_Western_Dialects._Oxford_Oxford_University_Press._

Amaniss, Ali. 1980. Dictionnaire tamazight-français (parlers du Maroc centrale). http://www.amazighworld.org/uploadedfiles/dictionnaire_Francais_Tamazight.pdf.

Basset, André. 1952. *La langue berbère*. (Handbook of African Languages pt. 1). London: Oxford U.P., for the International African Institute.

Beguinot, Francesco. 1942. *Il berbero nefûsi di Fassâto: grammatica, testi raccolti dalla viva voce, vocabolarietti*. 2nd ed. Roma: Instituto per l'Oriente.

Behnstedt, Peter. 1994. *Der arabische Dialekt von Soukhne (Syrien)*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Behnstedt, Peter. 1996. *Die nordjemenitischen Dialekte. Teil 2: Glossar. Dal-Ghayn*. (Jemen-Studien). Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Ben Mamou, Larbi. 2005. Dialecte Berbère de Tamezret (Tunisie). *Atmazret*. http://atmazret.info/ (3 November, 2006).

Benkato, Adam. 2014. The Arabic Dialect of Benghazi, Libya: Historical and Comparative Notes. *Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik* 59. 57–102.

Bernard, Yves & Mary White-Kaba. 1994. *Dictionnaire Zarma-Français (République du Niger)*. Paris: Agence de coopération culturelle et technique.

Borg, Alexander. 2004. *A Comparative Glossary of Cypriot Maronite Arabic (Arabic-English): With an Introductory Essay*. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 70). Leiden: Brill.

Brockett, A. A. 1985. *The spoken Arabic of Khābūra on the Bāṭina of Oman*. (Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph). Manchester: Journal of Semitic Studies, University of Manchester,.

Brosselard, Ch. 1844. *Dictionnaire français-berbère (dialecte écrit et parlé par les Kabaïles de la division d'Alger)*. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.

Brugnatelli, Vermondo. 2014. Berber negation in diachrony. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds.), 167–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Calassanti-Motylinski, Gustave Adolphe de. 1897. Dialogues et textes en berbère de Djerba. *Journal Asiatique*. 377–401.

Calassanti-Motylinski, Gustave Adolphe de. 1905. Le Manuscrit arabo-berbère de Zouagha découvert par M. Rebillet: Notice sommaire et extraits. *Actes du XVIe Congrès des Orientalistes (Alger 1905)*, vol. II, 69–78. Paris.

Caubet, Dominique. 1983. Quantification, négation, interrogation: les emplois de la particule “Ši” en arabe marocain. *Arabica* 30(3). 227–245.

Caubet, Dominique. 1993. *L'Arabe marocain*. (Études Chamito-Sémitiques 1-2). Paris-Louvain: Éditions Peeters.

Champault, Francine Dominique. 1969. *Une oasis du Sahara nord-occidental: Tabelbala*. Paris: CNRS.

Christiansen-Bolli, Regula. 2011. *A Grammar of Tadaksahak: A Berberised Songhay Language (Mali)*. (Berber Studies 31). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

Cotelle, H. 1847. *Le langage arabe ordinaire, ou, Dialogues arabes élémentaires, destinés aux français qui habitent l'Afrique*. Alger: Dubos Frères.

Cowell, M. W. 1964. *A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic: Based on Dialectic of Damascus*.
Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Davey, Richard John. 2013. Coastal Dhofārī Arabic: a sketch grammar. Manchester: University of Manchester. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:199131.

Delaporte, J.H. 1845. *Principes de l'idiome arabe en usage à Alger ; suivis d'un conte arabe avec la prononciation et le mot à mot interlinéaires*. Paris: Hingray.

Destaing, Edmond. 1907. *Etude sur le dialecte berbère des Beni-Snous*. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Diem, Werner. 2014. *Negation in Arabic: A Study in Linguistic History*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Feghali, Michel. 1919. *Le parler de Kfar 'abida (Liban-Syrie). Essai linguistique sur la phonétique et la morphologie d'un parler arabe moderne*. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

François, Alexandre. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), *Studies in Language Companion Series*, vol. 106, 163–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.106.09fra (17 October, 2016).

Grigoire, George. 2009. *L'arabe parlé à Mardin: monographie d'un parler arabe “périphérique.”* Gorgias.

Haspelmath, Martin & Josephine Caruana. 1996. Indefinite pronouns in Maltese. *Rivista di Linguistica* 8(1). 213–227.

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. *Language Contact and Grammatical Change*. (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jespersen, Otto. 1917. *Negation in English and Other Languages*. København: A. F. Høst.

Khamed Attayoub, Abdoulmohamine. 2001. La tetserrét des Ayttawari Seslem : Identification socio-linguistique d'un parler berbère non documenté parmi les Touaregs de l'Azawagh (Niger). INALCO, Paris MA thesis.

Kossmann, Maarten. 1999. *Essai sur la phonologie du proto-berbère*. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

Kossmann, Maarten. 2013. *The Arabic Influence on Northern Berber*. Leiden: Brill.

Kossmann, Maarten. 2015. A Tasawaq (Northern Songhay, Niger) Text with Grammatical Notes. *Linguistic Discovery* 13(1). 82–118.

Lahdo, Ablahad. 2009. *The Arabic dialect of Tillo in the region of Siirt (South-eastern Turkey)*. (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.

Landberg, Carlo von. 1901. *Etudes sur les dialectes de l'Arabie Méridionale. Vol. I*. Leiden: Brill.

Lanfry, Jacques. 1968. *Ghadamès I: Textes: Notes philologiques et ethnographiques*. Fort-National (Algérie): Le Fichier Périodique.

Lanfry, Jacques. 1973. *Ghadamès II: Glossaire (parler des Ayt Waziten)*. Fort-National (Algérie): Le Fichier Périodique.

Lucas, Christopher. 2010. The development of negation in Arabic and Afro-Asiatic. Cambridge: Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge.

Lucas, Christopher. 2013. The development of negation in Afro-Asiatic languages. In Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas & David Willis (eds.), *The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean*, vol. 1, 399–452. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lucas, Christopher & Elliot Lash. 2010. Contact as catalyst: The case for Coptic influence in the development of Arabic negation. *Journal of Linguistics* 46(2). 379–413.

Lux, Cécile. 2013. *Le tetserrét, langue berbère du Niger : Description phonétique, phonologique et morphologique, dans une perspective comparative*. (Berber Studies 38). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

Madouni-La Peyre, Jihane. 2003. *Dictionnaire Arabe Algérien-Français: Algérie de l'ouest*. (Dictionnaires L & M). Paris: Langues & Mondes - L'Asiathèque.

Mitchell, Terence F. 2009. *Zuaran Berber (Libya) : Grammar and Texts*. (Ed.) Harry Stroomer & Stanly Oomen. (Berber Studies v. 26). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

Mourigh, Khalid. 2015. A Grammar of Ghomara Berber. Leiden: University of Leiden.

Nadwi, Abdullah Abbas. 1968. A study of the Arabic dialects of the Belad Ghamid and Zahran region of Saudi Arabia on the basis of original field recording and an examination of the
relationship to the neighbouring regions. Leeds: University of Leeds PhD thesis.
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/918/ (20 June, 2016).

Nicolas, Francis. 1953. *La langue berbère de Mauritanie*. (Mémoires de l'Institut Français d'Afrique Noire 33). Dakar: IFAN.

Obler, Loraine K. 1990. Reflexes of Classical Arabic šay'un in the dialects: Synthetic forms of language change. In James Bellamy (ed.), *Studies in Near Eastern Culture and History in Memory of Ernest T. Abdel-Massih*. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Owens, Jonathan. 1984. *A Short Reference Grammar of Eastern Libyan Arabic*. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Prost, A. 1956. *La langue soñay et ses dialectes*. Dakar: IFAN.

Provotelle, Dr. 1911. *Etude sur la tamazir't ou zénatia de Qalâat Es-Sened*. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Putten, Marijn van. 2013. A Grammar of Awjila Berber (Libya) Based on Umberto Paradisi's Material. Leiden: University of Leiden PhD thesis.

Serhoual, Mohammed. 2002. Dictionnaire Tarifit-Français. Tetouan: Université Abdelmalek Essaâdi PhD thesis.

Sibomana, Leo. 2008. *Le Zarma parlé: esquisse grammaticale, lexique, textes*. Berlin: Lit.

Singer, Hans-Rudolf. 1958. Neuarabische Fragewörter. Ein Beitrag zur historischen und vergleichenden Grammatik der arabischen Dialekte. Erlangen: Friedrich-Alexander-Universiteit.

Souag, Lameen. 2009. Siwa and its significance for Arabic dialectology. *Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik* 51. 51–75.

Souag, Lameen. 2010. Grammatical Contact in the Sahara: Arabic, Berber, and Songhay in Tabelbala and Siwa. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Souag, Lameen. 2015a. Archaic and innovative Islamic prayer names around the Sahara. *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies*. 78(2). 357–374.

Souag, Lameen. 2015b. Explaining Korandjé: Language contact, plantations, and the trans-Saharan trade. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Studies* 30(2). 189–224.

Souag, Lameen & Marijn van Putten. 2015. Attrition and revival in Awjila Berber. *Corpus* 14. 23–58.

Stumme, Hans. 1896. *Grammatik des tunisischen Arabisch, nebst Glossar*. Leipzig: Henrichs.

Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2008. *Dictionnaire zenaga-français : le berbere de Mauritanie présenté par racines dans une perspective comparative*. (Berber Studies v. 20). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

Torchon. 1871. Essai d'une grammaire chaouie. In Adam Sierakowski (ed.), *Das Schaui, ein Beitrag zur Berberischen Sprachen und Völkerkunde*. Dresden: Kraszewski.

Wilmsen, David. 2014. *Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators: A Linguistic History of Western Dialects*. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woodhead, D. R. & Wayne Beene. 1967. *A dictionary of Iraqi Arabic, Arabic-English*. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Yoseph, Jean. 2012. *Der arabische Dialekt von Mharde (Zentralsyrien)*. (Semitica Viva 51). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.