# A Note on the Present Tenses in some Southern Tanzanian Bantu Languages

Bastian Persohn and Rasmus Bernander

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

OpenEdition
Journals

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/lla/11109

DOI: 10.4000/lla.11109

ISSN: 2822-7468

**Publisher**

Llacan UMR 8135 CNRS/Inalco

**Printed version**

Date of publication: 31 December 2018

Number of pages: 53-76

ISSN: 2429-2230

**Electronic reference**

Bastian Persohn and Rasmus Bernander, "A Note on the Present Tenses in some Southern Tanzanian Bantu Languages", *Linguistique et langues africaines* [Online], 4 | 2018, Online since 03 January 2022, connection on 25 August 2023. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lla/11109 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/lla.11109

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
#04

juin 2018

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

LLA

Linguistique
et Langues
Africaines

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

- A selecção do √P cause em Nyungwe: Uma análise à luz de Pylkkänen

- Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen
  Verbal Serialization - A Comparison

- A Note on the Present Tenses in some
  Southern Tanzanian Bantu Languages

- Consonant Voicing, Tonal Morphemes, and Downstep in Gwari

- Les processus tonals en koyó

- Comptes-rendus / Book Reviews

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

9 782359 352566

ISSN 2429-2230

ISBN 978-2-35935-256-6

20 €

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Lambert-Lucas
LLA

Linguistique
et Langues
Africaines

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

#04

Juin 2018

1. A selecção do vP cause em Nyungwe: Uma análise à luz de Pylkkänen
*Crisofia Langa da Camara*

11

2. Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen
Verbal Serialization - A Comparison
*Viktoria Kempf*

31

3. A Note on the Present Tenses in some
Southern Tanzanian Bantu Languages
*Bastian Persohn & Rasmus Bernander*

53

4. Consonant Voicing, Tonal Morphemes, and Downstep in Gwari
*Kolawole Adeniyi & Ben Elugbe*

77

Notes & Documents

Les processus tonals en koyó
*Régina Patience Ikemou*

101

Comptes-rendus / Book Reviews

Sokhna Bao Diop, Le Baynunk guñaamolo, une langue du sud du Sénégal: Analyse phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique
par Noël-Bernard Biagui

117

Sabine Littig, Linguistische Beschreibung des Kolbila. Eine Adamawaspracheder Nord-region Kameruns
par Aurore Montébran

122

Manuele Bandeira, Reconstrução fonológica e lexical do protocrioulo do Golfo da Guiné,
par Jean-Louis Rougé

129

John Vanderelst, A Grammar of Dagik,
par Thilo C. Schadeberg

133

Sara Petrollino, A Grammar of Hamar.
A South Omotic Language of Ethiopia,
par Yvonne Treis

140

En couverture : Partie de babyfoot au Cap-Vert (côte est de l'île de Santiago, dans les environs de Pedra Badejo), photo : Nicolas Quint 2008.

Design : Jean-Irénée Cuin

Production - diffusion : Éditions Lambert-Lucas
LLA

Linguistique
et Langues
Africaines

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

International Journal edited by
Revue internationale éditée par le LLACAN
(UMR 8135 CNRS / INALCO / PRES Sorbonne Paris Cité)

# 4 – 2018
Diffusion

Éditions Lambert-Lucas
4 rue d'Isly - 87000 LIMOGES (France)
Tél 05 55 77 12 36
Por 06 07 41 04 25

Cette revue est en accès libre

téléchargeable sur le site des éditions Lambert-Lucas

n° 1, juin 2015 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-1

n° 2, juin 2016 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-2

n° 3, juin 2017 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-3

n° 4, juin 2018 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-4

(etc.)

Pour des exemplaires sur papier,
merci d'écrire à lambertlucas@free.fr
**Comité scientifique**

Emilio BONVINI (LLACAN, CNRS), Denis CREISSELS (DDL, Université Lyon 2), Claude HAGÈGE (EPHE), Bernd HEINE (University of Cologne), Larry HYMAN (University of California - Berkeley), Sambieni KOFFI (Université d'Abomey-Calavi), Jérémie KOUADIO (Université d'Abidjan), Friederike LÜPKE (SOAS, University of London), Gudrun MIEHE (University of Bayreuth), Maarten MOUS (Leiden University), Pape Alioune NDAO (Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar), Margarida PETTERS (Universidade de São Paulo), Thilo SCHADEBERG (Leiden University), John MCWHORTER (Columbia University).

**Comité de rédaction**

Nicolas AUBRY (LLACAN, INALCO), Pascal BOYELDIEU (LLACAN, CNRS), James ESSEGBEY (University of Florida), Gwenaëlle FABRE (LLL, Université d'Orléans), Maximilien GUÉRIN (LLACAN, CNRS), Stefano MANFREDI (Sedyl, CNRS), Sylvester OSU (LLL, Université de Tours), Cédric PATIN (STL, Université de Lille), Marie-Claude SIMEONE-SENELLE (LLACAN, CNRS), Lameen SOUAG (Lacito, CNRS), Yvonne TREIS (LLACAN, CNRS), Valentin VYDRIN (LLACAN, INALCO), Kofi YAKPO (University of Hong-Kong).

**Rédaction**

Paulette ROULON-DOKO (LLACAN, CNRS), Nicolas QUINT (LLACAN, CNRS), Loïc-Michel PERRIN (LLACAN, INALCO).

**Administration**

Jeanne ZERNER

**Directeur de la publication**

Mark VAN DE VELDE
## Contact

LLACAN (UMR 8135, campus du CNRS)
7, rue Guy-Môquet
94801 VILLEJUIF Cedex - France
http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/lla
llafrique@cnrs.fr

## Consignes de soumission

http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/lla

## Comptes-rendus

Les ouvrages sont à adresser à
Maximilien Guérin (maximilien.guerin@cnrs.fr)
(s/c de Nicolas Quint et Yvonne Treis)
LLACAN (UMR 8135, campus du CNRS)
7, rue Guy-Môquet
94801 VILLEJUIF Cedex - France
# Sommaire / Contents

1. A selecção do vP cause em Nyungwe:
   Uma análise à luz de Pylkkänen .................................................... 11
   Crisofia Langa da Camara

2. Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen Verbal Serialisation –
   A Comparison ............................................................................ 31
   Victoria Kempf

3. A Note on the Present Tenses in Some Southern Tanzanian
   Bantu Languages ............................................................................ 53
   Bastian Persohn & Rasmus Bernander

4. Consonant Voicing, Tonal Morphemes, and Downstep in Gwari . 77
   Kolawole Adeniyi & Ben Elugbe

## Notes & Documents

Les processus tonals en koyó ................................................................. 101
Régina Patience Ikemou

## Comptes-rendus / Book Reviews

Sokhna Bao Diop
*Le Baynunk guñaamolo, une langue du sud du Sénégal :*
*Analyse phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique ....................*
par Noël-Bernard Biagui 117

Sabine Littig
*Linguistische Beschreibung des Kolbila. Eine Adamawasprache*
*der Nordregion Kameruns .................................................................*
par Aurore Montébran 122

Manuele Bandeira
*Reconstrução fonológica e lexical do protocrioulo*
*do golfo da Guiné .........................................................................*
par Jean-Louis Rougé 129
John Vanderelst
*A Grammar of Dagik* .................................................................................. 133
par Thilo C. Schadeberg

Sara Petrollino
*A Grammar of Hamar. A South Omotic Language of Ethiopia* ..... 140
par Yvonne Treis
# A Note on the Present Tenses
in some Southern Tanzanian Bantu Languages

Bastian Persohn

University of Hamburg, Department of Africa-Asia Studies,
and

Rasmus Bernander

University of Helsinki, Department of Languages

## Abstract

In this article we discuss the shape of the present tense prefixes in a dozen Bantu languages that are spoken in a contingent area in southwestern Tanzania. All of these feature a high front vowel /i/ in at least one of their allomorphs. Comparing these present-day constructions and taking into account findings from grammaticalization theory, we propose a source structure involving a verbal periphrasis featuring a reflex of Proto-Bantu *jikad 'dwell, be, sit'. Based on its geographic distribution, we further propose that this innovation originated in Guthrie's G60 zone.

## Keywords

Bantu, tense, aspect, grammaticalization, Tanzania.

## Résumé

Cet article porte sur la forme des préfixes du présent [de l'indicatif] dans une douzaine de langues bantoues parlées dans des territoires contigus situés au sud-ouest de la Tanzanie. Ces préfixes comportent tous une voyelle fermée /i/ dans au moins un de leurs allomorphes. En comparant les constructions actuelles et en prenant en compte les avancées de la recherche dans le domaine de la théorie de la grammaticalisation, nous proposons une structure-source dérivant d'une périphrase verbale comportant un terme issu du proto-bantou *jikad 'habiter, être (assis)'. En nous appuyant sur sa distribution géographique, nous postulons que cette innovation trouve son origine dans la zone G60 de Guthrie.
## Mots clés

bantou, temps, aspect, grammaticalisation, Tanzanie.

### 1. Introduction<fnref n="1" />

In a number of Bantu languages in southern Tanzania, the simple or imperfective present is marked by a prefix containing the high front vowel /i/. The exact shape of the prefix is subject to different kinds of morphophonological variation. This type of present tense marking is uncommon from a pan-Bantu perspective; it does, for instance, not belong to the common tense-aspect markers discussed by Nurse & Philippson (2006). Also, the historical source structure is not readily identifiable.

This study therefore offers an overview of the occurrence of this marker and its various language- and context-specific realizations. In addition, it attempts to offer a historical explanation to its occurrence, by tracing its source structure, its pathway of development and its geographical spread.

The following examples are a few representative cases from our language sample of present tense constructions with *i-* (which we refer to as ‘*i*-presents’ throughout this paper).<fnref n="2" />

(1) Nyakyusa M31 (Persohn 2017)
iku-book-a
a-(i)ku-book-a <fnref n="3" />
SM1-PRS-go-FV
‘S/he goes / is going.’

(2) Bena G63 (Morrison 2011)
igéénd-a
a-i-geend-a
SM1-PRS-walk-FV
‘S/he walks / is walking.’

(3) Manda-Matumba N11 (Bernander 2017)
íbít-a ku-Ludéwa
a-i-bít-a ku-Ludewa
SM1-PRS-walk-FV 17-L.
‘S/he is going to Ludewa.’

<footnote n="1">1. We wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers and Nicolas Quint for their helpful comments, Mary Chambers for improving our English, and Monika Feinen for creating the maps used in this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. An extra tier has been added in the interlinearization of the data to help the readers keep track of some morpho-phonological alterations important for the analysis. Notice for the glossing that digits in isolation refer to specific noun classes whereas <1SG/PL> and <2SG/PL> refer to first and second person (singular/plural).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. See (4) below concerning (i) in Nyakyusa.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Map 1.- Geographic distribution of the i-presents</figcaption></figure>

Map 1 illustrates the geographic distribution of the phenomenon. As can be gathered from this map, the *i*-presents are found in 12 languages ⁴, all spoken in a coherent geographic area of southern Tanzania, namely: ⁵

- G61 Sango

- G62 Hehe (Kalenga variety)

- G63 Bena

4. The sources consulted for each language are listed in the Appendix.

5. Languages and dialects are referred to by the names and Guthrie codes given in Maho (2009a) and Lewis *et al.* (2016), with the exception of the Hehe variety which we refer to as Kalenga following Walsh (2004). Maho (2009b) and Lewis *et al.* (2016) both make reference to a glottonym Nindi (coded as N102). Due to its total lack of documentation, it could not be included in this study. According to Ebner (1939), Nindi was a variety of Ndendeule before the Ngoni invasion in the 1860s. Lewis *et al.* (2016) also describe it as “reportedly similar to Ndendeule”, and estimate a population of 100 speakers (see also Ngonyani (2003: 1) who refers to Nindi as “quickly disappearing”). Johnston (1919: 792) claims that the vocabulary of the “Kisutu” variety of Ngoni included in Spiss (1904) is specifically Nindi. This, however, is not corroborated in the source itself nor by Ebner (1939) as further explained in §2.2. Maho (2009b:67), referring to Johnston and his claim, writes: “[Johnston’s] geographical location seems a bit off (but then his geographical locations sometimes are).”
- G64 Pangwa

- G65 Kinga

- G66 Wanji

- G67 Kisi

- M31 Nyakyusa

- N11 Manda (Matumba variety)

- N101 Ndendeule

- N12 Ngoni

- N13 Matengo (future use, see §2.5)

In the following, we first take a closer look at the various types of *i*-presents (§2) before proceeding to an internal reconstruction, first of the source structure of the subjacent grammaticalization process (§3.1, §3.2) and then of the historical spreading of this innovation (§3.3). Lastly, some limitations of our study are discussed (§3.4).

## 2. The *i*-presents in detail

While the *i*-presents are found in a contingent geographic area, they do not form a homogeneous phenomenon. Thus compare the Nyakyusa example (1) above, where the noun class 1 subject prefix plus the present prefix yield a sequence *iku*-, to (2, 3) from Bena and Manda-Matumba, where the equivalent sequence results in a bare vowel segment *i*-. The various manifestations of *i*-presents can be overall classified into five types, each of which merits a short discussion. As will be seen in §3 below, all of these types can be understood as being synchronic results of one and the same process of grammaticalization from a common source structure, with slightly different paths of phonological erosion.

### 2.1 Nyakyusa

The first *i*-present type is represented by Nyakyusa (M31). In this language, the simple present is formed with a prefix *ku*-. In certain cases, a change in the vowel quality of the subject marker gives clear evidence of a former prefix *iku*-. This can be observed most clearly in the southern variety (Kyela district) of Nyakyusa, in which the /a, ɪ/ of subject markers becomes /i/ before the present prefix. The rounded degree-two back vowel /ʊ/ is raised to /u/ in this environment (4). The latter may synchronically be understood as a spreading of the [+tense] feature of the first vocalic segment of an underlying prefix *iku*-. Diachronically, it probably goes back to a process of glide formation: /oi/ > /ui/ with subsequent deletion of the front vowel. As we will see below, this forms part of a geographically more widespread tendency to avoid /ui/ sequences in this position. In the northern and eastern varieties of Nyakyusa, no raising of /ʊ/ to /u/ takes place and the situation concerning /i/ to /i/ is irregular (5). In all varieties,
the second person singular subject prefix is ø- before kʊ-, but υ-elsewhere.<fnref n="6" />

(4) Southern Nyakyusa M31 (Berger 1938; Dan King, p.c.)

{a, ɪ} → i /_ kʊ<sub>PRS</sub>

ʊ<sub>2SG</sub> → Ø /_ kʊ<sub>PRS</sub>

ʊ → u /_ kʊ<sub>PRS</sub>

(5) Subject prefixes of northern and eastern Nyakyusa M31 (Persohn 2017)

<table><thead><tr><th>Person/Class</th><th>SM</th><th>SM/_ kʊ<sub>PRS</sub></th><th>Class</th><th>SM</th><th>SM/_ kʊ<sub>PRS</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1SG</td><td>n-</td><td>n-</td><td>8</td><td>fi-</td><td>fi-</td></tr><tr><td>2SG</td><td>ʊ-</td><td>Ø-</td><td>9</td><td>jɪ-</td><td>jɪ-</td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td>tʊ-</td><td>tʊ-</td><td>10</td><td>si-</td><td>si-</td></tr><tr><td>2PL</td><td>mu-</td><td>mu-</td><td>11</td><td>lʊ-</td><td>lʊ-</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>a-</td><td>i-</td><td>12</td><td>ka-</td><td>ki-</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>ba-</td><td>bi-</td><td>13</td><td>tʊ-</td><td>tʊ-</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>gʊ-</td><td>gʊ-</td><td>14</td><td>ka-</td><td>ki-</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>gi-</td><td>gi-</td><td>15</td><td>kʊ-</td><td>kʊ-</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>lɪ-</td><td>li-</td><td>16</td><td>pa-</td><td>pi-</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>ga-</td><td>gi-</td><td>17</td><td>kʊ-</td><td>kʊ-</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>ki-</td><td>ki-</td><td>18</td><td>mu-</td><td>mu-</td></tr></tbody></table>

In the northernmost varieties of Nyakyusa, a variant υ-κυ- is sometimes heard with noun class 1 subjects. Given that this form is geographically very restricted, considered non-standard or plainly rejected by most speakers and that all other subject markers recorded for this variety have the predictable outcome /a/ → /i/, it is safe to assume that this constitutes an innovative case of assimilation; see also below on Kisi G67.

Further indications of a former prefix *ikʊ- in Nyakyusa come from two sources. First, in earlier chronolojects (e.g. Schumann 1899; Berger 1933), the first person singular yields n-ikʊ, and example (6) shows that the underlying form of the first person singular subject marker is n-. Second, the negative present is formed with a prefix ti- preceding kʊ-, which does not induce a change in the vowel quality of the subject marker (7). The fact that Nyakyusa's closest relatives Ngonde (M31D) and Ndali/Sukwa<fnref n="7" /> (M301) have the widespread Bantu morpheme ta- as their negative prefix in all indicative constructions suggests that ti-kʊ- historically goes back to a merger of *ta-ikʊ-.

<footnote n="6">6. Word-initial υ- is realized as gʊ- /_V.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7. Sukwa is classified as M202 by Maho (2009a). A comparison of Kershner's (2002) description of Sukwa to the available sources on Ndali M301 (Botne 2008; Swilla 1998) shows that these two languages are extremely similar at all levels of linguistic description.</footnote>
(6) naagile
n-ag-ile
SM1SG-find-PFV
‘I have found.’

(7) atikobouka
a-ti-ko-book-a
SM1-NEG-PRS-go-FV
‘S/he does not go / is not going.’

## 2.2 The Bena-Kinga type

In Sango (G61), Bena (G63), Kinga (G65) and Wanji (G66) the present prefix is generally *i-*, but changes to *iku-* (or a regular variant thereof) in certain morphophonemic environments. (8) illustrates this for Bena, where the present prefix surfaces as *ihu-* preceding vowel-initial stems and all object markers (/h/ is a regular reflex of Proto-Bantu *k* in this language<fnref n="8" />).

(8) Bena G63 (Morrison 2011)

(a) $i_{PRS} \rightarrow ihu-/_{\{V, OM\}}$

(b) igéénda
a-i-geend-a
SM1-PRS-walk-FV
‘S/he walks / is walking.’

(c) wihweelúha
u-ihu-eluh-a
SM2SG-PRS-climb-FV
‘S/he climbs / is climbing.’

(d) ihumútova
a-ihu-mu-tov-a
SM1-PRS-OM1-hit-FV
‘S/he hits him/her / is hitting him/her.’

In Sango (G61) the longer allomorph, like the infinitive class 15 prefix in that particular language, features a high front vowel. Unlike in the Bena examples above, in Sango the longer allomorph surfaces only when preceding object markers. This coincides with the fact that Sango has only one vowel-initial verb root, and even this root may be in the process of being re-analyzed as consonant-initial (see Kajaan 2012: 57).

(9) Sango G61 (Kajaan 2012)

(a) $i_{PRS} \rightarrow iki-/_{OM}$

(b) iyíinsa
a-i-yiins-a
SM1-PRS-come-FV
‘S/he comes / is coming.’

<footnote n="8">8. More precisely, with the exception of some dialectal varieties, PB */k/ appears as /h/ when occurring non-root initially, i.e. root-medially and on prefixes (Morrison 2011: 40–41).</footnote>
(c) **ikinisákula**
    a-iki-ni-sakul-a
    SM1-PRS-OM1SG-search-FV
    ‘s/he looks / is looking for me’

There are two exceptions to the Sango rule given in (9a): in the second person singular and plural, the long allomorph is *ki-* without the initial vocalic segment (Kajaan 2012: 107). Likewise, in Kinga (G65) the long allomorph is *ku-* following subject prefixes with a rounded back vowel. With the short allomorph, there is free variation between *i-* and Ø- in the second person singular, the first person plural and the second person plural (Wolff 1905: 64–65). These languages thus show some overlap with those of the Ngoni type, to be discussed in the following section.

## 2.3 The Ngoni type

The Ngoni type languages show some overlap with those of the Bena-Kinga type discussed in the preceding section. Thus, in Ngoni (N12), the simple present is formed with a prefix *i-*, unless an object marker is present, in which case the prefix is *ku-*.

That is, unlike the Bena-Kinga type, the vowel segment /i/ is consistently dropped preceding object markers, as shown in (10).

(10) Ngoni N12 (Ngonyani & Githinji 2006)

(a) $i_{PRS} \rightarrow ku-/_OM$
    kuku          igega          ligela
    kuku          a-i-geg-a      li-gela
    grandpa(1)    SM1-PRS-carry-FV  5-hoe
    'Grandpa is carrying the hoe.'

(b) kuku          akuvagegela    vajukulu    ligela
    kuku          a-ku-va-geg-el-a  va-jukulu    li-gela
    grandpa(1)    SM1-PRS-OM2-carry-APPL-FV  2-grandchild  5-hoe
    'Grandpa is carrying a hoe for the grandchildren.'

The same inventory of allomorphs as in Ngoni is found in the Kalenga variety of Hehe (G62). Unlike in Ngoni, the present prefix also surfaces as *ku-* preceding vowel-initial stems and the reflexive/reciprocal *i-*.<fnref n="9" /> In this respect Hehe-Kalenga thus parallels the Kinga-Bena type discussed in §2.2.

(11) Hehe-Kalenga G62 (Crema 1987; Okoa 2012)

(a) $i_{PRS} \rightarrow ku-/_{\{OM, V\}}$

(b) twítova      avayetu
    tu-i-tov-a    a-va-yetu
    SM1PL-PRS-hit-FV AUG-2-ourFriends
    'We hit/are hitting our friends.'

<footnote n="9">9. In Hehe, the reflexive has acquired the additional function of reciprocal.</footnote>
(c) dada akumwenda umwana wake John
dada a-ku-mu-end-a u-mu-ana u-ake J.
father(1) SM1-PRS-OM1-love-FV AUG-1-child 1-POSS.1 J.
'Father loves his child John.'

(d) ukwenda
u-ku-end-a
SM2SG-PRS-love-FV
'you love'

(e) avana vakwitanga kuteleka
avana va-ku-i-tang-a ku-telek-a
children SM2-PRS-REFL/RECP-help-FV 15(INF)-cook-FV
'The children are helping each other to cook.'

A prefix ku- also sometimes surfaces with first person singular subjects:

(12) Hehe G62 (Crema 1987)
**ngwiga**
n-ku-ig-a
SM1SG-PRS-imitate-FV
'I imitate/ am imitating.'

## 2.4 Ndendeule

In Ndendeule (N101), the present is reportedly also formed with a prefix *i-*, which, however, “often deletes” (Nurse 2007, citing Ngonyani 1999). The specific contexts in which *i-* is deleted are not easily identifiable from Ngonyani’s description. From the few examples available, however, it seems that Ndendeule exhibits a pattern similar to the Ngoni type, with *i-* disappearing before object markers. However, unlike the Ngoni type, there is no prefix *ku-* either:

(13) Ndendeule N101(Ngonyani 2013)

(a) $i_{PRS} \rightarrow \emptyset$ /_OM

(b) bhiyenda
bha-i-yend-a
SM2-PRS-go-FV
'They go / are going.'

(c) mundeka
mu-n-lek-a
SM2PL.PRS-OM1-leave-FV
'You (pl.) leave / are leaving him here.'

## 2.5 The Kisi type

The last type to be discussed is found in a number of languages in the southeast of the *i*-present area: Pangwa (G64), Kisi (G67), the Matumba variety of Manda (N11) and Matengo (N13). In these languages, the prefix in question is generally *i-*, but it shows some intriguing allomorphic alternation when preceding object markers. Thus, the present in Kisi patterns with the Bena-Kinga type, but at the same time it has a free variant
ka- preceding object markers (14d).

(14) Kisi G67 (Gray, m.s.)

(a) iPRS → iku- OR ka- /_ OM

(b) iteleka
a-i-telek-a
SM1-PRS-cook-FV
‘S/he is cooking / cooks.’

(c) bikunsooma
ba-iku-mu-soom-a
SM1-PRS-OM1-beg-FV
‘They are begging him/her / beg him/her.’

(d) bakansooma
ba-ka-mu-soom-a
SM1-PRS-OM1-beg-FV
‘They are begging him/her / beg him/her.’

This picture is slightly complicated by the fact that in Kisi, like in Kinga, the vowel segment /i/ of the allomorph /iku/ is not realized following a rounded back vowel. Also, the /Ciku/ sequence of subject marker plus present prefix is sometimes realized as /Cuku/, which is probably a case of assimilation (cf. Nyakyusa, §2.1). Moreover the ku- prefix is deleted before the homophonous object marker of the second person singular.

Allomorphy of the present prefix comparable to the case of Kisi is also found in the Matumba variety of Manda, which patterns with the Ngoni type, but features a free variant ka- before object markers:

(15) Manda-Matumba N11 (Bernander 2017)

(a) iPRS → ku- OR ka- /_ OM

(b) itéléka
a-i-telek-a
SM1-PRS-cook-FV
‘S/he cooks / is cooking.’

(c) akunifwáta
a-ku-ni-fwat-a
SM1-PRS-OM1SG-follow-FV
‘S/he follows / is following me.’

(d) akaniymálíla
a-ka-ni-yímalíl-a
SM1-PRS-OM1SG-supervise-FV
‘S/he supervises / is supervising me.’

In Pangwa, the two long allomorphs stand in complementary distribution. With vowel-initial stems this language patterns with the Bena-Kinga type, having ixu- as the present prefix. Preceding an object marker, the prefix surfaces as xa- (where /x/ is a regular reflex of Proto-Bantu *k; see Nurse 1988).
(16) Pangwa G64 (Stirnimann 1983)

(a) $i_{PRS} \rightarrow ixu-/_V$
$\rightarrow xa-/_OM$

(b) itova
a-i-tov-a
SM1-PRS-hit-FV
'S/he hits / is hitting.'

(c) ixwima
a-ixu-im-a
SM1-PRS-stand-FV
'S/he stands / is standing.'

(d) axamtova
a-xa-mu-tov-a
SM1-PRS-OM1-hit-FV
'S/he hit / is hitting him/her.'

Lastly, in Matengo we find a future tense formed with a prefix *i*. In many Bantu languages, morphological presents can be used with future time reference, and consequently a shift from present to future is widely attested (Nurse 2008: 297–298; for a wider cross-linguistic perspective, see Haspelmath 1998). We can thus assume that the Matengo future is a posterior development out of a former *i*-present. Similar to Pangwa, the Matengo *i-* prefix has only one allomorph preceding an object marker, namely *á*.

(17) Matengo N13 (Yoneda 2000)

(a) $i_{FUT} \rightarrow á-/_OM$

(b) twibómba kibêga
tu-í-bómb-a ki-béga
SM1PL-FUT-create-FV 7-clay pot
'We will make a clay pot.'

(c) twágubombila kibêga
tu-á-gu-bómb-il-a ki-béga
SM1PL-FUT-OM2SG-create-APPL-FV 7-clay pot
'We will make a clay pot for you.'

While the allomorphs *ka-/xa-/a-* might seem strange at first, we will show below that they constitute valuable evidence as to the source structure of the *i*-presents.

## 2.6 Summary and geographic distribution

Table 1 gives a synoptic overview over the different types of *i*-presents and their language-specific manifestations. Map 2 shows the geographic distribution of these types.
<table><caption>Table 1.- Overview of the types of i-presents</caption><thead><tr><th>Type</th><th>Language(s)</th><th>Shape(s) of the present prefix</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Nyakyusa</td><td>Nyakyusa (M31)</td><td>kʊ-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Effects on preceding vowels:<br>ʊ2SG → Ø / _ kʊPRS<br>a → i / _ kʊPRS<br>ʊ → u / _ kʊPRS<br>(only southern variety)<br>i → i / _ kʊPRS<br>(irregular in northern and eastern varieties)</td></tr><tr><td>Bena-Kinga</td><td>Sango (G61),<br>Bena (G63),<br>Kinga (G65),<br>Vwanji (G66)</td><td>i-<br>iki- (G61), ihu- (G63), ikʊ- (G65, G66)<br>/_ OM (G61)<br>/_ {V, OM} (G63, G65, G66)<br>Particularities:<br>ki- / {SM.2SG, SM.2PL} _ OM (G61)<br>i- → Ø- / _ {SM.2SG, SM.1PL, SM2.PL} (optional) (G65)</td></tr><tr><td>Ngoni</td><td>Ngoni (N12),<br>Hehe-Kalenga (G62)</td><td>i-<br>ku- / _ OM (N12)<br>ku- / _ {V, OM} (G62)<br>ku- / SM.1SG _ (G62)</td></tr><tr><td>Ndendeule</td><td>Ndendeule (N101)</td><td>i-<br>Ø- / _ OM</td></tr><tr><td>Kisi</td><td>Pangwa (G64),<br>Kisi (G67),<br>Manda-Matumba (N11),<br>Matengo (N13)</td><td>i-<br>ixu- (G64), iku- (G67), ku- (N11) / _<br>V<br>iku (G67), ku- (N11), free variant ka-<br>/ _ OM (G67, N11)<br>xa- (G64), a- (N13) / _ OM<br>Particularities:<br>FUT, not PRS in N13<br>ku- / V[+back][+round] _ {V, OM} (G67)<br>/C-ikuPRS-/ → /C-uku/ (optional) (G67)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Map 2.- Geographic distribution of the types of i-presents</figcaption></figure>

### 3. Reconstruction

In this section, we first propose a possible source structure that has served as the initial point of grammaticalization of *i*-presents (§3.2). We then reconstruct the geographical spread of the phenomenon (§3.3), and lastly we discuss the limitations of our proposal (§3.4).

#### 3.1 An inventory

The different types of *i*-presents discussed in §2 share two common features. First, all have the defining criterion of a vowel /i/, to which we come back later; and second, all but Ndendeule feature a sequence /kʊ~ku~hu/. The exception is Sango, where we find a sequence /ki/. In all cases, this sequence is homophonous with the noun class 15 (infinitives) prefix.

#### 3.2 Tracing the source structure

The presence of the sequence *kʊ-* and its variants is a clear indication that diachronically *i*-presents go back to a verbal periphrasis featuring an infinitive as a second verb. In fact, the grammaticalization path from a
verbal periphrasis expressing progressive aspect to a present tense is well known (e.g Bybee et al. 1994). This still leaves open the question as to the source of the vowel /i/ and thus ultimately the source structure of this grammaticalization process. Present tenses including a high front vowel are also found in other Bantu areas, from Kikongo (H16) in the west (Dom & Bostoen 2015) to Chaga (E60) in the north-east (Emanatian 1991). According to Maho (2007), the presence of a high front vowel is geographically so widely spread in the Bantu-speaking area that it might be a remnant of a formative already existing in Proto-Bantu. However, the formal variation in the realization of the *i*-present – both within and between the languages described above – strongly points toward a more recent innovation.

Moreover, although the source of the *i*- formative in Kikongo is as of yet unknown, it is known for Chaga. According to Emanatian (1991), the formative originates from an infinitive marker *i*-, which simultaneously functions as the noun class 5 prefix. As the languages in this study all derive their infinitives from noun class 15 rather than 5, it is not likely that the *i*-present has the same origin or development path as the one described for Chaga. Before proposing a source structure, it is worth excluding another candidate, namely a reflex of the copula *dì* (Meeussen 1967). In all 7-vowel languages in our sample, the *i*-presents feature a degree one vowel /i/, whereas the copula has degree two /i/. In relation to this, Bastin (1989a, 1989b) reconstructs a progressive periphrasis of the shape *dì mu-kv- ‘COP LOC-INF-’. A reflex of this periphrasis is attested at least in Bena, where it continues to serve as a progressive, and in Nyakyusa, where it functions as a narrative marker. It is safe to assume that its function in the latter language is a remnant of a specialized use of an erstwhile present (see Persohn 2016).

A cross-linguistically attested source of progressives, and ultimately present tenses, are periphrases containing locational verbs (Heine & Kuteva 2002). An especially robust source of these on the African continent are verbs denoting ‘to sit; to live, to dwell’ (Heine et al. 1991). For Proto-Bantu a verb *jikad ‘dwell, be, sit’ has been reconstructed, reflexes of which are attested in all of Guthrie’s zones (Bastin et al. 2002). On a more local scale, reflexes of this verb are found in zone G60, in most of which *j > o (e.g. Bena G63 ikala ‘dwell’), and in zone M30, not in Nyakyusa, but its western neighbour Ndali M301 (ikala ‘sit; dwell’). Interestingly, this verb has become obsolete in zone N10, a fact to which we come back later. Now, recall that in the Kisi-type of *i*-presents, we find a sequence *ka-/xa-/á-* preceding object markers. Assuming a verbal periphrasis based on a reflex of *jikad is thus not only typologically plausible, but gives a motivated explanation for both the segment /i/ as well as for the puzzling appearance of *ka-/xa-/á-* in Kisi, Manda-Matumba, Pangwa and Matengo.
The cases of Nyakyusa, the Bena-Kinga type, the Ngoni type and – to a certain extent – the Kisi type of *i*-presents, all point to an intermediate stage at which the periphrasis had eroded and contracted to *ikʊ̈-*, further along the “cline of grammaticality” (Hopper & Traugott 2003). The merging of the vocalic segment with the subject marker, as found in Nyakyusa (§2.1), as well as the contextually determined allomorphs *i-* and *ku-* found in the Benga-Kinga and Ngoni types can then be understood as a case of further phonological erosion and, on the systemic level, as a tighter integration into the prevailing (C)V pattern of prefixes. The cases of Nyakyusa (§2.1), Sango, Kinga (both §2.2) and Kisi (§2.5) indicate that the reduction of *ikʊ̈-* to *kʊ̈-* begins when the prefix follows a subject marker with a rounded back vowel. The allomorphy preceding vowel-initial stems, where in most of the languages in question a longer allomorph is found, may be understood as an expression of a morphophonemic requirement for the macro-stem to have an onset consonant, along the lines argued for by Downing (1998). The motivation for a long allomorph preceding object markers, however, remains unsolved. It is likely that prosodic constraints play a role. For instance, Mkochi (2017) argues that in Malawian Tonga (N15) the realization of the “present progressive” prefix as *tu-* before monosyllabic stems, vowel initial stems and object markers (vis-à-vis Ø- elsewhere) is governed by metricality.

The distribution of the variant forms in the Kisi type indicates that in these south-eastern languages the process of erosion branched into two different paths depending on the following morphological material. We come back to this in the following section.

### 3.3 Geographical spread

The area discussed in this paper is socio-historically notable for its extensive regional-internal migrations. Aligned into smaller communities, people have been constantly moving both across parts of Lake Nyasa <fnref n="10" /> and between different parts of the hinterland. It was only relatively late in history that these communities consolidated politically under the ethno-nymms and glossonyms that we have referred to here (Park 1988; Nyagava 1999). On a socio-historical level this is reflected for example in shared clan names or “praise names” (see Park 1988). With this as a general background, it should be noted that the *i*-presents are found nearly exclusively in Guthrie’s adjacent groups G60 and N10 (see Map 1). It is well known that there is a strong diachronic link between the G60 and N10 groups and that the former has exercised particularly great influence upon the latter, the N10 communities being “pounded culturally” by their G60 neighbours (Nurse 1988: 71). Nurse (1982, 1988, 1999) has even proposed

<footnote n="10">10. There is even a term in Manda – *va-lɔ́wɔ́ka* (pl.) ‘crossers’ < *kulɔ́wɔ́ka* ‘to cross’ – for members of the local community who claim their ancestry from other parts of the lake.</footnote>
– based on lexicostatistics and some (morpho-)phonological traits – that Manda (N11) is in fact essentially a G60 language. That Manda has strong historical ties with Pangwa has also been claimed elsewhere in the literature (e.g. by Ebner 1955) as well as by the speakers themselves. Furthermore, Ngonyani (2001) argues that Ngoni (N12) also stands genealogically closer to the G60 group. Although these suggestions are far from conclusive (see Gray & Roth 2016), they do point towards the fact that these two language groups have been affecting each other, presumably also on a structural level.

The contact and intermingling of these groups is also connected to the Ngoni migration to and invasion of southern Tanzania in the 19th century. The Ngoni who migrated from South Africa did not settle in this area until the 1860’s (Gulliver 1974; Ebner 1955), when they raided the previously existing communities and their neighbours, taking the inhabitants as slaves or wives (Ebner 1939, 1955, Ngonyani 2001). The subjugated groups and their descendants became, in turn, part of the Ngoni community without shifting to the medium of communication of their rulers. Hence, what is occasionally referred to as *kisutu* (lit. ‘slavish’ or ‘slave language’) in older documents is what constitutes Tanzanian Ngoni of today. At the same time, the original Ngoni variety which had its roots in the Nguni languages of South Africa is basically extinct, with only a small set of archaisms remaining. According to Ebner (1939, 1955; see also Ngonyani 2001), the Ngoni spoken today historically consists mainly of Pangwa – i.e. a G60 language – and Ndendeule, an N10 language. However, unlike Pangwa, which shares the *i*-formative with all its closest relatives, the neighbours of Ndendeule do not have this formative. For instance, Ngindo (P14) – the closest neighbour to Ndendeule in the East and according to Ngonyani (2001) also its closest relative – lacks this tense marker altogether (cf. Gromova & Urmanchieva 2005). Thus, it is more likely that the *i*-construction dispersed from Pangwa into Manda and Ngoni and from there into the other N10 languages, rather than the other way around. The hypothesis that the spread of this innovation came from the G60 languages is further reinforced by two additional facts. First, a present tense formative *i*- is part of the inventory of all G60 languages, unlike the N10 group where it surfaces more sparsely. Second, the suggested source verb *-jikad-* is obsolete as a lexical verb in the N10 languages but not in the G60 languages.

The only language with an *i*-present outside of the G60-N10 connection is Nyakyusa (M31). The Nyakyusa people, however, share a common religious cult with the Kinga and there have also been waves of migration from the Kinga speaking area towards the Nyakyusa-speaking one (Weber 1998: ch. 7). Kinga loans in Nyakyusa give further evidence of contact between the two languages (Labroussi 1998: 218). Recall from §2.1 that
the surface realization of the *i*-present in southern Nyakyusa (Kyela district) can be described as rule-based; in the northern varieties, however, it is irregular. This suggests a spread of the innovation from the south, which is closest to the Kinga-speaking area (cf. Map 1), with the innovation being adopted only imperfectly in the north – a scenario in accordance with the proposed cradle of the *i*-presents lying in zone G60. Assuming that geographic spread reflects the diachronic reality (but see §3.4 below for some limitations) would, in turn, have an impact on our understanding of the history of Nyakyusa: indeed, it is commonly assumed that this language has long been isolated from its geolinguistic environment and that it has played the role of the donor rather than that of the recipient in the spread of linguistic innovations; see Persohn (2017: §1.2.4) for an overview of the relevant literature.

The geographic distribution of the various types of *i*-presents summarized in §2.1 – §2.5 and in Map 2 furthermore suggests a major split in how the *i*-presents evolved. Everywhere but in the southeast, we find a majority group of languages which reduced *jikada* *ku-* (and respective reflexes) to *iku-* plus subsequent developments. On the other side, in the southeast, we find the Kisi-type languages, which are characterized by an allomorph *ka-/xa-/á-* preceding object markers. Recall from §2.5 that in Pangwa and Matengo this is the only shape of the present prefix in this morphological environment. Kisi and the Matumba variety of Manda however have free variation between (*i*)*ku*- and *ka*- before object marker. Now Kisi shares its northern border with Nyakyusa, in which we find a sequence /ko/ in all environments (§2.1), and Kisi is also known to have, at least in the recent past, been in contact with this language of high local prestige. Concerning the case of Manda (N11), not only does Lake Nyasa allow for mobility towards the Nyakyusa language area, but also at least one village within the Kisi language area is actually populated predominantly by Manda speakers (Gray & Mitterhofer 2015). That is, it is conceivable that *ka-* preceding object markers in Kisi and Manda might be the older variant, whereas *ku-* could have been adopted under the influence of Nyakyusa.

### 3.4 Further discussion

Having proposed a source structure and a scenario of how the *i*-presents may have spread geographically, a word of caution is appropriate. Our reconstruction hinges on the synchronic traces of the defining feature of the constructions in question, namely a vocalic prefix /i/. The phonological erosion that characterizes grammaticalization processes may however lead to the loss of this segment. This is the case with certain noun classes in northern varieties of Nyakyusa, whereas in southern varieties of this language with several noun classes a trace of *i* is found only in the degree of vowel closure of the preceding subject prefix (§2.1). Likewise, zero
allomorphs are found in a few delimitable environments in Sango and Kinga (§2.2).<fnref n="11" /> A number of languages of the wider area, such as Ndamba G52, Malila M24 and Tumbuka N21, have a present prefix *kɔ-/ku-/hu-* and it is as yet unclear whether these forms go back to *i*-presents or have grammaticalized from a different source structure. A case in point is Ngonde (M31d), the Malawian sister of Nyakyusa: in this language a trace of an *i*-present is found in the negative sequence *ti-ku-* (Kishindo 1999), whereas the affirmative present is formed with bare *ku-*, without any trace of /i/. This is probably due to intensive contact with neighbouring Tumbuka. Thus, the historical extent of *i*-presents may once have been wider than what can be observed in the present-day languages.

## 4. Conclusion

In §2 we have taken a detailed look at the present tense prefixes in twelve Bantu languages that are spoken in a coherent area of southern Tanzania. As pointed out in §3.1, all of these prefixes share two common features. First, all have a high front vowel /i/ in at least one of their allomorphs (hence the term ‘*i*-presents’). Second, in all languages but Matengo and Ndendeule we also find a sequence *kɔ-ku-hu* (Sango: *ki-*) in one of the allomorphs. In each language, this sequence is identical to the noun class 15 (infinitive) prefix. In Pangwa G64, Kisi G67, Manda-Matumba N11, and Matengo N13 we further find a sequence *ka-/xa-/á-* preceding object markers.

In §3.2 we have proposed that all these present tense prefixes go back to a grammaticalization process from a common source structure, which consisted of a reflex of Proto-Bantu *jikad* ‘dwell, be, sit’ plus an infinitive. In §3.3, by giving a closer look at the geographic distribution of the specific types of *i*-presents, and also taking into account the social history of the language communities, we have proposed that this innovation originated in the languages of Guthrie’s zone G60. Lastly, in §3.4 we have pointed out that our proposal hinges on the synchronic traces of a prefix vowel /i/, which over time might have gone lost in some of the neighbouring languages.

To conclude, our study has shown that taking a fine-grained look at the formal variation of a linguistic expression across languages can provide valuable insights into its origin and spread, even in the absence of diachronic data.

## Abbreviations

* 1...18 noun class numbers

* 1PL first person plural

<footnote n="11">11. This means that it is possible that the zero marking of the present tense in e.g. the Nyanja variety of Manda also stems from the deletion of a previous *i*-formative.</footnote>
1SG first person singular

2PL second person plural

2SG second person singular

APPL applicative

AUG augment

C consonant segment

COP copula

FUT future

FV final vowel

INF infinitive

LOC locative

NEG negation

OM object marker

PB Proto-Bantu

PFV perfective

PRS present

SM subject marker

V vowel segment

Appendix: Sources for individual languages

<table><thead><tr><td>Guthrie-Code (Maho 2009a)</td><td>Name</td><td>Source(s)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>F24</td><td>Kimbu</td><td>Nurse (2000)</td></tr><tr><td>G11</td><td>Gogo</td><td>Nurse (1979:70-76)</td></tr><tr><td>G38</td><td>Vidunda</td><td>Legère (2011; p.c.)</td></tr><tr><td>G51</td><td>Pogoro</td><td>Nurse (2007)</td></tr><tr><td>G52</td><td>Ndamba</td><td>Edelsten & Lijongwa (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>G61</td><td>Sango</td><td>Heese (1919/20); Kajaan (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>G62</td><td>Hehe-Kalenga</td><td>Crema (1987); Okoa (2012); Robert Botne (p.c.)</td></tr><tr><td>G62</td><td>Hehe-Dzungwa</td><td>Lengson Ngwasi (p.c.)</td></tr><tr><td>G63</td><td>Bena</td><td>Küsters (193?a); Morrison (2011); Oelke (193?); Priebusch (1935)</td></tr><tr><td>G64</td><td>Pangwa</td><td>Stirnemann (1983); Küsters (193?b)</td></tr><tr><td>G65</td><td>Kinga</td><td>Helen Eaton (p.c.); Wolff (1905)</td></tr><tr><td>G66</td><td>Wanji</td><td>Helen Eaton (forthcoming)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>G67</td><td>Kisi</td><td>Gray, m.s.; Ngonyani, m.s.</td></tr><tr><td>M22</td><td>Inamwanga</td><td>Busse (1941)</td></tr><tr><td>M23</td><td>Nyika</td><td>Busse (1960)</td></tr><tr><td>M24</td><td>Malila</td><td>Helen Eaton (p.c.)</td></tr><tr><td>M25</td><td>Safwa</td><td>Helen Eaton (p.c.)</td></tr><tr><td>M301</td><td>Ndali</td><td>Botne (2008); Swilla (1998)</td></tr><tr><td>M31</td><td>Nyakyusa</td><td>Berger (1938); Daniel King (p.c.); Persohn (2017); Schumann (1899)</td></tr><tr><td>M31d</td><td>Ngonde</td><td>Labroussi (1998); Kishindo (1999)</td></tr><tr><td>N101</td><td>Ndendeule</td><td>Ngonyani (2000, 2013); Nurse (2007)</td></tr><tr><td>N11</td><td>Manda-Matumba</td><td>Bernander (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>N11</td><td>Manda-Nyanja</td><td>Bernander (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>N12</td><td>Ngoni</td><td>Ngonyani (2003); Ngonyani & Githinji (2006); Moser (1983); Ebner (1939)</td></tr><tr><td>N13</td><td>Matengo</td><td>Yoneda (2000)</td></tr><tr><td>N14</td><td>Mpoto</td><td>Bernander (field notes); Nurse (2007, 2008)</td></tr><tr><td>N15</td><td>Tonga</td><td>Mphande (2006); Mkochi (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>N21</td><td>Tumbuka</td><td>Kiso (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>N30</td><td>Chewa</td><td>Kiso (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>N44</td><td>Sena</td><td>Kiso (2012); Nurse (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>P14</td><td>Ngindo</td><td>Urmanchieva (2010); Gromova & Urmanchieva (2005)</td></tr><tr><td>P21</td><td>Yao</td><td>Sanderson (1922)</td></tr></table>

### Works cited

* BASTIN Yvonne, 1989a, “El prefijo locativo de la clase 18 y la expresión del presente progresivo en Bantu (1)”, *Estudios africanos*, t. 4, n° 6, p. 35-55.

* BASTIN Yvonne, 1989b, “El prefijo locativo de la clase 18 y la expresión del presente progresivo en Bantu (2)”, *Estudios Africanos*, t. 4, n° 7, p. 61-86.

* BASTIN Yvonne, COUPEZ André, MUMBA Évariste et SCHADEBERG Thilo C. (eds.), 2002, *Bantu lexical reconstructions 3 / Reconstructions lexicales ban-toues 3*, online.
BERGER Paul, 1938, „Die mit île gebildeten Perfektstämme in den Bantusprachen“, *Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen*, B. 28, S. 81-122, 199-230, 254-286.

BERNANDER Rasmus, 2017, *Grammar and Grammaticalization in Manda : an Analysis of the Wider TAM Domain in a Tanzanian Bantu language* [PhD thesis], University of Gothenburg.

BOTNE Robert, 2008, *A grammatical sketch of Chindali (Malawian variety)*. Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society.

BUSSE Joseph, 1941, “Lautlehre des Inamwanga”, *Afrika und Übersee*, B. 31, S. 21–50.

BUSSE Joseph, 1960, *Die Sprache der Nyiha in Ostafrika*, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag.

BYBEE Joan L., PERKINS Revere D. and PAGLIUCA William, 1994, *The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the world*, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

CREMA [Chogatambule] E., 1987, *Sarufi ya lugha ya Kihehe* [Grammar of the Hehe language], Irole (Tanzania), The author.

DOM Sebastian and BOSTOEN Koen, 2015, “Examining Variation in the Expression of Tense/Aspect to Classify the Kikongo Language Cluster”, *Africana Linguistica*, Vol. 21, p. 163-211.

DOWNING Laura, 1998, “On the Prosodic Misalignment of Onsetless Syllables”, *Natural Language & Linguistic Theory*, Vol. 16, n° 1, p. 1–52.

EATON Helen (forthcoming), “Vwanji”, in Koen Bostoen and Mark van de Velde (eds.), *The Bantu Languages*, 2nd ed., London, Routledge.

EBNER Elzear, 1939, *Kisutu Grammatik. Mission Magagura, Tanganyika* [Unpublished manuscript], Peramiho, Benedictine Mission.

EBNER Elzear, 1955, *The History of the Wangoni and their Origin in the South African Bantu Tribes*, Ndanda, Peramiho, Benedictine Publishing.

EDELSTEN Peter and LIJONGWA Chiku, 2010, *A Grammatical Sketch of Chindamba: A Bantu Language (G52) of Tanzania*, Köln, Köppe.

EMANATIAN Michelle, 1991, *Grammatical Polysemy: The Systematicity of Multiple Meanings in Grammar* [PhD thesis], UC Berkeley.

GRAY Hazel (n.d.), *Kisi Language Description*, Unpublished manuscript.

GRAY Hazel and MITTERHOFER Bernadette, 2015, *A Dialect Survey among the Manda People*, [Unpublished manuscript], Dar-es-Salaam, SIL International Tanzania.

GRAY Hazel and ROTH Timothy, 2016, “New Perspectives on the Genetic Classification of Manda (Bantu N.11)”, *SIL Electronic Working Papers* 2016-001.

GROMOVA Nelli i URMANCHIEVA Anna, 2005, Танзанийские сказки-билингвы [Tanzanian bilingual tales], in A. Koval (ed.), *Африканская сказка III* [The African folktale], Moskva, Izd. Vostochnaya literatura, p. 215-354.
GULLIVER Philip H., “1974, Political evolution in the Songea Ngoni chiefdoms 1850–1905”, *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies*, Vol. 37, p. 82–97.

HASPELMATH Martin, 1998, “The Semantic Development of Old Presents”, *Diachronica*, Vol. 15, n° 1, p. 29–62.

HEESE Paul, 1919-1920, „Die Sango-Sprache: eine kurze Grammatik“, *Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen*, B. 10, S. 87-106.

HEINE Bernd, CLAUDI Ulrike and HÜNNEMEYER Friederike, 1991, “From Cognition to Grammar – Evidence from African Languages”, in Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), *Approaches to Grammaticalization I*, Amsterdam, Benjamins, p. 149–187.

HEINE Bernd and KUTEVA Tania, 2002, *World Lexicon of Grammaticalization*. Cambridge, CUP.

HOPPER Paul and TRAUGOTT Elizabeth C., 2003, *Grammaticalization*, 2nd ed., Cambridge, CUP.

JOHNSTON Harry H., 1919, *A Comparative Study of the Bantu and Semi-Bantu Languages*, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

KAAJAN Marianne, 2012, *The Verbal System of Sangu, a Bantu Language from South-West Tanzania* [MA thesis], University of Leiden.

KERSHNER Tiffany L., 2002, *The Verb in Chisukwa: Aspect, Tense and Time* [PhD thesis], Indiana University.

KISHINDO Pascal J., 1999, “Ikyangonde: a Preliminary Analysis”, *Journal of Humanities*, Vol. 13, p. 59–86.

KISO Andrea, 2012, *Tense and Aspect in Chichewa, Citumbuka and Cisena. A Description and Comparison of the Tense-Aspect Systems in Three South-Eastern Bantu Languages* [PhD thesis], University of Stockholm.

KÜSTERS Meinulf, 193?a, *Kibena Grammatik*, unpublished manuscript.

KÜSTERS Meinulf, 193?b, *Kipangwa Grammatik, mit Uebungstücke*, unpublished manuscript.

LABROUSSI Catherine, 1998, *Le Couloir des lacs : contribution linguistique à l'histoire des populations du sud-ouest de la Tanzanie*, thèse de doctorat, Paris, Inalco.

LEGÈRE Karsten, 2011, *Verbs in Vidunda (G.38)*, Paper presented at LoT Workshop, Dar-es-Salaam, 28 May.

LEWIS M. Paul, SIMONS Gary F. and FENNIG Charles D. (eds.), 2016, *Ethnologue: Languages of the World*, 17th ed., Dallas (TX), SIL International.

MAHO Filip J., 2007, “The Linear Ordering of TAM/NEG Markers in the Bantu Languages”, *SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics*, Vol. 15, p. 213–225.

MAHO Filip J., 2009a, *NUGL Online. The online version of the new updated Guthrie list, a referential classification of the Bantu languages*, online.

MAHO Filip J., 2009b, *BOB. Bantu Online Bibliography*, online.

MEEUSSEN Achille E., 1967, “Bantu Grammatical Reconstructions”, *Africana Linguistica*, Vol. 3, p. 79–121.
MKOCHI Winfred, 2017, “Phonological Variation of the Present Progressive Aspect Marker -tu- in Malawian Tonga: a Prosodic Analysis”, *Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies*, Vol. 35, n° 4, p. 365–383.

MORRISON Michelle E., 2011, *A Reference Grammar of Bena* [PhD thesis], Rice University.

MOSER Rupert, 1983, *Aspekte der Kulturgeschichte der Ngoni in der Mkoa wa Ruvuma, Tanzania. Materialien zum Kultur- und Sprachwandel*, Vienna, Afro-Publishing.

MPHANDE David K., 2006, *Tonga Proverbs for Teaching and preaching*, Zomba, Kachere.

NGONYANI Deo (n.d), *A Grammar of Kikisi*. Unpublished manuscript.

NGONYANI Deo, 1999, *A Grammar of Kindendeule* [Unpublished manuscript], East Lansing, Michigan State University.

NGONYANI Deo, 2000, “VP ellipsis in Kindendeule”, in Kulikoyela Kahigi, Yared Kihore and Maarten Mous (eds.), *Lugha za Tanzania / Languages of Tanzania: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Prof. Clement Maganga*, Leiden, State University of Leiden, Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), p. 215–232.

NGONYANI Deo, 2001, “The Evolution of Tanzanian Ngoni”, in Derek Nurse (ed.), *Historical Language Contact*, Köln, Köppe, p. 321–353.

NGONYANI Deo, 2003, *A Grammar of Chingoni*, Munich: Lincom.

NGONYANI Deo, 2013, “The Subjunctive Mood in Kikisi, Kindendeule and Chingoni”, *Journal of Linguistics and Language in Education*, Vol. 7, n° 2, p. 1–19.

NGONYANI Deo and GITHINJI Peter, 2006, “The Asymmetric Nature of Bantu Applicative Constructions”, *Lingua*, Vol. 116, n° 1, p. 31–63.

NURSE Derek, 1979, “Description of Sample Bantu Languages of Tanzania” [with contributions by E.R. Byarushengo, G. Philippson, E.M. Ntabaye, A.N.G. Naling'igwa, Mrs G.K. Puja, H.M. Batibo, C. Maganga, S.M. Mazengo, D.J. Mkude, M.R. Kizara, R.M. Besha, R.M. Mfugale, J.M.L. Hawanga, E. Lugalla, I.A.M. Makombe, J.S.M. Mwangomango, and M.J. Bushiri]. *African languages / Langues africaines*, n° 5.

NURSE Derek, 1982, “Bantu Expansion into East Africa: Linguistic Evidence”, in Christopher Ehret and Merret Posnansky (eds.), *The Archaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History*, Berkeley, University of California Press, p. 199–222.

NURSE Derek, 1988, “The Diachronic Background to the Language Communities of Southwestern Tanzania, *Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika*, B. 9, S. 15–115.

NURSE Derek, 1999, “Towards a Historical Classification of East African Bantu Languages”, in Jean-Marie Hombert and Larry M. Hyman (eds.), *Bantu Historical Linguistics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives*, Lecture notes, n. 99. Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications, p. 1–41.
NURSE Derek, 2000, "Diachronic Morphosyntactic Change in Western Tanzania", in Rainer Vossen, Angelika Mietzner und Antje Meissner (Hrsg.), 'Mehr als nur Worte...': afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland, Köln, Köppe, S. 517–534.

NURSE Derek, 2007, *Bantu Tense and Aspect Systems*, online.

NURSE Derek, 2008, *Tense and aspect in Bantu*, Oxford, OUP.

NURSE Derek and PHILIPPSON, Gérard, 2006, “Common Tense-Aspect Markers in Bantu”, *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics*, Vol. 27, p. 153–194.

NYAGAVA Seth I., 1999, *A History of the Bena to 1914*, Iringa (Tanzania), Iringa University College.

OELKE Julius, 193?, *Grammatik des Kibena*, unpublished manuscript.

OKOA Simile, 2012, *Verbal inflection in Hehe Language*, Paper presented at the Students-Staff Seminars of the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, University of Dar es Salaam, 18 May.

PARK Geroge, 1988, “Evolution of a Regional Culture in East Africa”, *Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika*, B. 9, S. 117–204.

PERSOHN Bastian, 2016, “When the Present is in the Past and what is Normal is to Come. Old and New Presents in Nyakyusa (Bantu)”, *Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie Online*.

PERSOHN Bastian, 2017, *The Verb in Nyakyusa: a Focus on Tense, Aspect and Modality*, Berlin, Language Science Press.

PRIEBUSCH Martin, 1935, *Bena-Hehe-Grammatik*, Berlin, Kommissionsverlag der Buchhandlung der Berliner Missionsgesellschaft.

SANDERSON Meredith, 1922, *A Yao Grammar*, London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

SCHUMANN Carl, 1899, „Grundriss einer Grammatik der Kondesprache“, *Mittheilungen des Seminars für orientalische Sprachen*, B. 2(3), S. 1–86.

SPISS Cassian, 1904, „Kingoni und Kisutu“, *Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen zu Berlin, 3. Abteilung: Afrikanische Studien* VII, S. 270–414.

STIRNIMANN Hans, 1983, *Praktische Grammatik der Pangwa-Sprache (SW-Tanzania)*: Indaki cha luchovo lwa va Pangwa, Fribourg, Universitätsverlag.

SWILLA Imani N., 1998, “Tenses in Chindali”, *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere*, B. 54, S. 95-125.

URMANCHIEVA Anna, 2010, “Grammaticalization of Narrative Patterns in Ngindo Verbal Morphology”, in Karsten Legère and Christina Thornell (eds.), *Bantu Languages – Analyses, Description & Theory*, Köln, Köppe, p. 271–279.

WALSH, Martin T., 2004, *Variability and Compounding of Affixes in Hehe Animal Names (Tanzania)*. Paper presented to the 34th Colloquium on African Languages and Linguistics (CALL 34); Leiden University; 23-25 August.

WEBER Peter, 1998, *Ritual und Identität. Vorkoloniale Geschichte in Unyakyusa von ca. 1600 bis 1897*. Hamburg: LIT.
WOLFF Richard, 1905, *Grammatik der Kinga-Sprache (Deutsch-Ostafrika, Nyassagebiet). Nebst Texten und Wörterverzeichnis*, Berlin, Kommis-sionsverlag von Georg Reimer.

YONEDA Nobuko, 2000, *A Descriptive Study of Matengo, a Bantu Language of Tanzania, with Focus on the Verbal Structure*, Tokyo, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA).