Cushitic loans in South Nilotic revisited

This article explores lexical contact between Cushitic and Nilotic taking the proposed Cushitic language Proto Baz as point of departure. Proto Baz is a putative East Cushitic language proposed by Heine, Rottland & Vossen (1979), on the basis of words borrowed into South Nilotic. Some of the loans were already pointed out by Ehret (1970, 1971, 1974). A critical assessment of the proposed loans shows that there is more diversity in their origin than formerly thought, and that it is in fact not necessary to assume the existence of a separate language (Proto Baz) to account for the loans. Instead, the loans came from various reconstructed stages of existing Cushitic languages. We discuss different contact situations between groups of East Cushitic and South Nilotic languages, as well as the recurring challenges in historical interpretation of the available evidence. The Appendix provides the reader with an overview of the discussed lexical items from earlier sources and new proposed analyses.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Afrika und Übersee
Published
2025-09-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15460/auue.2025.98.1.368
Primary Topic
Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cushitic loans in South Nilotic revisited

Maarten Mous, Christian Rapold
1 links
Afrika und Übersee
Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
article

Cushitic loans in South Nilotic revisited

Maarten Mous, Christian Rapold
article en

Abstract

This article explores lexical contact between Cushitic and Nilotic taking the proposed Cushitic language Proto Baz as point of departure. Proto Baz is a putative East Cushitic language proposed by Heine, Rottland & Vossen (1979), on the basis of words borrowed into South Nilotic. Some of the loans were already pointed out by Ehret (1970, 1971, 1974). A critical assessment of the proposed loans shows that there is more diversity in their origin than formerly thought, and that it is in fact not necessary to assume the existence of a separate language (Proto Baz) to account for the loans. Instead, the loans came from various reconstructed stages of existing Cushitic languages. We discuss different contact situations between groups of East Cushitic and South Nilotic languages, as well as the recurring challenges in historical interpretation of the available evidence. The Appendix provides the reader with an overview of the discussed lexical items from earlier sources and new proposed analyses.

Afrika und ÜberseeVol. 98
Leiden University (NL)
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Openalex Percentile: Top 75%
Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.