Chapter XXVII: Appendix: K

_On the Shelluh Language._

By JOHN BALL.

Jackson in his ‘Account of Marocco’ refers to the opinion of Marmol, that the Shelluhs of Marocco and the Berebers (Kabyles) of Algeria speak the same language, as altogether incorrect, and positively affirms, on the contrary, that these languages are quite distinct. In proof of this assertion, he gives a short list of Shelluh words or short phrases, with the Bereber equivalents of most of them, and concludes, from the differences between these, that the languages are profoundly, if not radically, different. A comparison of this kind is so notoriously misleading that no importance would have been attached to the conclusion derived from it, were it not for the fact that Jackson was well acquainted with the Shelluh language, probably better than any other European has since been; and that although not versed in comparative philology, a science not yet come into existence in his time, he was a man of good general intelligence who seems to have had frequent occasion to compare the two languages.

The first person who was able to speak on the subject with any authority was Venture de Paradis, a man of remarkable linguistic attainments, who died prematurely while accompanying the French Syrian Expedition in 1799. His grammar and vocabulary of the Bereber language were not published until 1844, and his conclusions were not until then made known to the world. It appears that in the year 1788 two Shelluhs, one a native of Haha, the other from Sous, went to Paris. Notwithstanding the difficulty of communicating with men who possessed no written language, Venture de Paradis contrived to obtain from them a list of Shelluh words and short phrases. He was very soon after attached to a mission sent to Algiers, where he was detained for more than a year. He made acquaintance with two Kabyles, theological students, at Algiers, and, finding that his list of Shelluh words corresponded very nearly with the Kabyle equivalents, he devoted himself to the study of the Kabyle dialect of the Bereber tongue, and prepared the grammar and dictionary which remained for more than half a century unpublished. It might be sufficient to refer the reader to the judgment of so competent an authority; but a slight examination of the subject has afforded such confirmation to the conclusions of Venture de Paradis as seems to place them beyond the reach of controversy.

It must be remarked in the first place that, from the want of sacred books or other written records among the races of the Bereber stock, there is no one of the many dialects spoken by them that can be taken as the classical standard to which others may be compared. French writers in treating of what they style ‘la langue Berbère’ usually mean the Kabyle, spoken by most of the mountain tribes of Algeria. The same language, with dialectic differences, is used by many tribes of the Sahara; but throughout the larger part of the vast region lying between the southern borders of Algeria and Marocco and the Soudan, the prevailing tongue, though unquestionably belonging to the Bereber family, deserves to rank as a distinct language from the Kabyle. A slight examination of the latter shows that it has been largely adulterated by contact with the Arab population, who from an early period have ruled the open country and carried on all commercial intercourse; while the characteristic grammatical features have been in many respects obscured or effaced. On the other hand, it appears from a recent publication by General Faidherbe[1] that the dialect spoken at the south-western limit of the Bereber races, adjoining the river Senegal, while preserving the chief Bereber grammatical characteristics, has undergone much etymological alteration, whether from contact with the Negro tribes, or from inherent causes. As far as the available materials enable us to form a judgment, it seems clear that the best living representative of the Bereber language is that spoken by the Touarecks of the Great Desert, and especially by the great tribes, the Azguer and Ahaggar, who occupy between them a territory measuring at least half a million of square miles. Of this, which is properly called Tamashek’, a grammar was published by General Hanoteau in 1860, and another by Mr. Stanhope Freeman in 1862. The Tamashek’ is distinguished from the other languages of the same family by the greater regularity and completeness of its grammatical system, by the comparative absence of Arab words, of which the Kabyle shows a large infusion; but especially by the possession of a system of writing, rude, indeed, and imperfect, but not known to any other branch of the Bereber stock. This privilege has not led to the growth of a national literature; the written characters are used only for rock inscriptions, for mottoes on shields, and occasionally for verses on festive occasions; but their use is widely spread among men of the higher class, and still more among the women, and, however restricted, has doubtless tended to give comparative fixity to the language.

Of the Shelluh tongue the materials available are, indeed, very scanty. The most considerable document is contained in the ninth volume of the ‘Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ where Mr. Francis Newman has given a literal Latin version of a story written in Arabic characters by a native of South Marocco. It would require far more knowledge of the Shelluh language and familiarity with Arabic writing than I possess to enter on any examination of that document; and there is the further difficulty that the natives who learn to write their own language in Arabic characters are usually those who also acquire the Arabic language, and in so doing learn to adopt Arabic phrases and forms of speech. In the following table I have introduced all the Shelluh words given by Jackson and Washington, of which I have been able to find equivalents in Kabyle or Tamashek’, and have endeavoured to adopt a uniform mode of orthography. The vowels are intended to have the sounds to which they correspond in most European languages, and not those peculiar to England. _Th_ and _sh_ have nearly the same sounds as in English; _gh_ before _e_ or _i_ has the hard sound; and _r’_ indicates the peculiar sound intermediate between the guttural and the ordinary _r_, which European travellers indicate sometimes by _r_, and sometimes by _gh_. In several instances synonyms are given in brackets.

+------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
|English |Shelluh |Kabyle |Tamashek’ |
+------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
|Man |argaz |ergaz |ales |
| | | | |
| |{tamraut} |{themthout} |{tameth |
|Woman |{ } |{ } |{ |
| |{tamtout} |{themgart } |{tamethout |
| | | | |
| | | |{abaradh |
|Boy |ayel |ashish |{ |
| | | |{amaradh |
| | | | |
|Girl |tayelt |tehayalt |tamarat |
| | | | |
|Slave |issemgh |ismigh |akli |
| | | | |
| | |{eïss } | |
|Horse |ayiss |{ } |ayiss |
| | |{aghmar} | |
| | | | |
| |{aroum } |{aram } |{amnis |
|Camel |{ } |{ } |{ |
| |{algrom} |{elgroum} |{amagour |
| | | | |
| |{izimer } |{thiksi} |{izimer |
|Sheep |{ } |{ } |{ |
| |{djellib} |{thili } |{ekraz |
| | | | |
|Mule |tasardount |aserdoun | — |
| | | | |
|Boar |amouran |mourran |azibara |
| | | | |
|Cow |tafounest |tefonest |tes |
| | | | |
|Green lizard|tasamoumiat |tesermoumit | — |
| | | | |
| | |{eman} | |
|Water |amen |{ } |aman |
| | |{aman} | |
| | | | |
| |{tagora } | | |
|Bread |{ } |aghroum |tagella |
| |{aghroum} | | |
| | | | |
| | |{aifki } | |
|Milk |akfaï |{ } |akh |
| | |{aghfaï} | |
| | | | |
|Meat |ouksoum |aksoum | — |
| | | | |
| | |{tighliim } | |
|Eggs |tikellin |{ } | — |
| | |{thimillim} | |
| | | | |
|Barley |toumzīn |toumsin |timzin |
| | | | |
| |{tena } | | |
|Dates |{ } |tini |teini |
| |{tinie} | | |
| | | | |
|Green figs |akermous |tibaksisin | — |
| | | | |
|Honey |tamint |thament | — |
| | | | |
|Sun |atfoukt |tefoukt |tafoukt |
| | | | |
|Mountain |adrar (_plur_ |edrar (_plur._ |adrar (_plur._ |
| |idrarn) |ouderan) |idrarn) |
| | | | |
|Palm tree |taghinast |jat faroukt | — |
| | | | |
|Year |aksougaz |ezoughaz |aouétai |
| | | | |
|Morning |zir |ighilwas |ifaout |
| | | | |
|To-morrow |azgah |ezikka |toufat |
| | | | |
|Village |thedderth |tedert | — |
| | | | |
| |{tikimie } |{tighimi} | |
|House |{ } |{ } | — |
| |{tigameen} |{akham } | |
| | | | |
|Wood |asr’oer |esghar |asr’er |
| | | | |
|Dinner |imkelli |elles |amekchi |
| | | | |
| | |{ikf } | |
|Head |akfie |{ } |ir’ef |
| | |{akfai} | |
| | | | |
|Eyes |alen |ellin |tiththaouin |
| | | |(_sing._ tith) |
| | | | |
|Nose |tinzah |inzer | — |
| | | | |
|Feet |idarn |idaren | — |
| | |(_sing._ adar) | |
| | | | |
|Go |aftou |eddou |eg’al |
|(_imper._) | | | |
| | | | |
| | |{as } |as (come, or |
|Come |ashi |{ } |go) |
| | |{eshkad} | |
| | | | |
|Give |fikihie |efki |ekf |
| | | | |
|Eat |aïnish |itch |eksh |
| | | | |
|Call |irkerah |kera | — |
| | | | |
| | |{ghaouer} |{r’im |
|Sit down |gaouze |{ } |{ |
| | |{aguim } |{ekk’im |
| | | | |
|Good |egan ras |delâli |elkir r’as |
+------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+

It will be seen that, as regards thirty out of thirty-five Shelluh substantives here enumerated, the Kabyle equivalents are distinguished only by dialectic differences, and the same holds as to at least four out of six verbs. It thus appears, as far as the evidence goes, that there is as much verbal resemblance between these tongues as between Italian and Spanish, or other allied languages belonging to the same stock. The comparison with the Tamashek’ shows a less close etymological relationship. Out of twenty-four substantives for which Tamashek’ equivalents have been found, twelve only, and two only out of five verbs, show identity of origin. But it is interesting to find indications that the Shelluh retains a closer conformity to the rules of Tamashek’ grammar than does the better known Kabyle language. In the very few cases where a comparison is possible we find, indeed, absolute identity. Thus the Shelluh word for boy (_ayel_), is apparently not found either in Kabyle or Tamashek;’ but the feminine form (_tayelt_), for girl, precisely follows the rule of Tamashek’ inflexion for gender, and a slight modification of this (_tehayalt_) is found in the Kabyle. A somewhat similar example is the word _tasardount_ for mule, this being the regular feminine form of the Kabyle name, _aserdoun_. The word _adrar_ (mountain) forms its plural _idrarn_ exactly according to rule, and both singular and plural are identical with the Tamashek’ forms; while the Kabyle shows dialectic differences, especially in the plural where the final _r_ of the singular is lost. The last word in the list affords an illustration of the liability to error incurred by a traveller attempting to form a vocabulary of a language with which he has but a slight acquaintance. _Good_ is here used in the sense of a satisfactory answer to inquiries, pretty much as _all right_ is adopted in colloquial English. Jackson was doubtless familiar with the expression _egan ras_, which he gives as the Shelluh equivalent, and which we also often heard from the natives; but the _ras_ of the Shelluh is obviously the same as the Tamashek’ adverb _r’as_, meaning _only_, or _exclusively_, which invariably follows the word _elkir_ in the corresponding Tamashek’ reply, _elkir r’as_.

It has not appeared necessary to add to the table given above a column for the corresponding words in the Zénaga language from the vocabulary given by General Faidherbe. The amount of verbal similarity between this and the Shelluh is very trifling, and the distinguished author referred to was doubtless misinformed when led to express a belief in their close connection.

The time is perhaps not yet come for forming a definitive judgment as to the origin of the Bereber languages, and the precise nature of the relations between them and the ancient language of Egypt on the one hand, and those of the Semitic family on the other. The present writer feels his own incompetence to grapple with questions of such difficulty, and will merely refer the reader to the conclusions recently announced by M. de Rochemonteix as those which appear to carry with them the greatest weight.

In his essay, published in 1876,[2] the learned writer finds that the ancient Egyptian and the Bereber possessed the same pronominal roots, and employed the same methods for forming their inflexions and derivatives; and he arrives at the same opinion with reference to the inflexions of the substantives. He further asserts that the modifications which time and external conditions have effected are of a superficial character, and in no way conceal the close grammatical affinity of these languages. Whether this affinity be due to direct inheritance, or to common descent from a more remote ancestral stock, is a question not touched by the writer, who bases his conclusions on a study of two only of the Bereber dialects, the Kabyle and the Tamashek.’[3]

With reference to the relation indicated by the conjugation of the Bereber verb, in which the grammatical processes show a considerable affinity with those of the Semitic languages, while the comparison of the verbal elements shows no token of common origin, M. de Rochemonteix expresses the opinion that at an early period of their development, the Bereber people must have been brought into contact with the Semitic stock, and may well have been struck by the advantage of precision obtained by systematic conjugation of the verb, and thus gradually moulded their own rude tongue on the model supplied to them.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: _Le Zénaga des Tribus Sénégalaises._ Paris, 1877.]

[Footnote 2: _Essai sur les rapports grammaticaux entre l’Egyptien et le Berbère,_ par le Marquis de Rochemonteix. Paris, 1876.]

[Footnote 3: It is of some interest to remark that the latest conclusions of philologists on the affinity of the North African dialects, substantially agree with the testimony of the earliest writer who came in contact with them. The following passage is taken from the original version of the description of Africa by Leo Africanus, published by Ramusio in his famous work ‘Delle Navigationi et Viaggi:’ Venetia, 1563, vol. i. p. 2 f. The Moorish writer divides the indigenous white population of Northern Africa into five races, enumerated by him, and then continues: ‘Tutti i cinque popoli—i quali sono divisi in centinaja di legnaggi, et in migliaja di migliaja d’habitationi, insieme si conformano in una lingua la quale comunemento è da loro detta Aquel Amarig, che vuol dir lingua nobile. Et gli Arabi di Africa la chiamano lingua barbaresca, che è la lingua africana nathia. Et questa lingua è diversa et differente dalle altre lingue: tuttavia in essa pur trovano alcuni vocaboli della lingua araba, di maniera che alcuni gli tengono et usangli per testimonianza, che gli Africani siano discesi dall’ origine d’i Sabei, popolo, come s’è detto nell’ Arabia felice. Ma la parte contraria afferma, che quelle voci arabe che si trovano nella detta lingua, furono recate in lei dapoi che gli Arabi entrarono nell’ Africa, et la possederono. Ma questi popoli furono di grosso inteletto et ignoranti, intanto che niun libro lasciarono, che si possa addurre in favore nè dell’ una nè dell’ altra parte. Hanno ancora qualche differenza tra loro non solo nella pronontia, ma etiandio nella signification di molti et molti vocaboli. Et quelli che sono più vicini a gli Arabi, et più usano la domestichezza loro, più similmente tengono de loro vocaboli arabi nella lingua. Et quasi tutto il popolo di Gumera’ (the Rif Country) ‘usa la favella araba, ma corrotta. Et molti della stirpe della gente di Haoara parlano pure arabo, et tuttavia corrotta. Et ciò aviene per haver lunghi tempi havuta conversazione con gli Arabi.’]

* * * * *