Table Of ContentA NAIVIA GRAJV.IMAR: THE NOUN-PHRASE
n
w
o
T
e
p
a
C
f
o
y
t
i
s
r
e
v
i
n ''by
U
WILFRID HEINRICH GERHARD HAACKE
·submitted in fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department of African Langliages,
University of Cape Town
· November, 1976
n
w
The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No
o
T
quotation from it or information derived from it is to be
published without full acknowledgeement of the source.
p
The thesis is to be used for private study or non-
a
C
commercial research purposes only.
f
o
Published by the Universit y of Cape Town (UCT) in terms
y
t
of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author.
i
s
r
e
v
i
n
U
To
IRl\llGARD
i
AC KN OWLEDGi1WENT
I sincerely like to thank the following:
Prof E.O.J. Westphal, Head of the Department of African
Lan.g0.ages at the University of Cape Town for his advice
and constant encouragement, and for having made it pos
sible ·for me to study indigenous languages of South
West Africa;
Dr C.H. Borland, Senior Lecturer in·the Department of
African Languages at .the University of Qape Town for
his theoretical advice as well as practical assistance
whenever it was needed;
Dr D. Cranmer, for four weeks of intensive discussions;
Dr B. Semmelinck, controller of the Central.Acoustics
Laboratory for his analyses of several tape-recordings;
Mr J. Boois, of the Native Language Bureau for being
a reliable informant and teacher. His sound linguistic
instinct served as basis for the research conducted.
I should further like to express my gratitude to the
Department of Bantu Education for the permission to
use in this dissertation material that was acquired in
the course of my professionalwo~k, and for its sympa..:.
thetic attitude towards this research.
I am furthermore endebted to Mr M. Sketch of the Central
Accoustics Laboratory forhis_technical assistance;
to Pastor H. Witbooi and Pastor A. Schmidt who helped
to verify linguistic material;
and in particular to Mrs Herika Brown for her patient
listening and valuable suggestions.
Any. shortcomings in this dissertation are entirely
my own.
ii
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements i
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. .QEJ~ct ~g£_.Q.E_~cti~ 1
The problem: Is the concept of CASE
l.~.l.
applicable to Nama? 4
·1.2.
_Erev_!~_worLwith r~~rd t~th~Na~
NOUN-rHRASE 6
1.2.1.--Case terminology in Nama handbooks 11
1.2.1.1. The "zero-morpheme" ,i5 12
1.2.1.2. The morpheme -a 13
1.2.1.3. The possessive morpheme di 16
1.2.1.4. The ablative morpheme -i 17
1.2.1.5. The vocative morph~mes -e and -a 18
1.2.1.6. Gilnther's "Casus rectus" and "Casus
o bliquus 11 18
.
1.3. ~!~!emen!_2f_!h~ li£EE.is!ic fra~~E! 21
1.3.1. Organization of this dissertation 21
1.3.2. Descriptive material in this dissertation 24
1.3.3. Topics not covered in this dissertation 29
1.3.4. The data 31
1.4. Conventions 32
1.4.1.--The-orthography 32
1.4.2. Symbols and abbreviations 33
1.4.3. Indication of lexical tone 37·
1.4.3.1. Basic profiles 40
1.4.3.2. Perturbed profiles 42
ENDNOTES TO CHAPrER 1 45
2. M--OR-P-H-OL-O-G-IC-A-L -S-T-AT·E-M-E-N-T 50
2 .1. Lexical formatives 50
2 .1.1. --Nouns_______ 66
2.1.1.1. Nouns proper 66
2.1.1.2. "Pronouns" 69
2.1.2. Verbs and adjectives 86
2.2. Grammatical formatives 88
2.2.1.--NominaICfesigiiant_s__ 88
2.2.2. Structural inventory of NOUN-PHRASEs 93
iii
2.2.2.1. of ge 94
Occ~rrence
2.2.2.2. Occurrence of the zero-morpheme ~ 97
2.2.2.3. Occurrence of -a 100
2.2.2.4. Occurrence of postpositions 105
2.2.2.5. Occurrence of di 106
2.2.2.6. Occurrence of -i 110
2.2.2.7. Occurrence of -e 111
2.2.3. Phrase designants 111
2. J. The col'lsti tuents of a NOUN-Pl1RASE 120
2.3.1.--The head-constituent · 120
2.3.2. Modifiers 120
2;3.2.1. Demonstratives 121
2.3.2.2. Articles 121
2.3.2.3. · Adjectives 122
2.3.2.4. Numerals 123
2.3.2.5. Possessives 123
2.3.2.6. Relatives 125
ENDNOTES TO CHAP~ER 2 . 127
3. THE NOUN-PHRASE IN NA.MA 138
3-.1. The NOUN-PHRASE in sentence.:...context . 1}8.
3.1.1.--The~structure-Of a-simple sentence 139
3.1.1.1. Demarcation of the NJUN-PHRASE 150
3.1.2. The CASE issue 156
3.1.2.1. Morphology of traditional CASE in Nama 157
3.1.2.2. Preliminary conclusion 162
3.1.2.3. The function of ge 163
3.1.2.4. The function of -a 167
J.1.2.5. Suggested CASE teTminology 174
3.1.3 •. The underlying structure of a NOUN 174
3.1.3.1. · The NP in the interrogative 183
3.1.3.2. Nominative and Oblique in a declarative
sentence 189
3.1.3.3. Nominative and Oblique in copular
sentences 194
3.1.3.4. Negation of a NOMINAL 203
3.2. §,yg!ax_2.f_!he_l!OUN~~HRAS~ . . 208
3.2.1. The linear ordering Of constituents 209
J.2.1.1. Meaning-preserving and other features 234
3.2.2. The adjunction of modifiers 236
3.3. Some examnles of NOUN-PHRASES 248
3 .J .1. -"'""~fttri butive-mo<lirier-s---· 248
3.3.2. The formation of 11that-sentences11 and
other subordinate sentences 249
iv
Appositive and pronominal use of modifiers 253
3.3.3.
255
3.3.4. Prep-phrases
257
Co-referential copular sentences
3.3.5.
259
Extended minimal copular sentences
3.3.6.
261
ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER 3
271
4. -CO-N-CL-U-SI-O-N
APPENDIX I: BASIC AND PERTURBED LEXICAL PROFILES 2Tl
BIBLIOGRAPHY: List of works cited 282
1
1. ];NTRODUCTION
Nama is spoken in South West Africa by approximately
115 000 people of ethnic groups. The nume
d~fferent
rically biggest groups speaking the Nama language
1
are the Damara (75 000) and the Nama (38 000) ).
Cetain smaller Bushman groups use Nama as well. Nama
is th-e last survivor of the 11cla-ssical Hottentott"
(Khoekhoen) languages that is still spoken on a fairly
extensive basis.
The differences between dialect spoken by the
~he
Nama, and the dialect spoken by the Damara south of
the Huab River are negligible. Th.is dissertation is,
·however, explicitly confined to Nama as spoken by the
Nama·people. This proforma limmitation has to be
made, as the material on syntax was recorded and checked
with Nama informants only. The claim by certain Damara
that they speak "Damara", a language not to be confused
with Nama, can in· our opinion not be upheld on lingui-
..
tic grounds.
1.1. Object and o.£.j_ective
Several handbooks have been published on Nama. Yet
no significant progess has been made in recent years
2
··in the understanding of th·e nature of this language.
Ever since Vedder's handwritten manuscript appeared in
1909, his "school-grammar" approach to Nama has been
2
adopted by subsequent authors ). Olpp revised Vedder's
handbook in 1917. It was printed some· forty-five years
later, in 1963. In 1965 Rust's handbook appeared,
which is based on the manuscripts by Vedder and Olpp.
In 1964 Olpp's handbook was furthermore translated
into Afrikaans by J.C. van Loggerenberg. His transla
tion in turn was transcribed into the standard. ortho-
graphy and moderately revised by H.J.Kruger in 1972
(publication forthcoming). A scholarly re-assessment
of Nama grammar by Otto Dempwolff in 1934· apparently
went largely unnoticed by more recent authors.
It is.thus for more than sixty years that Vedder's
approach to Nama grammar has been adopted almost enti
rely for the purpose of writing handbooks. It cannot
be overlooked that a grammatical model for European
languages - in particular for Latin and German - has
been imposed on Nama, as will be illustrated in the
next section. The result is that the handbooks fail
to reveal certain underlying regularities that are
essential to an understanding of the grammatical
principles of Nama. Hence some serious misconceptions
are prevailing in the current literature, and several
3
accounts of grammati.cal processes in Nama are confu
sing and complicated.
In this light this dissertation hopes to serve a dual
purpose: It aims to provide additional descriptive
material on certain aspects of Nama that have not yet
been covered in existing literature; but in doing so,
a satisfactory theory must be found that can adeqt!ately·
serve as infrastructure {working basis) for the descrip
tion of Nama. The theory that is proposed is sketched
in outline. It will be cause for personal sa4isfaction
if this theory will show the way for future research
and for the construction of a detailed theory of Nama
grammar.
Only one aspect has been selected for discussion: the
NOUN-PHRASE. This topic has been chosen as nominaliza
tion is one of the most important features of Nama
grammar. Nominalization is moreover that aspect of
Nama syntax which is the ·most mispresented.
This should not be seen as a theoretical
~issertation
work: It should rather be seen as a descriptive work
on Nama. A re-assessment of some of the material avail
able in existing handbooks should lead to a better
·understanding of the mechanisms at work. It is hoped
that this restatement is the major contribution, as
