In a survey dedicated to 1sg (Güldemann 2011b), I show that the higher a language (group) is in the conventionally assumed phylogenetic structure of Benue-Kwa the more *m*-forms exist or even predominate, including in Bantu groups in the north-west. While Babaev (2008: 143) concludes "that **me** is a separate subject pronoun not related genetically to **\*n(i)-**", I have presented evidence that \**Ni* in fact emerges from (and gradually replaces) inherited \**mi*, particularly in the context of bound cross-reference. I even propose that the change of the 1sg exponent from the form \**mi* to the form \**Ni* may well have occurred multiple times independently across Benue-Kwa and beyond. While this may not seem to be the most economical solution, there are a number of reasons in support of this hypothesis.

A first major factor is that different pronominal categories are not unlikely to fuse with a host in different ways, which mitigates the emergence of a fully symmetrical paradigm of bound pronouns. This has to do with their unequal tendency to occur in verbal constructions and then fuse with other elements as unstressed forms. Mithun (1991: 102) writes from a cross-linguistic perspective (cf. also Givón 1976):

[…] pronominal paradigms do not necessarily become morphologically bound all at once. They may be grammaticalized in predictable stages. Person markers may appear before number markers. Among persons, *first and second person pronouns often become bound before third*. Indefinite third person pronouns may become bound before definite pronouns, and *subjects* or ergatives *before objects* or absolutives. Number may be distinguished initially for first person, then for second, and only later for third, if at all. (emphasis mine)

Regarding bound argument cross-reference on the predicate in Bantu, this means that the reconstruction of a 1sg prefix does not imply the past existence of a full bound person paradigm. There is indeed ample evidence in Benue-Kwa as a whole not only for the relevant effect of the nominal hierarchy (cf. already Schadeberg 1978 for an extensive discussion concerning Bantu), but also for the greatest likelihood of precisely the 1sg exponent to become bound to its predicate host. That is, the available data suggest that if there is differential argument cross-reference it always includes this paradigmatic item. For example, Green & Igwe (1963: 32) report for Igbo that the 1sg form *mụ/mị* partakes in both the incomplete preverbal and postverbal set of partly assimilated subject pronouns and is truncated there to *m*. The Edoid language Engenni (Thomas 1969: 226–228) is a non-Bantu case for the 1sg object form attaching more closely or freely to the

verb stem. In Bantu, this phenomenon is reported for Makaa A83 (Heath 2003: 342, 345), Nzadi B865 (Crane et al. 2011: 158), Rimi F32 (Woolford 2000: 113–115), and across Narrow Bantu in imperative forms (Meeussen 1967: 112; Devos & Van Olmen 2013: 20–21).

In addition to the preference of the 1sg marker to become a bound element before others, it often undergoes sound change, particularly as a proclitic or prefix. For \**mi*, this involves in particular the change of the place of articulation in the initial nasal from bilabial *m* to alveolar *n* or palatal *ɲ*, triggered by the quality of the following vowel of the pronoun itself and/or (after vowel loss) by the initial consonant or vowel of the verb stem. Babaev (2008) himself provides evidence that \**mV* changes in Benue-Kwa to a bound verb marker and that at least some modern non-bilabial forms are derived from this process, as shown in Table 8 (see also Miehe 2004: 101 for such a hypothesis in genealogically distant Gur). Some Bantu languages even display both forms in the same morphosyntactic context, as shown in (12) for Mbuun B87, where the *mé-* and *N-* 1sg object indexes are interchangeable.

(12) Mbuun B87 (Bostoen & Mundeke 2011: 77) *a-mpúlúús* 2-police *ba-á-mé/N-leŋ* 2-prs-1sg-search 'The police(men) search for me.'

Güldemann (2017: 118–122) shows that the change of a pronoun shape from *mi* to *N(i)* in fact occurred outside Niger-Congo, notably with the 2sg pronoun \**mi* in

Table 8: Plausible change from independent 1sg \*mV to bound subject markers

several branches of Central Sudanic. This is significant because these instances are unrelated to those in Benue-Kwa and Bantu in geographical, genealogical, and semantic terms and thus characterise the change as largely phonetically motivated.

There is another, more abstract, argument why *n* from *m* is not an unlikely language change in pronominal forms. Nichols & Peterson (1996: 351) conclude on the basis of a cross-linguistic survey that:

[…] the distribution of *n* is a matter of universal preferences, while that of *m* […] is less strongly linked to universals and more strongly linked to historical contingencies than that of *n*. *m* is therefore the better potential marker of historical connections.

In a similar vein, Blasi et al. (2016) diagnose a globally observable phonosemantic bias of 1sg pronouns towards the palatal nasal *ɲ*. While forms with exactly this shape are recurrent in Bantu and have been posited as a Proto-Bantu reconstruction (see Table 3 and 4 above), the cross-linguistic findings widen the perspective on the historical evaluation of alveolar and palatal nasals in the Benue-Kwa and Bantu pronoun at issue.

There is also a significant bias in Bantu of largely bound \**Ni-* vs. independent \**mi* regarding their morphosyntactic contexts. Babaev (2008: 143) observes in this respect:

Statistically, the number of **\*ɲi-**forms throughout the [Bantu] family is extremely high in the subject markers, lower in the object, even lower in the possessive markers, and quite rare in the independent stressed pronouns. The share of **\*me** grows respectively.

While this author wants to reconstruct such a distributional cline to Proto-Bantu and even higher genealogical levels, it can be interpreted inversely. That is, the shift from independent \**mi* to bound \**Ni-* reflects the expected hierarchy of the innovative fusion of a pronoun with its host as steered by such factors as likely topicality and accompanying de-accentuation and eventual sound change. Insofar as the four grammatical contexts differ with respect to the information status of pronouns and hence their tendency towards fusion, the distribution observed by Babaev arguably reflects where bound \**Ni-* would have started its existence and where it encroached upon last (or, as a reviewer observes, its possible successive extension as a bound form to new paradigms).

In general, the potential early existence of a 1sg \**Ni-* that was bound to the verb alongside an independent pronominal form \**mi* is not evidence for a full-fledged bound verbal argument cross-reference paradigm. Rather, this coexistence is a reflex of various universal tendencies that converge in recurrently producing \**Ni*from \**mi*. The free 1sg pronoun \**mi* is thus a robust Proto-Bantu reconstruction as well.

The historical assessment of 2pl exponents is also complex in that there are several problems for a superficial cognate identification for both the assumed common Benue-Kwa form in \**nVclose* and the received Proto-Bantu form in \**mU*. For one thing, there are modern Bantu forms that could be cases of denasalisation~fortition of \**nVclose* to \**lVclose/dVclose* and \**mU* to \**BU*. Forms with an initial bilabial voiced plosive could reflect the human 3pl marker \**ba* of class 2 as a polite form or its incorporation as a (human) plural marker. All such ambiguous forms, whether candidate reflexes of \**nU* or \**mU*, are found after the vertical bar in the values of Table 7.

It is worth having a closer look at the situation in the zones where forms in arguably inherited *n* are attested. In Table 9, I repeat the values for 2pl from Table 7 but sub-classify them based on whether the initial consonant of the actual forms is *n* or *l/d*, which I consider as possibly related to \**nU*, or in *m*, which are likely to derive from \**mU*. There are also forms with voiced labial plosives (represented by abstract *B*, see discussion below). Cells are shaded whenever *n/l/d*-forms outnumber *m/B*-forms. I disregard a few other forms, notably plain vowels. The overall picture after this methodological step does not seem to differ much from that of Table 7. I venture, however, that it is in fact more likely that *l*- and *d*-forms

Table 9: 2pl forms according to initial consonants across Babaev's (2008) data

are real reflexes of \**nU*, while there are other sources for *B*-forms besides the theoretically possible denasalisation of \**mU*.

First, the potential cognates of \**nU* do not only correspond arguably in the consonant but also in the vowel quality, while this is less often the case for the would-be counterparts of \**mU*. Moreover, there is evidence that the initial plosive in at least some of the *B*-forms reflect the historical \**b* of a (human) plural marker \**bV* that fused with both plural pronouns and that such complex forms further contracted. The development of 2pl forms involving this marker \**bV* can be schematised as: \**nU* > \**bV-nU*~\**bV-nV*~\**bV-nU-V* > *bV-n* > *bV*, with parallels in the 1pl. Such changes occur in Bantoid languages outside Narrow Bantu, as exemplified by Güldemann (2017: 110) for Mambiloid. Looking at the data in Babaev (2008: 175–177) and elsewhere, it can also be reconstructed in Bantu. The plain \**nU* aside, there is widely distributed evidence far beyond north-western Bantu for the complex form, for example, *bíní* in Mboshi C25, *biɲwé* in Lega D25, *ßénú* in Bira D32, *ßiŋwé* in Sukuma F21, and *bènò* in Vili H12L (cf. appendix in Babaev 2008). Moreover, suggestive data for the later stages with a lost postnasal vowel or even without the thematic consonant *n* exist in zone A with such forms as *bɩn* in Koonzime A842 and *bí* in Makaa A83. Importantly, there is no evidence for the same scenario with reconstructed \**mU*, which would be expected in view of the old age of *bV*-prefixation if \**mU* were as old as \**nU*. Considering all these observations, the preponderance of 2pl \**nU* can be consolidated in the north-western region of Bantu, which is shown in Table 10, based on Table 9.

Table 10: 2pl forms in north-western Bantu across Babaev's (2008) data

Accordingly, I also venture that 2pl forms with initial *n* and *l* encountered in the zones D, K, L, R, and S are just as likely to involve reflexes of my assumed old form \**nU*, partly having undergone consonant fortition. The overall picture for 2pl forms is then that \**nU* predominates in the north-west as well as in zone

#### Tom Güldemann

H, is gradually replaced by *m*-forms further south and east, but still occurs there sporadically.7

It remains to be investigated what was behind the concrete shift from \**nU* to \**mU*. One obvious factor could be the vowel quality in that the innovative bilabial *m* is closer to the following rounded vowel. In this sense, the shift would be parallel but inverse to that from \**mi* to \**Ni* in the 1sg. It is, of course, also possible that other factors contributed to the shift in shape, for example, contact interference from unrelated languages with 2(pl) forms in initial *m* (cf. Güldemann 2017) or paradigm-internal pressure (see below).

There is another Bantu-internal piece of evidence that its 2pl forms in *n* reflect the proto-state. The proto-language can be assumed to have possessed another 2pl form that is semantically and formally related to a marker \**nU* for subject and object, namely the post-final verb suffix \**-(n)i̹*encoding plural addressee (cf. Meeussen 1967: 111; Schadeberg 1978). This form is another likely cognate of the old Benue-Kwa pronoun \**nVclose*. Post-final \**-(n)i̹*may in fact be much older in Bantu as a bound affix than pre-stem \**nU-*, as there are various non-Bantu reflexes of the former attested in the same environments as in Narrow Bantu, as shown in (13) for Tikar and in (14) for Ekpeye.

	- a. *wu-ê-nì* kill-irr-pl.ad 'Kill (him)!'
	- b.
	- a. i. *à-kà* 1pl-say 'We (excl.) said …' ii. *à-kà-nị̀* 1pl-say-pl.ad 'We (incl.) [= we+you] said …'

7 It is significant that the original form is recurrently found in languages that are commonly classified with eastern Bantu languages (see Grollemund et al. 2015) as this may be a linguistic reflex of the previous presence of western Bantu in areas that are genealogically eastern today.

	- ii. *ị́-kà-nị̀* 2sg-say-pl.ad 'You people said …'

I turn now to the less problematic picture for the 2sg marking. The subject forms do not require much discussion, as they are cognate with the old Benue-Kwa form. Hence, only arguably deviant object markers with an initial posterior consonant need to be considered. Object forms in Babaev's data where the securely inherited back vowel segment is preceded by a consonant, namely a voiced velar fricative, first turn up sporadically in zone B. The voiceless velar plosive as reconstructed for Proto-Bantu \**kU* only starts to unambiguously occur in languages of zone C. It is possible to view the overall variation as reflecting a sound change \**k* > *ɣ* > *Ø* (cf. Pacchiarotti & Bostoen 2020 for this diachronic sound shift in West-Coastal Bantu). Nonetheless, I think that at this stage it is still open season to test the relevance of a presumably earlier, reverse fortition scenario of \**Ø* > *ɣ* > *k* (see below for a possible motivation). Given that the form without an initial consonant is the older form in the higher-order groups, I propose to explain the Bantu form in *k* also as a Bantu-internal innovation. For the record, 2sg subject prefixes in *k*- are unlikely to be related to the innovative object prefix. In particular, the recurrent *ku-*form in zones E and G (but also in other areas) derives from the fusion of a pre-initial *ka-*prefix with the inherited subject prefix \**U* (cf. Güldemann 1996: §4.5.3 for some discussion).

I conclude the discussion with a short evaluation of the 1pl markers. Forms with an inherited *t*- (or its other reflexes with such initial consonants as *r*, *l*, *d*, *s*, *z*, *c*, *h*) clearly predominate over all other forms, for subjects 128 vs. 25 and for objects 31 vs. 12 attestations. Since the more frequent vowel quality is back rather than front (for subjects 90 vs. 38 and for objects 25 vs. 6), the most likely Proto-Bantu form is indeed \**tU*, as previously proposed (see Table 3).

#### **3 Towards a revised reconstruction**

I have assembled empirical comparative evidence and cross-linguistic arguments that the received Proto-Bantu reconstruction of a full-fledged and universal paradigm of bound argument cross-reference on verbs is not supported by the available data from in- and outside the family. My revised proposal for speech-act

#### Tom Güldemann

participants involves two principal differences to the traditional approach. First, there is only sufficient evidence for a *bound* prefix in the 1sg, which was presumably restricted to specific contexts, while the principal marking of predicate arguments was by means of more independent forms that are directly related to those of the general pronoun paradigm (see Bantu non-verbal in Table 4). Second, three of the eight traditional Bantu reconstructions, namely 2sg object \**kU* and 2pl subject and object \**mU*, are not necessarily wrong as such but should not be ascribed to the proto-language of traditionally conceived Narrow Bantu, which was still characterised largely by clausal argument cross-reference of the Benue-Kwa type.

My partly new hypothetical proto-forms are summarised in Table 11, occurring before the arrows. As pointed out above, forms close to my reconstructions are not only found in Benue-Kwa but also in languages conventionally subsumed under Bantu. In Babaev's (2008) survey, they are reported in zone A in 10 out of 17 languages for the 1sg subject, 5 out of 7 for the 1sg object, in 9 out of 16 for the 2sg subject, 2 out of 6 for the 2sg object, 7 out of 14 for the 1pl subject, and 6 out of 18 for the 2pl subject. In zone B, the forms I reconstruct for the 1sg and 2sg subject turn up in 4 and 5 of 13 languages, respectively.

Table 11: Revised reconstruction of argument indexing in Proto-Bantu predicates

The three bolded items in Table 11 after the arrows are innovative forms of Bantu in spite of their frequency across the family today. I specifically propose that they emerged in tandem with the development of bound cross-reference marking in a morphologically compact predicate. This is supported by plausible motivations for the concrete shape of the two new forms. The 2sg object form \**kU-* phonologically enhances the pre-radical object slot as part of the macrostem. That is, compared to the inherited weak form starting in a vowel (or glide), the stronger onset of a velar plosive seals, so-to-speak, this morphological domain off from the emerging pre-stem prefix complex. For the record, this idea also applies to the equally innovative consonant-initial object form \**mU-* for 3sg human (see

Table 4 above). The other new form in Table 11, 2pl \**mU-* replacing inherited \**nU*, can be argued to strengthen the paradigm-internal contrast to the already fused 1sg \**(-)Ni-*, whose consonant is similar and whose distinctive vowel is recurrently lost.

I assume that pronouns referring to verb arguments were still largely independent morphemes, as in (15a), but in certain contexts may have been proclitic to certain hosts like predicate operators within STAMP morphemes, as in (15b) and (15c), or even to verb stems in the simplest form without preceding predicate operators, as in (15d). These patterns may have occurred in combination, as in (15e). While this must be investigated in more detail, Proto-Bantu possibly also possessed predicate patterns where morphemes for object cross-reference and nominalisation attached to the verb, as in (15f) and (15g). All configurations in (15) are, however, split predicates and thus exclude the previously proposed Proto-Bantu reconstruction of the compact highly agglutinative type in Table 1 above.

	- a. \* sbj obj stem
	- b. \* [sbj=tamp] stem
	- c. \* [sbj=tamp] obj stem
	- d. \* [sbj=stem]
	- e. \* [sbj=tamp] [sbj=stem]
	- f. \* [sbj=tamp] [obj=stem]
	- g. \* [sbj=tamp] [inf-stem]

My alternative reconstruction brings the profile of Proto-Bantu not only in line with common patterns found in Benue-Kwa (cf. also the discussion in Güldemann 2011a; 2013), but also with the overall pronoun system in Bantu itself. Proto-Bantu would have possessed a paradigm still involving relatively homogeneous pronoun forms in subject, object, possessor, and independent~emphatic contexts. This can be seen from a comparison with the available pronominal reconstructions in Table 4 for forms other than for subject and object cross-reference: they are effectively the same as those in Table 11.

The finding that the forms I consider as innovations occur already in Bantu languages of the north-west is not necessarily evidence for their existence in Proto-Bantu. The genealogical classification of the languages as well as contact-induced changes in this highly diverse area has not been determined conclusively, which

#### Tom Güldemann

restricts the precise historical assessment of such language-specific forms. According to a reviewer, one could view the coexistence of multiple forms, those inherited from Benue-Kwa and those unique to Bantu, as a reflex of archaic heterogeneity in Proto-Bantu that was simplified later in most of the family. However, this begs the question when/where this variation emerged before the Proto-Bantu stage. As far as I can tell, the heterogeneity of forms at issue here exists *inside* Narrow Bantu rather than in a higher-order group like Bantoid and thus is better explained Bantu-internally.

I think that the present proposal advances the historical reconstruction of Bantu, not because it presents a set of conclusive, fully specified proto-forms assigned to specific positions in a phylogenetic family history, but rather because it contributes to what Bostoen (2019: 325) refers to as "new visions on what is archaic and innovative, especially in Bantu grammar, [that] may also lead to new ideas on internal Bantu classification." The challenges of a thorough historicalcomparative evaluation of the prominent pre-stem verb morphology of Bantu only start to emerge with my alternative hypothesis. If the traditional Bantu reconstruction of a compact predicate involving bound argument marking is, as I argue, a family-internal innovation, the central problems are now where, when, and how it took shape, and related to this, to what extent the individual markers differing according to such features as person, number, and semantic role arose in a package or separately.

It is safe to conclude that, vis-à-vis the original forms, a separate prefix or proclitic for the verbal indexation of a 1sg argument has quite a long history, even preceding the Proto-Bantu stage. In view of this, as well as some general crosslinguistic findings, there is no strong case for assuming that all original pronouns in Table 11 changed their morphosyntactic status and shape simultaneously, or in other words, that the full cross-reference paradigm as reconstructed traditionally is the result of a single event of language change. Morphological fusion can be fast under appropriate conditions and can occur several times independently. It is also unlikely that such a full paradigm was relevant from the beginning in all possible predicate contexts. Rather, the morphosyntactic diversity of predicate types entertained under (4c), (5), and (15) persisted, if to a lesser extent, throughout Bantu history, and certain sub-types are constantly re-emerging even today. In line with Anderson (2011; 2012; 2016) and as shown in (6) and (7) above, simple concatenations of a subject marker and an auxiliary in STAMP morphemes in particular have always been an important intermediate step to the morphologically complex verb forms heretofore thought to be as old as Proto-Bantu.

### **Acknowledgements**

This research was presented previously in various versions on the following occasions, and I thank the respective audiences for valuable comments and suggestions: Fourth International Conference on Bantu Languages (B4ntu), held at the Humboldt University of Berlin and the Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin, 7–9 April 2011; International Symposium "Paradigm change in historical reconstruction: The Transeurasian languages and beyond", held at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 7–8 March 2013; "Work in Progress" Series at the Linguistics Department, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, 19 March 2013; Invited talk at the Linguistics Department, University of California at Berkeley, 29 March 2016; International Conference "Reconstructing Proto-Bantu Grammar", held at Ghent University, 19–23 November 2018. Thanks are also due to the editors of this volume for their many helpful comments and criticisms that helped me make the contribution hopefully more accessible and coherent.

### **Abbreviations**

### **References**

*Erlangen 1977)* (Marburger Studien zur Afrika- und Asienkunde A17), 151–159. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

## **Chapter 10**

## **On reconstructing the Proto-Bantu object marking system**

#### Benji Wald

University of California at Berkeley

This chapter critically examines the divergent hypotheses about the Proto-Bantu (PB) object marking system proposed by Meeussen (1967) and Polak (1986). It then builds on their insights with additional data and details of analysis and develops a new reconstruction of PB object marking, including its place in a larger system of topicality marking also involving the subject marker.

#### **1 Introduction**

Bantu object marking consists of a set of single morphemes, i.e. object markers (OMs), also called object prefixes or infixes in some studies, one or more of which immediately precede the verb root, and index objects of the transitive verb. The OM as a grammatical category contrasts with the independent or free pronoun (PRO), called "substitutive" by Meeussen (1967: 105). Unlike the OM, the PRO may index any of a predicate's nominal arguments, including its subject. It has the basic syntactic occurrence privileges of other nominals. Also unlike the OM, the PRO tends to be polymorphemic, by reduplication and/or suffixation of a deictic marker, whose shape commonly reflects the Proto-Bantu (PB) vowels \**e*/\**o*, as in Swahili G42d *(ye-)ye* < \**yu-e* [class 1 - e] 'singular animate referent', *wao* < \**ba-ba-o* [class 2 - class 2 - o] 'plural animate referent'.1 Finally, PRO occurs in all Bantu languages, OM in most but not all of them. One key problem is to establish what the historical relationship between OM and PRO is. For present purposes,

1 Swahili differs from many Bantu languages in using class 1/2 markers for indexing not only humans but also animals (cf. Wald 1975).

Benji Wald. 2022. On reconstructing the Proto-Bantu object marking system. In Koen Bostoen, Gilles-Maurice de Schryver, Rozenn Guérois & Sara Pacchiarotti (eds.), *On reconstructing Proto-Bantu grammar*, 423–463. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7575833

#### Benji Wald

the guiding questions are whether PB had an OM system, and if so, how it was organised.

Current Bantu OM systems are highly diversified. They range from languages with no OMs at all (NOMs) to languages in which a virtually unlimited number of OMs can be prefixed to a single verb stem, i.e. multi-OM systems (MOMs). In between, there are those languages with a system allowing a single OM per verb stem (SOMs) and those with what I call partial OM systems in which some objects can be indexed by OMs but others cannot, depending on either their inherent topicality (animacy status) or thematic/semantic role (TR), or both these factors. As I argue in this chapter, OMs are the most complex component of a topic marking system that also includes the subject marker (SM).

This chapter is organised as follows: §2 reviews the divergent hypotheses regarding the PB OM system proposed by Meeussen (1967) and Polak (1986); §3 identifies and discusses the more detailed factors involved in examining the variation within and across Bantu OM systems in order to inform decisions about the nature of the PB system, and about the directions of change from the PB system to the various current-day Bantu systems; §4 examines diversity within the three major types of OM, i.e. the MOM, SOM and NOM systems; §5 discusses alternative historical hypotheses about the PB OM system and the directions of change from PB to the current-day diversity in those alternative hypotheses; §6 makes concluding remarks about what currently appears to be the most promising PB reconstruction, and indicates a number of issues that require further research to either support or cast doubt on that reconstruction.

#### **2 Conflicting hypotheses on the PB OM system**

The few previous reconstructions of the PB OM system differ on the relative chronology of SOM and MOM systems. Meeussen (1967: 110) proposed that: "In a verb form there may be more than one infix [= OM], the nearest to the radical corresponding to the object nearest to the verb in comparable constructions (or: the last infix corresponds to the first object) […]". It is not completely clear what Meeussen had in mind here, since he does not declare a fixed order for either the OM or corresponding postverbal object sequence. However, it fits the description of some current MOM systems, such as the one in Ganda JE15 and some varieties of Tswana S31, where OMs and postverbal objects are fixed in a "mirror image" relationship (cf. Bearth 2003: 127) according to the grammatical relation (GR). OM[DO]-OM[IO]-V corresponds to V…NP[IO]-NP[DO]. One or the other of these orders is common in a wide area of the East Bantu interior

from north to south about which Meeussen was especially knowledgeable. However, as discussed in §4, there are other languages in that area, such as Rwanda JD61, and elsewhere, such as Kwanyama R21, where neither the order of OMs nor that of postverbal object NPs is fixed or conditioned by GR. Meeussen's reconstruction was frankly programmatic. He did not refer to any current-day Bantu languages for evidence. Although his reconstruction is supported by synchronic attestations covering a variably large part of the Bantu domain, they fall short of encompassing the entire Narrow Bantu area. Therefore, Meeussen's reconstruction of PB – understood as representing at minimum the period of unity of all Narrow Bantu languages – has remained problematic.

Polak (1986) pursued Meeussen's program by examining a widespread sample of Narrow Bantu languages. She accepted the notion of a PB OM category (p. 374), but implicitly rejected Meeussen's MOM hypothesis on the basis of the relative rarity of MOM languages in her sample (e.g. pp. 371, 374, 403ff). Thus, she favoured the notion that the current languages lacking the OM category, i.e. many north-western Bantu languages of Guthrie's zones A and B and adjacent areas (zones C, D and H), lost the PB OM. Evidence presented in this chapter questions Polak's assumption of rarity of MOM systems across Bantu, both on the basis of data beyond her sample and, to a lesser extent, failure to account for some full MOM languages within her own sample, e.g. Tswana in the southeastern part of the Bantu domain and Bangi C32 in the deep northern interior.

Significantly for the MOM issue, one of Polak's most historically relevant findings was that there is an intermediate category of partial MOM systems spread across a large part of the interior Narrow Bantu area (zones C-F, H, L-M): languages, such as Rimi F32 in (1), which allow a sequence of two OMs provided that the second one is what she calls "monophonic" ("*monophone*" in French), i.e. CV-N- or CV-i- with N- being OM1sg and *i*- being the reflexive (Polak 1986: 403ff). She hypothesises that it is an innovative constraint allowing a double OM sequence to occur only if it does not violate a principle that only a single syllable is exclusively reserved for object marking.

	- a. *a-limu* 2-teacher *va-a-mu-N-tum-i-a* sm2 -pst-om1 -om1sg-send-appl-fv 'The teachers sent him to me.'
	- b. \*\* *a-limu* 2-teacher *va-a-mu-ku-tum-i-a* sm2 -pst-om1 -om2sg-send-appl-fv intended: 'The teachers sent him to you.'

#### Benji Wald

As a non-syllabic homorganic nasal, the Rimi OM1sg *N*- attaches to the initial consonant of the following verb root allowing the syllabic OM1 *mu*- to occupy the only slot reserved for an OM. In point of fact, OM1sg *N*- fuses in (1) with the initial consonant of the verb root to form the complex pre-nasalised onset *nt*- of the next syllable. The homorganic nasal *N*- is a common form of OM1sg in much of Narrow Bantu, whether or not the monophonic OM principle is in effect. Where it is in effect, it establishes an intermediate category between MOM and SOM languages. Polak (1986: 404) conjectures that full MOM systems arose by loss of the monophonic OM constraint. Research reported in the present chapter shows further distinctions among partial MOM systems in which there are other constraints that limit OM sequences on the basis of the relative inherent topicality status (e.g. animacy) and/or transitivity status (i.e. the grammatical or thematic role) of the indexed objects.

Polak (1986: 374) establishes two other categories relevant to the present chapter: (1) languages without OMs (i.e. "*langues sans infixes*"), which I call NOM languages and which are most concentrated in the north-western part (especially zone A), but occur less frequently in adjacent areas (i.e. zones B-D); (2) languages with incomplete series of OMs (i.e. "*séries incomplètes d'infixes*"), an intermediate category between SOM and NOM systems, which I call partial SOM systems. The partial SOM category is also subject to much cross-Bantu diversity, based largely on the inherent topicality of the indexed object.

In sum, Polak's categorisation of OM systems forms a continuum that ranges from NOM through SOM to MOM with intermediate/partial systems in-between these three major types. Much of the problem of reconstruction lies in determining the direction of change for the numerous points between the polar NOM and MOM types.

#### **3 Factors of variation in Bantu OM systems**

This section discusses a number of recurrent factors involved in differentiating Bantu OM systems.

#### **3.1 Number of OMs allowed in sequence**

OMs allowed in a sequence range from none to an indeterminate number, a continuum segmentable into three major types: (1) MOM, (2) SOM, and (3) NOM. There is variation in the tolerance of speakers of MOM languages to allow beyond 2 or 3 OMs in sequence, either on a community or idiosyncratic basis (cf. Marlo 2015: 1). The more pressing historical issue is whether the earliest version of a MOM system evolved before or after the earliest version of the SOM system.

#### **3.2 Contextual topicality**

Contextual topicality (ConTop) is a discourse notion. As I use the term, a topic is an old, given or deducible referent, usually first introduced into a discourse by an NP or pronoun, and marked as topical by the SM or OM in relevant subsequent clauses. Examples (2) and (3) below represent the ConTop function of the OM in two Bantu languages of non-adjacent zones.

This construction, common to all Bantu OM languages, is often appropriately called "topicalisation". The pattern consists of an object of any information status, functioning as a topic about which the following clause provides new information, both in the event/state denoted by the verb and the relation of concurrent verbal arguments to each other, as if to answer the question 'What about the topic?'.

Bantu languages vary in the obligatoriness of the OM in this syntactic/ discourse context. In most of Narrow Bantu, the OM obligatorily indexes a topicalised human object. More problematic is the OM indexing of an inanimate object. Quite generally in Niger-Congo, inanimate objects may be omitted as understood in the larger discourse context instead of being referred to anaphorically, regardless of their definiteness. As a decontextualised construct in sentence grammar, an inanimate topicalised object may strongly favour OM reference, as in Dzamba (3) above, but that favourability might be pragmatic in nature rather than grammatically obligatory. Obligatory OM indexing of topicalised objects, regardless of their animacy, seems to be strongest in the south-eastern part of

the Bantu domain, for instance in Nguni S40. Meanwhile, the extreme polarisation between compelling OM indexing of human objects but highly disfavouring OM indexing of inanimate objects is localised to the central east coast and adjacent interior, for example Matuumbi P13 (Odden 1984), Matengo N13 (Yoneda 2011). The more extreme absence of OMs indexing objects of the inanimate noun classes occurs locally in adjacent Makhuwa P31 (Stucky 1985; Katupha 1991; van der Wal 2009). For discussion of how this trend affected Swahili, see Wald (2001).

#### **3.3 Inherent topicality**

In contrast to ConTop, Inherent Topicality (InTop) is a feature of the NP itself, independent of its discourse context. It is a relative ranking of topics that has a diverse array of influences across the OM area. Often referred to as the personanimacy hierarchy, a comprehensive arrangement of the relative ranking is represented in (4) below.

(4) reflexive > 1sg > 2sg > human (> animate) > inanimate

Certain aspects of these relative rankings vary across Bantu. The reflexive (refl) OM is high on the scale because in most contexts it indexes the subject of the clause in a second role as object, where the subject of a clause is higher ranked than any object, indeed often the only topic in the clause (e.g. with intransitive verbs). Nevertheless, among MOM languages, there is some variation in the relative positions of the OMrefl and OM1sg such that some have fixed OM1sg-OMrefl order and others OMrefl-OM1sg order, regardless of their TRs (cf. Marlo 2014: 91–93). Similarly, in some areas, interpersonals (first and second persons) are not distinguished for relative InTop, because both are equally given as discourse participants, e.g. in Shambaa G23 (Riedel 2009: 140).

Where InTop plays a role, interpersonals are invariably ranked higher than other referents, and humans (or personified animals) higher than inanimates. Where personal plural objects are currently ranked differentially from singulars, the singulars outrank the plurals, but evidence of such ranking varies in Bantu.

Among partial SOM languages, the case of Makhuwa represents a system in which inanimates (unless in the typically human classes 1/2) lack OMs. Only objects of higher InTop can be indexed. Polak (1986: 375) lists a scattering of languages of this type across Narrow Bantu, but with the densest distribution in the north-western part and vicinity (zones A-D).

#### **3.4 Grammatical relation**

The Bantu OM systems can be viewed as the most complex component of a topicality marking system that also includes the SM, obligatorily indexing the subject of the clause, often the only topic in the clause. A scheme of a Bantu minimal finite clause is as in (5).

#### (5) SM-(TM)-(AUX(#INF))-(OM)-V

The relative ConTop of the SM and OM is indicated by their relative positions in the verb complex such that ConTop declines from left to right, i.e. SM > OM. The SM referent is determined by the lexical verb. As typical of typologically nominative/accusative languages, the subject role is usually highly active or sentient, and indexes the initiator of the event represented by the verb. OMs index additional arguments of transitive verbs.

The number of objects that a verb allows is either lexically determined or associated with one or more valence-raising extensions suffixed to the verb. Extensional objects (EOs) are of two types in terms of GR: (1) causative object (CO); (2) applied object (AO). The CO of V-caus is the subject of the root verb, e.g. they him cook-caus "they made/let/helped him [CO] cook". The AO does not alter the GRs of the subject and lexically allowed object/s to the root verb, but involves an additional argument in an additional role, e.g. they him cook-appl "they cook for him [AO]". In most languages, the two valence-raisers can both mark a single verb, increasing the number of objects, e.g. they him them cook-caus-appl "they made him cook for them". These languages vary for whether the caus and appl are meaningfully ordered, or whether the order is fixed/templated regardless of meaning (cf. Hyman 2003b; Good 2005). In all cases the DO maintains its status as the DO of the root verb, e.g. they him them it cook-caus-appl "they made him [CO] cook it [DO] for them [AO]".

#### **3.5 Thematic role**

The TR is the semantic interpretation of the GR. Both CO and AO express a range of distinguishable TRs. This allows the same GR to appear more than once with a single verb, indexing objects with different TRs. MOM languages vary in their tolerance for this possibility, particularly in supporting an additional object role with an additional extension. Most widely reported are languages jointly marking both the TRs recipient and beneficiary in examples of double AO (e.g. Tswana, Rwanda), as in: *they it him them send*-AO-AO "they sent it to him (recipient/dative) for them (beneficiary)". The available data suggest that in such cases the order of two OMs is templated as recipient-beneficiary.2

TR is especially prominent in passivisation, where the SM maintains its object TR identity in terms of its grammatical interaction with concurrent objects. In some SOM systems which of two concurrent objects can passivise is constrained according to their TRs. Languages of this type are classified as asymmetric. Similarly, many MOM languages fix the double OM order according to TR or GR.

In general, the data suggest that the behaviour of concurrent objects need only be compared for GR, because most available examples are limited to a comparison between the DO and one concurrent object, either IO or EO. The double OM configuration consisting of the DO and a single EO/IO is worthy of special consideration because it is undoubtedly the most frequent multiple OM pattern in the discourse of any MOM language. The high relevance of discourse frequency in OM evolution is discussed in §5.3.

#### **3.6 Time depth of PB**

Following Meeussen (1967) and Polak (1986), I limit PB to the assumed period of unity of Narrow Bantu, i.e. those languages conventionally categorised as Bantu in the referential classification of Guthrie (1948; 1971). For my historical reconstruction I refer to the phylogeny of Grollemund et al. (2015), which represents relationships among present-day Bantu languages according to an expansion model of nine successive binary major nodes based on shared innovations in basic vocabulary (their Fig. 1). Their node 1 roughly corresponds to what I consider here to be PB, even though I do not consider Jarawan Bantu languages, which are subsumed with Narrow Bantu under node 1 in the phylogeny of Grollemund et al. (2015). Their node 0 also includes Grassfields Bantu languages, which constitute a branch parallel to all languages incorporated under node 1. The nodes subsequent to node 1, i.e. nodes 2 to 9, are geographically nested, proceeding in a southern direction from the north-west to the south-west with the final major node 9 encompassing the entire eastern Bantu area and part of what they consider to be the south-western Bantu area (i.e. Guthrie's groups L20-40). In addition to indicating nodes in their phylogeny, Grollemund et al. (2015) also subdivide it into five major subgroups which have distinct colours: (1) North-Western Bantu (NWB), subdivided in NWB Cameroon (between nodes 1 and 2)

2 Some languages allow nesting of COs, e.g. ... COy-COz-laugh-caus-caus "[X] made him [Y] make her [Z] laugh", but many languages resist such complications in favour of a circumlocution.

and NWB Gabon (between nodes 2 and 5); (2) Central-Western Bantu (CWB) (between nodes 5 and 6); (3) West-Western Bantu (WWB) (between nodes 6 and 7) also known as West-Coastal Bantu (Vansina 1995; Bostoen et al. 2015; de Schryver et al. 2015; Pacchiarotti et al. 2019); (4) South-Western Bantu (SWB) (between nodes 6 and 9); (5) Eastern Bantu (EB) (under node 9 minus Guthrie's L20-40). As their correspondence to major nodes suggests, not all of the geographically labelled subgroups are discrete branches within the phylogeny. Only NWB Cameroon, CWB and WWB really are. All the others cover several distinct branches with SWB and EB actually forming one superclade subsumed under node 7 with many subclades successively branching off (cf. Pacchiarotti & Bostoen 2020: 156– 157). Some of Guthrie's A80-90 languages subsumed under NWB Gabon are also spoken in southern Cameroon.

For convenience, apart from their Guthrie code (cf. Guthrie 1971; Maho 2009), I will label individual Bantu languages discussed in the remainder of this chapter by referring to both the major subgroup they belong to in the phylogeny of Grollemund et al. (2015), i.e. NWB Cameroon, NWB Gabon, CWB, WWB, SWB, and EB, and the numbered node under which they are directly subsumed, i.e. nodes 1-9. For example, Eton A71 is labelled "NWB Cameroon, node 1", Orungu B11b "NWB Gabon, node 3", Bangi C32 "CWB, node 5", Yaka H31 "WWB, node 6", Luba-Kasai L31a "SWB, node 9" and Rimi F32 "EB, node 9". To avoid clashes with the finer geographical distinctions I use discussing the distribution of certain types of OM systems, which I always designate with unabbreviated cardinal directions, I will systematically refer to the geographically labelled subgroups of Grollemund et al. (2015) with the abbreviations NWB, CWB, WWB, SWB and EB.

### **4 Types of OM systems according to significant factors constraining them**

In this section we consider examples of diversity within the three major types of OM systems. The types are arranged by their grammatical properties. The discussion will arbitrarily start with the MOM end of the continuum, where there is maximum complexity, and proceed through SOM types to NOM types.

#### **4.1 MOM systems**

MOM types are distributed across most of the Bantu area, but more densely in some areas than others. They are most common in SWB languages branching off

at node 7 in the phylogeny of Grollemund et al. (2015), i.e. Guthrie's L10-20-H21a-H30-40, and also in interior EB languages, especially from the Great Lakes region (zone J). They occur less frequently in CWB and WWB, and only marginally in NWB. They are highly diversified. The primary distinction is between those systems that have free OM order and those that have fixed OM order, in the latter case determined by relative InTop or GR, or both.

#### **4.1.1 Free MOM systems**

Free MOM order is common in three separate areas: (1) the south-eastern Great Lakes area of the north-eastern interior (i.e. EB); (2) some varieties of Tswana in the south-eastern part of the Bantu domain (i.e. EB); (3) SWB including some varieties of Umbundu R11 in the north and Kwanyama R21 further south, as exemplified in (6).

	- a. *een-gobe,* 10-cow *o-nde-di-a-p-a* pst-sm1sg-om10-om6 -give-fv om: io-do 'The cattle, I gave them it [water].'
	- b. *om-eva,* 6-water *o-nde-a-di-p-a* pst-sm1sg-om6 -om10-give-fv om: io-do 'Water, I gave it to them [cattle].'

Zimmermann & Hasheela (1998: 100) appeal to topicalisation in their examples to distinguish the alternative orders, but state that "the initial nouns are usually omitted in speech, and are here given only for the sake of clarity". Kwanyama exemplifies a system based on ConTop. The multiple OM order of ConTop corresponds to the SM…OM order so that relative ConTop among arguments declines from left to right. A peculiarity of the Kwanyama system, common in SWB but extremely rare elsewhere, is that the OM1sg is not part of the system. Instead, a pronominal form is *encliticised* to the verb stem, i.e. V…-*nge*. A salient syntactic feature that Kwanyama OM1sg shares with a wide range of other MOM systems is its fixed position. The difference is that the 1sg object reference obligatorily follows rather than immediately precedes the verb, as if to avoid being fixed in the monophonic pattern, as in Tswana "EB, node 9", e.g. *go-i-N-kanya* [INF-OMrefl-OM1sg-trust] "to trust (self) to me" (Cole 1955: 234). In both the Kwanyama and Tswana systems, the fixed OM1sg is a constraint on ConTop.

There is diversity of MOM types within Tswana itself. Cole (1955) and Creissels (2006) describe fixed orders in Tswana varieties such as Hurutshe and Kgatla. I observed free orders apart from the OM1sg constraint in the Tswana variety Rolong S31a, as in (7).

	- a. *o-mo-e/e-mo-hir-etse* sm1 -om1 -om9 /om9 -om1 -hire-appl.pfv om: do-ao/ao-do or inan-hum/hum-inan 'She hired him (driver) for it (car).' or 'She rented it for him.'
	- b. *ke-a-ho-ba/ba-ho-tl-el-a* sm1 -prs.prog-om2sg-om2 /om2 -om2sg-bring-appl-fv om: do-ao/ao-do or 2sg-class.2/class.2-2sg 'I'm bringing them (people) for you.' or 'I'm bringing you for them.'

This multiple GR ambiguity would not occur in the varieties described by Cole and Creissels, which would have GR-conditioned order, i.e. DO-EO. Nevertheless, Cole describes an exception to GR order in the context of indexing a CO (object of caus). The MOM order involving a CO is not determined by GR but by InTop as NONHUM-HUM. As a result, examples like (8) are ambiguous for GR/TR.

The order is fixed as NONHUM-HUM according to InTop ranking, i.e. NON-HUM < HUM. In that regard, Hurutshe is intermediate between free and fixed OM systems.

Free MOM systems also occur in the north-eastern part of the Bantu domain, more specifically in the south-eastern vicinity of the Great Lakes, widely separated from the free systems in southern Bantu discussed above. Ranero et al. (2013) describe a fully free order as in (9) for Kuria JE43.

(9) Kuria JE43 "EB, node 9" (adapted from Ranero et al. 2013: example (12)) *n-a-a-mú-ké/ké-mú-háá-ye* foc-sm1 -pst-om1 -om7 /om7 -om1 -give-pfv 'She gave it (toy) to him.'

#### Benji Wald

Among the varieties of Bubi A31 "NWB Cameroon, node 1", an insular NWB language, there seem to be some partially free MOM varieties. Bubi is internally diverse. It will be discussed separately in §4.4, in view of some of its apparently unique and instructive features.

#### **4.1.2 Fixed MOM systems**

Within fixed MOM languages, the primary distinction is in orientation, i.e. the direction of OM order. By far the most widely distributed orientation is ascending so that a human OM occurs to the right of a concurrent inanimate, i.e. NONHUM-HUM-V. Data for many languages are limited to cases where the IO or EO is human. Where a concurrent human DO is represented, it follows the same pattern as the inanimate DO. The opposite orientation is much rarer, i.e. fixed HUM-NONHUM-V, but occurs in widely separated areas, as discussed below in §<IP_ADDRESS> and §4.4.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Ascending fixed MOM

This type is widely distributed outside of the north-western Bantu area. The Great Lakes region of the interior north-eastern part of the Bantu domain has a variety of subtypes. Rwanda represents a type where InTop is the primary ordering principle as in (10). In an appropriate discourse context, (10b) could also mean 'He bought her for potatoes'.

	- a. *y-a-mu-ku/\*\*ku-mu-eretse* sm1 -pst-om1 -om2sg/\*\*om2sg-om1 -show.pfv om: 3sg-2sg/\*\*2sg-3sg 'He showed her to you/you to her.'
	- b. *y-aa-bi-mu/\*\*mu-bi-gur-i-ye* sm1 -pst-om8 -om1 /\*\*om1 -om8 -buy-appl-pfv om: nonhum-hum/\*\*hum-nonhum 'He bought them (potatoes) for her.'

Only in the absence of an InTop differential is a GR order imposed as in (11)

(11) Rwanda JD61 "EB, node 9" (Yokoyama 2016: 4) *y-a-ba-mw-eretse* sm1 -pst-om2 -om1 -show.pfv om: do-io/\*\*io-do (intop: 3pl = 3sg) 'He showed them to her/\*\*her to them.'

The fixed GR order by which the DO is indexed first in (11) parallels the fixed InTop order in (10) by which the object of lower InTop is indexed first. In contrast to the GR ordering principle of double third-person humans, double nonhuman OMs are freely ordered, as in (12), just like in complete free MOM systems.

(12) Rwanda JD61 'EB, node 9' (Zeller & Ngoboka 2015: 212) *a::-bi-yi/yi-bi-ha-ye* sm1 .pst-om8 -om9 /om9 -om8 -give-pfv om: do-io/io-do 'He has given them (yams) to it (pig).'

Rwanda is more tolerant of numerous multiple objects than most reported MOM languages. The widely cited example in (13) shows an extensive InTop order corresponding to the order of extensions. In (13), '[there]' refers to a locative OM preceding the OM representing the DO in the original example.

(13) Rwanda JD61 "EB, node 9" (adapted from Marlo 2015: 4) …ki-zi-ba-ku-n-som-eesh-eesh-er-er-… …om7=do-om10=co1 -om2=co2 -om2sg=ao1 -om1sg=ao2 -read-caus-caus-appl-appl 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 '[She is also] making them (3) read it (1 = book) with them (2 = eyeglasses) to you (4) for me (5) [there].'

The OM order in Rwanda in (13) is obligatorily fixed by ascending InTop order, not GR or extension order, i.e. NONHUM < HUM (3pl) < 2sg < 1sg. Thus, the Rwanda example in (13) is ambiguous in several regards and could mean '…to me for you', '…to you for them', etc.

Haya JE22, like most MOM languages, has the same InTop order as Rwanda, but it also has a reverse strategy determined strictly by GR as in (14).

#### Benji Wald

	- a. GR order

*a-ka-ba-bi-leet-el-a* sm1 -pst-om2 -om8 -bring-appl-fv om: dohum-aononhum/\*\*aohum-dononhum 'She brought them (people) to them (yams).'

b. InTop order *a-ka-bi-ba-leet-el-a* sm1 -pst-om8 -om2 -bring-appl-fv om: dononhum-aohum/aononhum-dohum 'She brought them (yams) to them (people)/them (people) to them (yams).'

Contini-Morava (1983) describes the same OM order options as in Haya (14) in the variety of Rwanda as spoken in Masisi (DRC), illustrated in (15).

(15) Masisi (DRC) variety of Rwanda JD61 "EB, node 9" (Contini-Morava 1983: 426) *a-za-mu-ki-h-a* sm1 -pst-om1 -om7 -give-fv om: dohum-aononhum/\*\*aohum-dononhum 'She gave him to it [animal]/\*\*it to him.'

Such violations of InTop order are prohibited in metropolitan Rwanda, as shown in (10b) above. Haya and Rwanda spoken in Masisi (DRC) resemble free MOM languages in that either ascending or descending orientation is possible, but differ from the latter in the ordering principles. InTop or GR are the ordering principles in Haya and Masisi Rwanda rather than ConTop.

The GR order corresponding to ascending InTop order also occurs in the MOM systems of north-eastern Bantu languages of the Great Lakes region, such as Ganda in (16), which lack the InTop order option.

(16) Ganda JE15 "EB, node 9" (van der Wal 2020: 217)

a. *n-a-gi-ba-gul-i-dde* sm1 -pst-om9 -om2 -buy-appl-pfv om: dononhum-aohum/\*\*ao-do 'I bought it for them [people].'

b. *n-a-ba-gi-gul-i-dde* sm1sg-pst-om2-om9 -buy-appl-pfv om: dohum-aononhum/\*\*ao-do 'I bought them [people] for it.'

InTop does not play an ordering role in MOM systems of this type. However, as in Tswana, the OM1sg is an exception by its fixed position. In this limited respect, it resembles free OM languages by the absence of GR determination of double OM order.

Then again, Nyambo JE21 (17) and Shambaa (18) represent north-eastern Bantu MOM systems determined simultaneously by both InTop and GR. OM sequences that violate either GR or InTop order are prohibited.

The examples in (17) and (18) show ascending InTop order, typical of the wider area. However, unlike elsewhere in the wider area, InTop order does not result in role ambiguity, because GR order DO-IO/EO is also imposed.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Descending fixed MOM

The descending orientation is relatively rare. It occurs where the EO/IO OM (usually human/animate) is fixed to the left of the DO OM regardless of relative In-Top, as in Umbundu from Luanda in (19). There are also free MOM varieties of Umbundu (personal communication from T. Schadeberg for the Bihé variety). Valente (1964: 248) may be describing an intermediate variety in reporting that the most common order is HUM-NONHUM-V. This would be expected pragmatically in a free order language of the Kwanyama type, where the OMs are ordered by ConTop, because human objects are expected to be more often of higher ConTop than inanimates. The Luanda Umbundu examples in (19) show strictly descending order by GR.

#### Benji Wald

	- a. *w-a-tu-va/va-tu-kong-is-a* sm1 -pst-om1pl-om2 /om2 -om1pl-choose-caus-fv om: co-do/\*\*do-co 'She had us choose them (people)/them choose us.'
	- b. *w-a-tu-va/va-tu-kong-el-a* sm1 -pst-om1pl-om2 /om2 -om1pl-choose-appl-fv om: ao-do/\*\*do-ao 'She chose them for us/us for them.'

Luanda Umbundu also has the fixed position of OM1sg as an exception to its GR orientation, e.g. *oku-lu-N-telek-el-a* (pronounced as *okulunelekela*) [INF-OM11.NONHUM-OM1sg-cook-appl-FV] 'to cook it [fish] for me' (DO-AO) as opposed to descending orientation elsewhere, e.g. *oku-ku/tu-lu-telek-el-a* [INF-OM2sg/1pl-OM11.NONHUM-cook-appl-FV] 'to cook it for you/us' (AO-DO).

Mongo-Liinja C61L "CWB, node 5" from Opala may also be of this type, e.g. *t-w-e-kel-ak-é* [neg-OM1 -OM9 -tell-pref-sbjv] "don't tell it to him" OMIO-OMDO (Motingea Mangulu 2008: 320). However, the description is not sufficiently detailed to determine whether this order is fixed, as in Umbundu from Luanda, or optional, as in a free MOM system.

#### **4.1.3 Partial MOM systems**

Partial MOM systems are also diversified. The monophonic OM principle is widely distributed, largely adjacent to more complete MOM areas, i.e. Guthrie's zones C-N. This covers all languages descending from node 5, i.e. those which emerged after the NWB branches in the Grollemund et al. (2015) phylogeny (i.e. languages from Guthrie's zone A and groups B10-30) had split off. Except for Bubi, there are no reports of MOM systems in NWB languages.

There are also no reports of partial MOM systems in SWB, only of full MOM systems, except for the Kwanyama-type exclusion of an OM1sg in favour of a 1sg enclitic. Lulua L31b exemplifies the monophonic OM principle in a minimal MOM system (cf. Rimi in (1) above), where even the monophonic principle is optional, so that a concurrent object to the 1sg object can be indexed by an object enclitic (OE) instead of an OM as in (20).

	- a. *w-aku-ci-m-p-a* sm1 -pst-om7 -om1sg-give-fv monophonic: nonhum-om1sg 'He gave it to me.'
	- b. *w-aku-m-p-a-ci* sm1 -pst-om1sg-give-fv-oe7 som option: om1sg-v…nonhum 'He gave it to me.'
	- c. *w-aku-ku-h-eye* sm1 -pst-om2sg-give-oe1 io-v-do/do-v-io 'He gave him to you/you to him.'

Use of enclitics (optional or obligatory) instead of OMs is more densely distributed in interior western Bantu languages spoken north of Luba-Kasai L31a and Lulua L31b. As noted by Polak (1986: 377), the forms of OEs generally resemble PROs rather than OMs. This is especially clear for the class 1 OE in Lulua in (20c) above. The form of the Luba/Lulua class 1 PRO1 is *ye-ye*, a reduplicated form based of the morphologically complex \**yu-e* (\**yu*- > *u-* as in the Luba/Lulua SM1 form; the OM1 form is *mu*-). Luba/Lulua is predominantly an asymmetric SOM system where the OM is selected by its high InTop relative to the concurrent object, as in the above example: 2sg > 3 sg (cl. 1).

More elaborate partial MOM systems are scattered across the interior eastern Bantu area, as in Bemba M42 in (21).

(21) Bemba M42 "EB, node 9" (Marten & Kula 2012: 245) *mù-ká-bá-mú-éb-él-á-kó* sm2pl-fut-om2 -om1 -tell-appl-fv-pro17 om: io-ao 'You (all) will tell them for him.'

Marten & Kula (2012) explicitly state that unless the monophonic OM1sg occurs, multiple OMs in Bemba are restricted to persons (HUM), thus, to concurrent objects of high InTop. A similar restriction also seems to apply to the Mathira variety of Kuyu E51 "EB, node 9", according to the examples offered by Englebretson et al. (2015: 109), while only the monophonic partial MOM has been reported

for other Kuyu varieties. In both Bemba and the Mathira variety of Kuyu, the ascending InTop and GR order apply, as among the intervening full MOM systems, such as Shambaa "EB, node 9" in (18) and Vunjo-Chaga E622C "EB, node 9".

Lungu M14 displays a peculiar and apparently unique partial MOM system. It exhibits the common OM1sg monophonic pattern in (22a), but, additionally, a descending MOM pattern for OM1pl in (22b).

(22) Lungu M14 "EB, node 9" (Bickmore 2007: 26)

In both respects Lungu resembles the Luanda Umbundu MOM system, except for the apparent fixed GR order even when OM1sg is involved. In this respect, Lungu (22a) conforms to the Nyambo (17) / Shambaa (18) pattern, where both InTop and GR order are obligatory. Lungu (22b) is the most eastern reported example of the descending GR order orientation.

#### **4.2 SOM systems**

The primary distinction among SOM languages is between symmetric and asymmetric systems. Most frequently explored is the trans-verbal context of concurrent objects: OMi-V…NPj. In symmetric systems the relative InTop of OMi and NPj is not constrained. In asymmetric languages OMi is prohibited from indexing an object of lower InTop than NPj, e.g. \*\*OMNONHUM-V…NPHUM. van der Wal (2020: 205) observes that MOM systems tend to be symmetric, in contrast to SOM systems. For our purposes, the (verb) internal context SMi…OMj-V(…)- PASS provides a more discriminating context for asymmetry. It exposes different degrees of asymmetry between EB languages in the south and EB languages in the north and the centre. Thus, first consider Zulu S42 in (23) as representative of southern EB asymmetric SOM systems. The disjoint marking in (23) is obligatory if the verb is final, i.e. when there is no postverbal constituent. The passivisation

prohibition in (23) also occurs in some MOM languages, for example in some varieties of Tswana (cf. Creissels 2006: 22).

(23) Zulu S42 "EB, node 9" (adapted from Zeller 2012: 229) *i-ya-\*\*m-phek-el-w-a* sm9 -dsj-\*\*om1 -cook-appl-pass-fv smnonhum(do)…\*\*omhum(ao) *(umama)* (mother) intended: 'It (meat) is being cooked for her/(mother).'

It should be emphasised that the InTop Internal Passive Constraint of (23) is precisely due to a conflict between ConTop (SM > OM) and InTop (NONHUM < HUM) within the topicality ranking system, and not due to the option of OM doubling of a postverbal object within the clause. OM doubling of a postverbal object is characteristic of the entire eastern coast and shallow interior. At the same time, the option of lower InTop passivisation in the context of a concurrent postverbal object of higher InTop is strictly a south-eastern Bantu characteristic, in contrast to coastal and shallow interior central and north-eastern Bantu represented in (24) below. The Internal Passive Constraint of south-eastern coastal/ shallow interior Bantu is the SOM analogue of fixed MOM order according to In-Top (§<IP_ADDRESS>), e.g. SMHUM…OMNONHUM/\*\*SMNONHUM…OMHUM corresponds to north-eastern Great Lakes MOM: OMNONHUM-OMHUM/\*\*OMHUM-OMNONHUM.

The SOM systems of coastal and shallow interior EB languages in the centre have additional constraints. The single OM constraint extends to passivised verbs so that the passivised subject, having a TR commonly associated with the object of the active verb, prohibits a concurrent OM reference, i.e. only *a single object role* can be indexed as a topic in *any* context. The InTop constraint seen above in Zulu is also characteristic of central EB languages, but also in the context of a concurrent postverbal object of higher InTop. Both the single object role and the asymmetric InTop trans-verbal constraint on a concurrent object occur as far north as Swahili belonging to the EB subgroup which Nurse (1999: 5) calls 'North-East Coast Bantu' (NECB). The Swahili example in (24a) illustrates the single object role constraint, while (24b) shows the InTop prohibition when a postverbal object has higher InTop than the concurrent object. In the absence of a concurrent object, a single object of any InTop can be indexed in Swahili by an OM or a passive SM, as shown in (24c). Finally, (24d) illustrates that InTop is a more powerful feature than TR in Swahili, because the object role indexed by an OM or passive SM is ambiguous between DO and AO.

#### Benji Wald

	- a. Single Object Role Constraint (Passive) *a-li-(\*\*i)-p-ew-a* sm1 -pst-(\*\*om9 )-give-pass-fv smao/do…\*\*om-v-pass 'She [child] was given it [gift].'
	- b. InTop Trans-verbal OM Constraint *wa-li-m/\*\*i-p-a* sm2 -pst-om1 -/\*\*om9 -give-fv \*\*omnonhum-v…nphum *(zawadi)* (9.gift) *m-toto* 1-child 'They gave it [gift] to the child.'
	- c. InTop Trans-verbal Passive Constraint *(zawadi)* (9.gift) *wa-li-i-p-a* sm2 -pst-om9 -give-fv */* / *i-li-p-ew-a* sm9 -pst-give-pass-fv *(\*\*m-toto)* (\*\*1-child) \*\*smnonhum-v-pass…nphum '(Gift) they gave it/it was given (\*\*[(to) the child]).'
	- d. InTop Trans-verbal OM / Passive Constraint *wa-li-m-tak-i-a* sm2 -pst-om1 -want-appl-fv */* / *a-li-tak-i-w-a* sm1 -pst-want-appl-pass-fv *pesa* 9.money sm/omhum=ao/do...v...npnonhum 'They wanted him for (his) money.' or 'They wanted money for him.' / 'He was wanted for (his) money.' or 'He was wanted/wished (to have/get) money.'

Among Swahili's closest relatives, Kauma E72b illustrates that there is variation in the NECB Mijikenda languages concerning the single object role constraint. The example in (25) shows the operation of the InTop internal (passive) constraint: 1sg > 2sg. The passive SM must index the object of higher InTop, a constraint shared with Zulu (23) above. The SOM Single Object Role Constraint is relatively new to NECB. Among Swahili's closest relatives, the other Sabaki languages (E70-73), OM indexing of a second object with passivisation of the first is attested in Southern Mijikenda (e.g. Digo E73 and Duruma E72d) in the early twentieth century (Wald 1994: 261, examples (26)–(27)), but is no longer accepted by later generations, undoubtedly under Swahili influence. Thus, the direction of this local change is secure.

(25) Kauma E72b "EB, node 9" (fieldwork B. Wald & Chris M. 1993) InTop Internal Passive Constraint *ni-dza-ku-ger-w-a* sm1sg-pst-om2sg-give-pass-fv smio...omdo/smdo...omio-v-pass 'I was given to you/you were given to me (today).'

Van der Wal (2020) notes Shambaa as the only exception in her sample to a generalisation that only SOM languages are asymmetric with respect to the In-Top trans-verbal constraint. There are, however, more widespread asymmetries among MOM languages. Both Tswana in southern EB and Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976: 134) in northern EB share the InTop internal passive constraint corresponding to Zulu (23) above. However, Rwanda does not exhibit the Zulu constraint when the OM indexes a concurrent AO (Ngoboka 2005: 88).

Certain languages have a partial SOM. As an effect of InTop, these systems are mostly restricted to human objects. Polak (1986: 375) shows a diverse pattern in interior CWB languages of Guthrie's zones C and D, i.e. those branching off from the remainder of Narrow Bantu at node 5 in the phylogeny of Grollemund et al. (2015). The most restricted SOM system is Mbesa C51, allowing only the class 1 OM. Grégoire (2003: 366ff) adds to the variety of micro-trends in the CWB clade. For example, among HUM OMs Leke C14 has only the OM1sg, but it has an inventory of NONHUM OMs, while Boa C44 has only OMs of human classes 1/2. Widespread in this general area is alternation within the same language between an OM, when it is available, and either an enclitic or a postverbal PRO; an additional option consists of combining both strategies by indexing an object by both an OM and a postverbal PRO. To the extent that the enclitic/postverbal option is favoured, these languages resemble exclusively NOM systems to their immediate north (cf. §4.3). However, in contrast to those NOM systems, the data are not sufficient to determine if GR/TR plays a role in any of these partial SOM languages.

Makhuwa represents a distinct area where only the OMs of the typically human classes 1/2 occur. Makhuwa is adjacent to a central Eastern Bantu area of HUM-NONHUM polarisation, where human objects favour or obligate OM indexing while the available inanimate OMs are rarely used. In contrast, the partial SOM systems in interior CWB are adjacent to the NOM systems of interior NWB further north.

#### **4.3 NOM systems**

In NOM systems, only PROs perform the anaphoric function. InTop does not play a discernible role in NOM systems. Instead, the major factors determining OM order are GR/TR and information status. This latter factor distinguishes PROs from lexical nominals. Lexical nominals contain more information than PROs. NOM languages vary in how GR and information status interact in determining the order of PRO objects with respect to concurrent nominal objects and with respect to each other. The information status constraint, where it occurs, compels PRO-NP/\*\*NP-PRO order as in (26).

(26) Orungu B11b "NWB Gabon, node 3" (Van de Velde & Ambouroue 2017: 619) *à-gòl-ín* sm1 .pst-buy-appl *yɛ́* pro1 *á-bà* 6-mango */* / *\*\*á-bà* \*\*6-mango *yɛ́* pro1 'She bought mangoes for him.'

The information status constraint on concurrent objects, V PROi-NPj/\*\*NPi-PROj, parallels trans-verbal OMi…NPj in OM languages. The competing factor is GR order EO/IO-DO (cf. Type 2 = NOM, in Beaudoin-Lietz et al. 2004: 186). Further north in NOM systems of NWB Cameroon languages (node 1), postverbal information status order is optionally violated in favour of GR order EO/IO-DO, as in Basaa A43a (27). There is no parallel in OM systems to the NOM postverbal double-object order NP-PRO.

(27) Basaa A43a "NWB Cameroon, node 1" (Hyman 2003a: 284) *mɛ* 1sg *n-lémb-él* pst-cook-appl *gwɔ́* it *ɓɔŋgɛ́* 2.child */* / *ɓɔŋgɛ́* 2.child *gwɔ́* it v…prodo-npao / npao-prodo 'I cooked it [food] for the children.'

A second variable among NWB NOM systems is the position of PRO objects in relation to the verb. One position is postverbal, i.e. after the main verb, just as in non-NWB languages, i.e. SM-(TM)-AUX#(INF)-V...PROOBJ. The alternative is post-AUX: SM-(TM)-AUX#PROobj (#INF)-V…Within Narrow Bantu, the post-AUX type is unique to NWB. Intermediate types, as in Eton A71 (28), occur in which the post-AUX type is limited to certain AUXs and/or allows either the postverbal or post-AUX option. As in Basaa (27), Eton postverbal order allows NP-PRO to accommodate GR order IO-DO. The only differences with Basaa are the post-AUX options in (28a–28b).

	- a. post-AUX (preferred order) *mèèy* 1sg.fut *nyí* pro1[io] *dɔ̂* pro5[do] *vé* (inf)give
	- b. trans-verbal mèèy nyí ↓vé dɔ̂
	- c. postverbal mèèy vé nyî dɔ̂ 'I will give it to him.'

In closely related Atsi A75D post-AUX position is obligatory for some AUX, e.g. the future marker *kə̀*, as in *mə̀-kə̀ dɔ́ə̀-dzí* [1sg-AUX=FUT PRO5 INF-eat] "I will eat it [mango]", but the postverbal option occurs for others, e.g. the remote past marker *ngá*, as in *mə̀-ngá ə̀-dzí dɔ́* [1sg-AUX=PST2 INF-eat PRO5 ] "I ate it [mango] (a long time ago)" (Nzang-Bie 2014: 78ff). As in Eton, the post-AUX PRO order is strictly IO-DO, e.g. *mə̀-ngá nyə́ zɔ́ ə̀-kólə̀* [1sg-AUX=PST2 PRO1 PRO9 INF-lend] "I lent him it [book]" (Nzang-Bie 2014: 81).

Among the post-AUX systems, there are a few NWB NOM systems, for example Nen A44, see (29), where full nominals as well as PROs are allowed in post-AUX position.

(29) Nen A44 "NWB Cameroon, node 1" (Mous 2005: 419) *mɛ́-ŋò* sm1sg-fut *àŋó* pro2sg *mímɛ́* house *fə́lə́bì* build.caus aux proio-npdo v… 'I will build a house for you.'

Mous (2005) argues that Nen represents an innovative system such that its line of development is not relevant to the PB OM hypothesis. Nen represents an extremely localised Narrow Bantu type that will not be pursued further here. A few scattered Bantoid languages also have some version of this feature, for example Vute (North Bantoid) near Nen in Cameroon.

#### **4.4 The Bubi OM systems**

A peculiarity of Bubi A31, apparently unique in Bantu, is its split orientation of double OMs. According to Abad (1928), all varieties display split double OM order according to the person of the IO, e.g. most northern and southern varieties agree on the fixed order DO-IO1 for class 1 (3sg), but the reverse fixed order IO2 -DO for class 2 (3pl). The south-western Batete variety allows both options for class 1, as in (30a), resembling a free MOM system in this respect. However, in all other instances, Bubi OM order is fixed by GR and person. Some persons are ordered in opposite ways in different varieties. Examples (30b–30c) illustrate that IO2sg-DO order in southern varieties (including Batete) corresponds to DO-IO2sg in northern varieties.

	- a. Batete variety

*o* sm2sg *mo* om1 *ma* om6 */* / *ma* om6 *mo* om1 *mbi* give.pst om: io-do/do-io 'You gave them (the palms) to him.'

b. Southern varieties

*a* sm1 *o* om2sg *ma* om6 *mbi* give.pst om: io-do 'He gave them (the palms) to you.'

c. Northern varieties3

*a* sm1 *b'* om6 *o* om2sg *pei* give.pst om: do-io 'He gave them (the palms) to you.'

In the imperative (non-negative), enclitics of the same form as the OMs occur. In that case, all varieties agree on the IO-DO order, like double object PROs in the NWB mainland NOM systems. However, even in this position the peculiar order DO-IO1 persists across varieties (Abad 1928: 88). The obligatory postverbal position in the imperative is noteworthy. The same position is obligatory for PRO objects in Nen "NWB Cameroon, node 1", and may be more widespread among post-AUX NOM systems. Data are lacking for the Bantu A70 languages. However, it seems likely that the imperative is generally restricted to postverbal PRO objects, because the imperative provides no post-AUX context among NOM systems. Bubi (30) resembles a MOM rather than a post-AUX NOM system in the apparent absence of an obligatory AUX preceding the OMs. Nevertheless, in contrast to the affirmative imperative, the negative imperative has a negative AUX to trigger post-AUX position for the OMs, cf. *bëëla-lö* [sing-OE5 ] 'sing it!'

3Note the characteristic Northern Bubi denasalisation inducing cl. 6 \**ma* > *ba*.

vs. *wë-lö-béél-è* [2sg.NEG-OM5 -sing-SBJV] 'don't sing it!' (Bolekia Boleká 1991: 151).

The forms of the Bubi OMs are problematic for historical analysis. They are all monosyllabic but vary within varieties with respect to the vowel used, e.g. class 2 *ba/bo/be* 'them'. The -*e/o* forms are suggestive of the PB deictic suffixes appended to PRO, but alternative explanations are conceivable. The vowels could also reflect one or more former AUXs or TMs with which the preceding SM fused, and then were transferred to the OM forms, just like the more limited central Bantu reanalysis of the SM/OM1sg *ndi-* < \**N-di* [SM1sg-COP/AUX] (cf. Polak 1986: 379).4 There is nothing in the current Bubi varieties to suggest that the OMs are perceived as polymorphemic. A point in favour of a MOM (OM) rather than NOM (PRO) analysis is that the 1sg SM/OM is apical as in OM systems rather than bilabial as in the NWB NOM systems, i.e. PB \**ni(/N)*- SM/OM1sg vs. PB \**mí*-PRO1sg. 5

In sum, Bubi fits the major criteria for a (M)OM system with respect to the monosyllabicity and morphological simplicity of its OMs. However, it resembles the NOM systems in the obligatory postverbal position of its OMs in the imperative context.

#### **5 Historical object marking hypotheses**

This section examines a number of hypotheses about the nature of the PB OM system in light of the types we have examined in §4 above. In the background of this discussion is the understanding that the PB period is a lower limit to the age of the PB OM system that can be reconstructed by comparing the diverse current Narrow Bantu languages. The system may be much older, because the current situation may preserve defining features that have been lost elsewhere in Bantoid or even Benue-Congo. Alternatively, any form of the OM system may be a post-PB development so that some type of NOM directly reflects earlier

4 Similarly, in the "NWB Cameroon, node 1" SOM languages Mbonge A121 and Kpe A22, the SM1sg has the form *na*- suggesting \**n-a-* [SM1sg-TAM], also one of the forms of the Bubi SM1sg. 5With regard to the nature of the boundary between the OM and the following verb, Bubi standard orthography follows Spanish convention in representing the preverbal OMs as separate words like Spanish preverbal clitics, e.g. preverbal: Bubi <*a ñe ri bbi*> [he me it gave] = Spanish <*me lo dió*> [me it gave.he] 'he gave it to me'; but as enclitics suffixed to the verb when they are postverbal, e.g. postverbal: Bubi <*mbañelo*> = *mba-ñe-lo* = Spanish <*démelo*> = *dé-me-lo* [give-me-it] 'give it to me' (Abad 1928: 88). The issue of whether the Bubi OMs are indeed separate words, as they would be as object PROs in a NOM system, cannot be pursued further here.

#### Benji Wald

PB object indexing systems. This is a primary issue to be discussed. It is one of numerous questions of direction of change. The NOM issue is: Did current OM systems evolve from NOM systems, or vice-versa? The discussion will begin with the PB OM hypothesis, because Meeussen (1967) and Polak (1986) agreed on some version of this hypothesis. They disagreed on whether the particular PB OM system was MOM or SOM (cf. §2 above).

#### **5.1 The PB OM hypothesis**

As stated immediately above, there are two fundamental types of OM hypotheses: SOM and MOM. Polak (1986) favoured a SOM hypothesis for reasons discussed in the present section. In doing so, she preferred an OM hypothesis over a NOM hypothesis, the latter discussed in §5.2. The relative merits of Polak's SOM hypothesis and some form of MOM hypothesis are then discussed in §5.3.

Polak (1986: 374) generally appeals to the geographical distribution of current OM languages to posit the OM as a feature of PB. Some form of OM system, full or partial, occurs in all zones. Polak acknowledged that it was troubling that NWB (zone A and vicinity) is almost devoid of OM systems, but she mentioned Jǒ as having an almost full OM system, specifying its proximity to Duala A24, a NOM language of the type exemplified by Basaa A43a in (27) above. Representative of the Jǒ area are the full SOM systems of Mbonge A121 (Friesen 2002) and Kpe A22 (Hawkinson 1986). Polak's suggestion implies that they represent a *relic area.* According to the Grollemund et al. (2015) phylogeny, these languages show their closest lexical affinities to the NOM languages of zone A surrounding them.

A contrary hypothesis would be that the area reflects post-PB OM systems that originated further south, subsequently transported to their current area and consequently undergoing relexification through contact with the surrounding area. In the absence of any supporting evidence for the relexification hypothesis, the relative simplicity of the relic hypothesis is preferable.6 For further reference, this area is called the "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" area.7

6Another archaic feature of this area, shared with Bubi, is the initial apical nasal for SM/OM1sg reflecting PB \**n(i)-*. In the surrounding NOM area, the SM1sg has an initial bilabial nasal reflecting the PB PRO1sg \**mi*- as does wider Benue-Congo for the most part. In the NOM area of Narrow Bantu and adjacent Bantoid languages, even the SM, where it survives, has the initial bilabial nasal of PRO.

7Polak's (1986) Map 2 represents this full OM within "NWB Cameroon, node 1" as a small northwestern portion of zone A surrounded by systems left blank on the map as NOMs. The map in Beaudoin-Lietz et al. (2004: 180) shades the surrounding NOM systems ("Type 2" in their terminology).

Partial SOM systems are explicitly considered to be due to loss by Polak (1986), thus positing a specific historical direction: full > partial SOM systems. According to this hypothesis, the change at issue is the loss of OMs from the full PB set, so that some objects cannot be indexed by OMs. In this context it is instructive to consider the partial OM systems of Makhuwa and NWB as independent innovations in widely separated areas. They have in common that InTop plays a major role in favouring loss of some or all of the inanimate OMs in both areas. They differ in the predominant nature of adjacent systems.

As discussed in §4.2, Makhuwa and NWB represent distinct cases of inanimate OM loss in terms of the nature of adjacent systems. Makhuwa has lost the OMs of all classes except classes 1/2 (typically human). It is surrounded by languages that maintain full SOM systems, but with prohibitions against inanimate OM indexing in preference to a concurrent human object, as exemplified in Swahili (24) above.

In contrast to the Makhuwa area, Polak's (1986) Map 2 shows that the northwestern Bantu partial OM area is much larger and adjacent to numerous distinct types of systems along its southern and eastern borders, including other partial OMs and NOMs. The area is attested in zones A-D with some further southern extension into zone H. In other words, it occurs in several early branches: "NWB Cameroon, node 1", "NWB Gabon, nodes 2-4", "CWB, node 5" and "WWB, node 6". Among other partial OM systems there are some that have also lost human objects, including the interpersonal OMs (cf. §4.2). The logical conclusion to this trend is the loss of all OMs, resulting in NOM systems.

The preceding account follows from a direction of increasingly constraining the OM system, until it is completely lost. This is not a likely outcome for the Makhuwa area. Preferential OM indexing of human objects is characteristic of the entire area surrounding it; no further movement towards loss is indicated. In contrast, the north-western Bantu NOM adjacency to partial OMs offers a model for further evolution towards losing the remaining OMs. The particular paths taken by the zone C languages from only HUM OMs to NOMs remain unclear and problematic at present. Some partial OM systems suggest phonological influence, e.g. the monophonic principle, but also the loss of the initial consonant from the surviving human OMs in parts of zone C.

#### **5.2 The PB NOM hypothesis**

The opposite direction from NOM to OM is a currently disputed position advanced by Güldemann (2011; Güldemann (2022 [this volume])). It implies that PB had a NOM system of the form AUX# PROOBJ V, where multiple pronominal

objects were allowed. For the most part, Güldemann appeals to typology rather than current Narrow Bantu for support. He proposes that starting from a hypothetical pre-PB VO system, e.g. systems like Orungu (26) or Basaa (27) above, only the PROs among postverbal NPs came to be preposed to the verb, as in Eton (28), representative of the A70 group and various other groups in the vicinity, e.g. Maande A46 (cf. Mous 2005). Romance is a well-documented case to serve as a typological model for the posited direction of change, VOPRO > OPRO-V (cf. Wald 1994: 250). Romance also serves as a typological model for the phonological condensation of the preverbal PROs to monosyllables, i.e. PRO-(#)V > OM-V. In the Bantu analogue, there are grammatical consequences to the reduction, such that the loss of the deictic markers suffixed to PRO, leaves only the class and interpersonal markers as the forms of the OM. This model is plausible but problematic for direct evidence. So, in relating this proposal to current Bantu, Güldemann (2011) offers Ewondo A72a in (31) as partially preserving this system from its PB origin.

(31) Ewondo A72a "NWB Cameroon, node 1" (Redden 1979: 167) *a-kad* sm1 -tm/aux *mə* pro1sg=io *dzɔ* pro9=do *və́* give 'He usually gives it to me.'8

Here I have substituted a double object example for Güldemann's single object example, as a reminder that number of objects is not an issue in this change. The account does not rule out reduction of each preverbal pronominal object to a single syllable (or less), resulting in a MOM system, as suggested by the variation in the formal ambiguity between OM and PRO forms discussed for Bubi (cf. §4.4).

The problem with Ewondo (31) as a direct reflection of a hypothetical PB NOM system is that among its closest relatives, an INF intervenes between the last object PRO and the verb root, i.e. PRO(#)/OM INF-V. In Atsi A75D INF is explicit, as discussed under Eton (28) above. In Eton, the INF often manifests as a floating tone downstepping a high tone verb immediately following the object PRO, as in (28b) above (e.g. Van de Velde 2008: 272). Such a floating tone is a commonly attested feature of north-western Bantu in the wake of the loss of various syllabic grammatical morphemes retained in other Bantu areas. Most likely the Ewondo system evolved from the system still reflected in Atsi and Eton, but at some point lost all trace of the INF. The PROobj INF-V order of A70 contrasts with the INF-OM-V order of OM systems throughout Bantu, including the "NWB Cameroon,

8Ewondo AUX *kad* < PB *\*jìkad* 'dwell; be; sit; stay' (BLR 3441) (Bastin et al. 2002).

node 1, full SOM" area. Thus, it is doubtful that Ewondo (31) directly reflects the PB situation.

Along with the criticisms formulated by Hyman (2011), a major problem of Güldemann's dependence on typology is the timing of the V-OPRO > OPRO-V change relative to PB. It conflicts with the relic hypothesis for the "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" area, discussed in §5.1 above. Among possible resolutions to this conflict is one in which Güldemann's typologically inferred reconstruction projects back to an earlier stage than PB, and that MOMs had already arisen by the PB period, and were subsequently widely restricted to SOM systems, by processes comparable to the reduction of SOMs from full to partial advocated by Polak (1986).

#### **5.3 The PB MOM hypothesis**

Polak (1986) rejects the MOM hypothesis for PB. Her main argument is that SOMs are more common across the entire Bantu area. Clear-cut MOMs currently have a more limited distribution, all south of the greater NWB area (nodes 1–4). She suggests that the monophonic partial MOM type was a transition to the greater elaboration of SOMs to MOMs. This contrasts with her positing of partial SOMs as a transition between full SOMs and NOMs. At first glance, the "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" systems seem to support the chronological priority of SOM to MOM. If the direction of change was MOM > SOM, then the reduction to SOM in the isolated "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" area and the reduction to SOM in a large part of EB (especially coastal but expanding deep into the central EB interior) seem to be independent innovations. Zone C is a transitional area for either direction of change. It is unusually diverse in containing full and partial SOMs and MOMs in proximity to NOMs. MOM systems are attested as far into the north-western interior as Bangi C32 "CWB, node 5" (Whitehead 1899). Particularly in the proximity of partial SOMs and MOMs, zone C suggests that the same process of reduction that Polak (1986) posits for SOMs also applies to MOMs. By this account, there is a single direction of change towards reduction of OM complexity for both SOMs and MOMs, so that SOMs represent an intermediate stage in the change of MOM to NOM systems. The "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" area independently follows the same line of development of reduction under the same conditions but stops at the full SOM stage.

An internal motivation can be offered for the above hypothesised persistent direction of change to reduced OM systems. It follows the principle of discourse utility, measured by the higher frequency of use of single than multiple OMs in MOM systems. Uses of single OMs are far more frequent than multiple OMs in discourse. By the discourse utility principle, the complexity of the system is reduced by restricting the system to SOM. From this point of view, it is appropriately termed the principle of discourse economy, referring to a less complex, thus more economical system with fewer grammatical options.

There are many historical junctures suggested by the data where the discourse economy principle may account for a reduction in the number of OM indexing options allowed by a hypothetical PB MOM system. They arise in reconsidering Meeussen's original suggestion that PB had a MOM system. The foremost problem is the issue of the hypothetical type of PB MOM system, given that current Bantu has numerous distinct MOM systems, as discussed in §4.1 above.

The primary alternatives are free vs. fixed MOMs. The fixed ascending MOM seems to be the most widely distributed type, dominating the EB MOM area and extending far westward into zones C and H, i.e. the CWB and WWB clades. At the same time, free MOMs are concentrated, apart from Tswana in the south of the EB domain, in two widely separated areas: (a) SWB as far north as Umbundu and (b) the south-eastern area of Great Lakes Bantu in the north of the EB domain, as in Kuria (9). Is the agreement between these two areas a case of independent development, or relics of an older previously more widespread system, possibly the PB system?

Taking a PB version of the free MOM as the starting point offers some advantages over alternatively hypothesising a PB fixed MOM alternative. An immediate advantage is that the free MOM system can be seen as a pivot between the two subsequent fixed orientations, ascending and descending, as suggested by the variation in Bubi (30a). It is also a first step in accounting for the use of both orientations in the type represented by Haya (14a–14b). The direction of change MOM > SOM simplifies the account of subsequent developments. For example, taking a version of the Kwanyama (6) free MOM type as the PB point of departure, one of the most widespread subsequent changes is fixing the order of OMs according to InTop instead of ConTop.

The principle of discourse economy comes into play in this change. The change from ConTop to InTop reduces the complexity of the free MOM by eliminating less frequently used discourse options, particularly with respect to distinguishing humans from other objects. Most often in discourse human objects are indexed regardless of the type of system. Therefore, in the free MOM system, human objects will be indexed more often than inanimates whether or not there is a concurrent inanimate object. HUM objects will be indexed leftmost in sequence in a descending system: HUM-NONHUM, and rightmost in an ascending system NONHUM-HUM. These orders are both options in the free MOM system but become obligatory and decontextualised in the fixed MOM systems.

Meanwhile, in contradiction to the PB MOM hypothesis above, Polak (1986: 404) conjectures that the earliest version of the MOM system arose outside of NWB in an assumed more innovative Narrow Bantu area in which the languages have a "general tendency […] to lengthen words". She seems to be referring to agglutination here, as opposed to the more isolating tendencies of NWB, as seen in NOM systems. The problem with this assumption is that there is little doubt that PB already had an agglutinative system including the transitivity-raising suffixes caus and appl. The extension sequence caus-appl occurs throughout Bantu, including in the SOM languages of the "NWB Cameroon, node 1" clades, such as Mbonge *di-kab-is-ɛl-ɛ* [INF-share-caus-appl-FV] "to sell (lit. let share) [something DO] [to someone AO]" (Friesen 2002: 97). By the same criterion of distribution across Bantu that Polak (1986) invokes to justify positing the PB OM, the sequence caus-appl can be posited for PB, where each extension is associated with an object, expressed or implied. This, then, seems like sufficient motivation for developing a MOM system at the PB stage – had it not already existed. Certain "NWB Cameroon, node 1" languages allow the double OM sequence OM-refl. Such is the case, for instance in Kpe, where the OMrefl *a-* then replaces the vowel of the preceding OM, thus maintaining the monosyllabic OM slot, e.g. *nama-l-a-kɛ́-ɛ́n-ɛ́* [SM1sg-PST-OM11-OMrefl-cut-INSTR-PFV] "I cut myself with it [knife]" (Hawkinson 1986: 152).9

A final point in favour of the notion that MOM systems were formerly more common in the "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" area is the nature of the full SOM system in those languages. It is a symmetric system both with respect to the trans-verbal multiple object context: OMi-V…NPj.obj and the internal passive subject context SMi.obj…OMj-V…pass. There is no constraint on which of two objects can be assigned higher ConTop, just as in the free MOM system. As van der Wal (2020: 206) observes (especially in her Table 3), MOM languages tend to be symmetric with respect to the trans-verbal multiple object context: OMi-V…NPj.obj and the internal passive subject context SMi.obj-…OMj-V…pass. There is no constraint on which of two objects can be assigned higher ConTop. SOMs of this type tend to be closer to MOM areas than asymmetric SOMs. In van der Wal's sample, symmetric SOM systems are widely dispersed across EB but also include Mongo C61 from the "CWB, node 5" clade, which she classifies as partial MOM (termed 1+). In contrast, her asymmetric SOMs are largely coastal EB, along with some partial MOM systems as far west as Ruund L53 "SWB, node

9Kpe represents a wider NWB area in which the appl extension was replaced by a reflex of the PB \*-*an* to incorporate an instrument as an object argument of the verb (cf. Wald 1997). A reflex of the PB appl \*-*id* continues in this area in other uses.

8" and Yaka "WWB, node 6". Her solitary example of an asymmetric MOM is Shambaa "EB, node 9".

Shambaa asymmetries involve both InTop and GR, cf. (18), where MOM order is fixed according to both InTop and GR. The same factors play a role in restricting the use of NONHUM OM indexing in Shambaa single-OM trans-verbal contexts. When there is an unindexed concurrent HUM object, a NONHUM DO cannot be OM indexed (but a NONHUM AO can), i.e. IO/EO/\*\*DO=OMNONHUM-V…DO/\*\*IO/EO=NPHUM. This limitation is one step less severe than the asymmetric trans-verbal constraint of SOM systems in Shambaa's vicinity, as exemplified for Swahili (24b–24d). In those systems there is no GR condition on OM indexing of NONHUM objects, only the InTop condition, i.e. \*\*OMNONHUM-V… NPHUM. In contrast to this situation in northern and central EB, the symmetry of the "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOMs" suggests that they, like other symmetric SOMs, were formerly in the proximity of MOM systems (later replaced by the current NOM systems), and/or that they formerly had MOM systems themselves, subsequently replaced by SOM systems according to the discourse economy principle while retaining the symmetry of their previous MOM state.

#### **6 Conclusions**

This section summarises the PB MOM hypothesis preferred above and indicates problems requiring further investigation for support or refutation of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis proposed in this chapter is that PB hosted a free MOM topic marking system consisting of an obligatory SM and one or more OMs in sequence. Subsequent local innovations altered the use of this system of ranking objects by changing the OM ordering principle from ConTop > InTop. This is the earliest indication of the post-PB discourse economy principle applied to indexing objects. Ultimately the line of evolution driven by this principle reduced OM indexing to partial HUM SOM systems, as in Mbesa "CWB, node 5" (cf. §4.2), and then the complete loss of the system. As early as the partial MOM systems, PRO had been compensating for restrictions on OM indexing, as in Luba/Lulua "SWB, node 9" (20). This was a change from the PB uses of PRO, e.g. focus uses iconic to their overt morphological complexity.

It remains unclear that the final NOM state still involves topicality, either Con-Top or InTop, other than the minimal topicality bestowed by PRO as an anaphor. In any case, the predominant NOM state is ordering of multiple objects as IO/EO-DO. This order applies to both postverbal and post-AUX types of NOMs (see

(26)–(29)). Thus, GR seems to be the dominant principle determining order. An intermediate stage is suggested by Orungu "NWB Gabon, node 3" in (26), where the invariant postverbal order V...PROi-NPj corresponds to the symmetric order OMi-V...NPj as reflected in the "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" systems. GR order IO/EO-DO moves the PRO further from its OM analogue, as in Basaa "NWB Cameroon, node 1" in (27), and persists in the subsequent change to post-AUX position, as in Eton "NWB Cameroon, node 1" in (28).

More generally, the origin of GR in OM ranking according to the PB MOM hypothesis remains unresolved. In a free MOM system like the one in Kwanyama in (6), GR plays no role. How and at what stage did GR become a factor in OM indexing according to the hypothesis? So far the data are insufficient to answer this question decisively. As a rare "SWB, node 8" example of fixed descending OM, the Luanda variety of Umbundu (19) displays only GR ordering, not InTop. Decisive evidence of a previous InTop stage is yet to be uncovered.

A similar problem occurs in the northern EB languages from the Great Lakes area with fixed MOM systems, such as Ganda in (16). Only GR seems to play a role. In the northern EB case there are distinct adjacent MOM types that reveal further details of an interplay between InTop and GR order. Haya in (14) accepts free OM order, but it imposes constraints on its interpretation. Descending and ascending orders are both fixed but distinct. Descending order is determined strictly by GR/TR, and ascending order by InTop. How this state arose is unclear. One possibility is that GR preceded InTop, so that InTop introduced GR ambiguity with the understanding that the discourse context would easily resolve most such ambiguity. Ganda supports this possibility by showing no influence of InTop on its GR OM order. On the other hand, Rwanda represents a system in which InTop operates in spite of GR. It presents a model for the contrary hypothesis that In-Top preceded GR/TR historically. Chronological ordering of these systems and its implications for the PB MOM hypothesis remains unresolved.10

A more general problem of data affecting the PB MOM hypothesis is the rarity of descriptions of the less favoured discourse cases, e.g. *double-human* and *crossanimate* object examples. Double-human objects are more often attended to, e.g. "he showed her to them". In most reported systems, the human DO is treated in the same way as an inanimate DO whether by InTop or GR. Rwanda in (11) shows that GR only plays a role in its system when human objects of equal InTop are OM indexed. The Rolong variety in Tswana (7b) shows no grammatical effect of GR at

10Ganda is among languages that have been tested for the cross-animate context. It maintains GR ordering, often producing anti-pragmatic interpretations in cases where the human is pragmatically expected to be the IO/EO; e.g. "she mailed him (the man) to it (the letter)".

all in a free MOM system.11 Data are lacking for the SWB systems. Cross-animate examples are more often neglected, corresponding to their rarity as discourse contexts, i.e. where the IO/EO is NONHUM and the DO is HUM, e.g. "she hired him (the driver DO) for it (the car AO)". The cross-animate context is often crucial in deciding whether an OM sequence is ordered by InTop or GR.12

A final problem challenging all PB object-marking hypotheses is evidence from other East Benue-Congo languages, if not beyond. Preverbal object indexing systems restricted to anaphors, most often monosyllabic, occur in other branches of East Benue-Congo. In close proximity to the "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" systems are the OM systems of the Ogonoid and upriver Cross languages, e.g. Ibibio across the eastern Nigerian border. The surrounding postverbal NOM systems, even within the Cross branch, are similar to the postverbal NOM systems predominant in NWB. The coastal Cross area looks like a continuation of the "NWB Cameroon, node 1, full SOM" area as a relic area, similarly adjacent to NOMs. A comparable situation occurs in the widely separated northwest Nigerian area of the Jos Plateau, where some languages of the Kainji branch of East Benue-Congo also display similar systems, e.g. Kaje, Izere (cf. Blench & Kaze 2019: 12ff). As a much more distant branch of East Benue-Congo than Cross, Kainji suggests the possibility of a much more archaic status to some version of the PB OM system.13 The general issue of the historical relationship between SM-AUX-(OM)-OM-V…and current NWB SM-/#AUX (PRO) PRO V remains unresolved and continues to challenge any version of the PB OM hypothesis.

#### **Acknowledgements**

Special thanks go to Sara Pacchiarotti, Koen Bostoen, and two anonymous referees for valuable comments leading to many improvements in this chapter. I also thank Jenneke van der Wal, Nobuko Yoneda, Thilo C. Schadeberg and Daisuke Shinagawa for their communications and generous offering of relevant information. It is my pleasure to more generally thank all the participants of the

11However, in some instances, the Rolong speaker expressed a decontextualised preference for an order corresponding to the obligatory order of prestigious fixed MOM varieties like Hurutshe.

12Willems (1970: 116) presents a fortuitous cross-animate example for Luba-Kasai *bà-bù-n-shipėl-è* [SM2 -OM14-OM1sg-kill-appl-sbjv] "they would kill me for it [reason]", revealing the InTop order AONONHUM-DOHUM contrasting with the GR order DO-EO.

13However, Izere suggests a system in which the OM became suffixed to certain AUXs rather than prefixed to the following verb root. Thus, following AUX use of the COP *sen*, the Izere 1sg OM form is *ní*, transparently cognate with the PB 1sg SM/OM \**ni*, but in past contexts the Izere 1sg OM has the form *tí*, as if suffixed to an older AUX \*tV. The other persons are similarly formed with an initial *t*- in past contexts.

November 2018 Ghent workshop on "Reconstructing Proto-Bantu Grammar" for informative and stimulating presentations. Finally, I thank Larry M. Hyman for encouraging me to participate in that workshop.

### **Abbreviations**

\*X historical reconstruction of X \*\*X rejection of intended synchronic

X by L1 speakers

#### **References**

## **Chapter 11**

## **Agreement on Proto-Bantu relative verb forms**

### Mark Van de Velde

LLACAN - Langage, Langues et Cultures d'Afrique (CNRS, INaLCO, EPHE)

This chapter argues that Meeussen's (1967) reconstruction of a Direct and an Indirect relative clause construction in Proto-Bantu (PB) is untenable, because there exists no scenario of morphosyntactic change that can lead from that reconstructed state of affairs to the relative clause constructions attested in contemporary Bantu. Although typologically unusual and widely attested across Bantu, relative verb forms that agree with the relativised noun phrase are not reflexes of a protoconstruction with the same properties, but are the result of recent, parallel evolutions driven by a mechanism called the Bantu Relative Agreement (BRA) cycle. The only logically possible starting point from which the currently attested typological variation in Bantu relative clause constructions could have evolved is one in which relative verbs agreed with their subject. This conclusion has consequences for the reconstruction of the PB verbal template, which must have lacked a Preinitial position.

### **1 Introduction**

In his *Bantu Grammatical Reconstructions* (BGR), Meeussen (1967: 113, 120) reconstructs two relative clause constructions in Proto-Bantu (PB), called Direct and Indirect.1 As for their verb forms, he only reconstructs their behaviour as agreement targets and the tone of their Final morpheme, stating that any other formal characteristics were "not within reach of reconstruction" at the time of writing.

1 Following common practice in the typological literature, names for Bantu-specific grammatical forms and categories such as *Direct relatives*, *Final* and *Pronominal prefix* are capitalised. The meaning and use of these terms will be discussed in this introduction.

Mark Van de Velde. 2022. Agreement on Proto-Bantu relative verb forms. In Koen Bostoen, Gilles-Maurice de Schryver, Rozenn Guérois & Sara Pacchiarotti (eds.), *On reconstructing Proto-Bantu grammar*, 465–494. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7575835

The PB Direct and Indirect constructions, illustrated in (1), should therefore be interpreted as morphosyntactic templates, rather than full syntactic reconstructions.

(1) Partial PB reconstructions (Meeussen 1967: 113)

Direct relative clause constructions are used for subject relatives (1a) and for non-subject relatives when the relative verb has a lexical subject (1b) in Meeussen's PB. Their verb form has a prefix of the Pronominal prefix (ppr) paradigm that indexes the relativised noun phrase. Still according to Meeussen, the PB Indirect construction is used for non-subject relatives when the subject of the relative verb is not lexical (1c). Their verb form is characterised by a succession of two agreement prefixes. The first is a Pronominal prefix that indexes the relativised NP and the second is a prefix from the Verbal prefix (vpr) paradigm that indexes the subject of the relative verb (Meeussen 1967: 120). As can be seen in (1b), the relative verb precedes its lexical subject in Meeussen's reconstruction of PB non-subject relative clauses; see also Hamlaoui (2022 [this volume]).

Direct and Indirect relative constructions of the type exemplified in (1) are attested throughout the Bantu area. In contrast, I am not aware of any occurrence in the Benue-Congo languages outside of Narrow Bantu. Moreover, these constructions are formally highly unusual. In the position where other Bantu finite verb forms have a prefix that indexes the subject, the verb of the Direct construction has a prefix that indexes the relativised NP and is taken from a paradigm of agreement markers normally found on adnominal modifiers, whereas the verb of the Indirect construction has a succession of two agreement markers. Their unusual character, their omnipresence in Narrow Bantu and their absence elsewhere in Benue-Congo make the Direct and Indirect templates seemingly perfect candidates for reconstruction in PB. However, I argue that they should not be reconstructed in PB, nor in the proto-language of any of Bantu's major

genealogical subgroupings, such as those corresponding to the numbered nodes in the classification by Grollemund et al. (2015).

This conclusion is based on two observations. First, there are languages in all major subgroups of Bantu that have subject and/or non-subject relative clause constructions in which the relative verb starts with a vpr that indexes its subject. This type of agreement, here called type sbj and illustrated in (2), is typologically trivial and not reconstructed in PB by Meeussen.

(2) Shi JD53 (Polak-Bynon 1975: 260) *áa-ba-lume* aug2-2-man *Ludúunge* 1.Ludunge *a-a-rhum-íre* vpr1-rpst.pfv-send-rpst.pfv 'the men whom Ludunge sent'

Second, I will show that this widely attested type cannot be a reflex of the Direct relatives reconstructed by Meeussen, because there is no scenario of morphosyntactic change that can replace an adnominal agreement marker used to index the relativised noun phrase by a subject agreement marker.

In contrast, I will show that there exists a scenario of morphosyntactic change, the Bantu Relative Agreement (BRA) cycle (Van de Velde 2021), that can generate the full extent of observed variation in agreement types of Bantu relative clause constructions when the starting point is a PB morphosyntactic template in which the relative verb agrees with its subject, as in (2).

Before moving on to the main topic of this chapter, I will make a number of general methodological observations in §2. §3 provides an overview of the contemporary constructional variation in the domain of relative clauses that a successful reconstruction needs to account for. §4 then shows how the BRA cycle can account for this variation if we assume that PB relative verb forms indexed their subject by means of a prefix of the vpr paradigm. In contrast, §5 argues that there is no path from the reconstruction proposed in BGR to the current situation. §6 provides arguments for the assumption that the BRA cycle must not have been active yet at the PB stage. §7 explores some of the consequences of this chronology for the typological profile of the pre-stem domain in PB and Proto-Benue-Congo. A brief conclusion is given in §8.

#### **2 Methodological preliminaries**

#### **2.1 Paradigms, functions and positions of verbal morphemes**

When Bantuists analyse and gloss a verb form such as that in (1c), we can approach the first two prefixes *jʊ̀-tʊ́-* from three different perspectives, viz. func-

tional, positional and paradigmatic. From a functional point of view, the prefix *tʊ́* is used to index the subject of the relative verb. It could therefore be glossed sp, short for *subject prefix*. Likewise, the prefix *jʊ̀-* is used to mark agreement with the relativised NP, so could be glossed rel, for instance. A second way to characterise these two prefixes is to situate them in the morphological slot-filler template of the Bantu verb. Using terminology introduced by Meeussen, the prefix *jʊ̀-* occupies the Pre-initial slot of the verb and *tʊ́-* the Initial slot. Consequently, these morphemes can alternatively be glossed as prein and in respectively. A simplified version of Meeussen's slot-filler template is provided in (3). A number 1 in the second row means that maximally one morpheme can fill the position, whereas n stands for one or more. Brackets are used to mean that the position can be left empty, depending on the verb form. in is short for Initial, fo for Formative, if for Infix (the name of a prefix position, i.e. not an actual infix), ext for Extension and fv for Final (vowel).

Finally, the prefixes can be characterised in terms of the formal paradigms to which they belong. The *jʊ̀-* prefix belongs to the morphological paradigm called *Pronominal prefixes* (ppr) in Meeussen (1967), whereas *tʊ́-* is a form from the Verbal prefixes (vpr) paradigm. Meeussen (1967) reconstructs five paradigms of class markers in PB, viz. Nominal prefixes (npr), Numeral prefixes (epr), Pronominal prefixes (ppr), Verbal prefixes (vpr) and Object prefixes (opr). These are shown in Table 1.

In most circumstances the distinction between these three perspectives has little relevance for glossing. There is a general preference for functional labels, no doubt because they are the most transparent and universal. Positional and paradigmatic labels are hardly ever used to gloss verb forms. They are often actively discouraged by reviewers and editors, who point out that they are idiosyncratic (restricted to Bantu philology) and potentially misleading. The positional label Initial, for instance, is not necessarily used for the first morpheme of a verb form, nor is the fv always the last morpheme, and the so-called Infix is prefixed to the root, not infixed. The same is true for paradigmatic labels, where Pronominal prefixes do not always show up on pronouns and the term *Verbal prefixes* is arbitrarily assigned to only one of several paradigms of morphemes that can be prefixed to a verb stem. However, it is important to bear in mind that these positional and paradigmatic labels are not descriptive terms, but names for language-

Table 1: The Proto-Bantu class marker paradigms (Meeussen 1967: 97) [abridged]

or family-specific categories, which is conventionally signalled by their initial capitalisation. Hence, it makes perfect sense to write that not all verbal prefixes are Verbal prefixes.

However, when discussing agreement on relative verb forms, it is essential to distinguish between the three above-mentioned perspectives as clearly as possible, since we are interested in determining which slot in the verbal template is occupied by a marker from which paradigm, indexing which element in the syntactic context. Examples in this chapter will mostly be glossed using positional labels, because their assignment is the least dependent on analysis.

There are obviously strong correlations between the three alternative ways in which a verbal morpheme can be characterised, which is definitely another reason why the distinction is rarely made. For instance, morphemes in the Initial position tend to be Verbal prefixes indexing the subject in non-relative verb forms, but there are two complications. First, it is not always clear whether the participant that is indexed by the Initial morpheme is best analysed as a subject, e.g. in some of the so-called inversion constructions. Second, in many languages, including Meeussen's Proto-Bantu, there is strictly speaking more than one paradigm of Verbal prefixes. Paradigms of agreement prefixes are normally minimally

differentiated in the Bantu languages, with only a minor formal distinction in a couple of classes. Since Meeussen reconstructs two prefixes for class 1 in his vpr paradigm, viz. *á*- and *ʊ́*-, his PB actually has two paradigms of Verbal prefixes, which could be abbreviated as a-vpr and u-vpr. The notion of *Verbal prefixes* is a useful cover term for the a-vpr and u-vpr paradigms in Proto-Bantu and other Bantu languages with similar minor paradigmatic distinctions.

Turning to relative verb forms such as those illustrated in (1), there is only a partial correlation between position in the verbal template on the one hand and paradigm and function on the other. The Initial slot can be occupied by a vpr that indexes the subject of the relative verb (1c) or by a ppr that marks agreement with the relativised NP (1a, 1b). The Pre-initial slot, if present, is always occupied by a ppr marking agreement with the relativised NP. Paradigm and macro-function correlate by definition: Verbal prefixes are used to index an argument of the verb (which is normally the subject, but could be a topic, hence "macro" function). Pronominal prefixes are used to mark class agreement in a relation of adnominal modification between the relativised NP and the relative verb. In subject relatives, where the relativised NP and the subject of the relative verb are co-referential, the choice of paradigm shows us which kind of syntactic relation is being marked: verb-argument (vpr) or head noun-modifier (ppr).

#### **2.2 Distributional criteria versus scenarios**

Assessing the validity of reconstructions proposed in BGR is complicated by the lack of an explicit presentation of data and methodology. Some discussion of the methods used for reconstructing grammar can be found in publications on specific grammatical topics by other members of the *Lolemi* programme,2 such as Nsuka-Nkutsi's (1982) work on relative clause constructions. These methodological remarks give an indication of the decision-making process that may have led to the reconstructions proposed in BGR. It is clear, for instance, that the geographical distribution of currently attested phenomena played a major role, such that forms or patterns that have a very wide or a highly discontinuous distribution were readily recognised as retentions. Moreover, grammatical quirks that are attested in only a handful of non-adjacent languages also made it into PB, such as Burssens' rule changing the word-final \*HL sequence of a head noun

2The *Lolemi* programme was a large research project at the Royal Museum for Central Africa led by A.E. Meeussen, which started in the early 1960s and aimed at using all grammatical descriptions of Bantu languages available at that time for the historical-comparative study of Bantu morphology and syntax.

into \*HH when immediately followed by a connective relator, a possessive pronoun or a relative verb form with an initial \*H (Meeussen 1967: 106; Nsuka-Nkutsi 1982: 58). This is no doubt because it was deemed unlikely that such a seemingly random grammatical phenomenon could emerge several times independently. Finally, when alternative candidates for reconstruction have a comparable geographical distribution, there appears to have been a tendency for reconstructing the more complex or elaborate situation and to assume that the more likely diachronic evolution in Bantu is simplification.

Two things are lacking in this approach. One is the pursuit of a detailed and credible diachronic scenario that can lead from a proposed reconstruction to the totality of currently attested patterns. The other is awareness of recurrent morphosyntactic changes that can have occurred independently at different times and places, such that cognate morphemes with a similar function and morphosyntactic behaviour can be the outcomes of parallel evolutions, rather than reflexes of the same proto-form. I will briefly illustrate this with two aspects of Meeussen's PB reconstruction that may need to be reconsidered, viz. the reconstruction of an augment and that of a full paradigm of possessive pronouns.

The augment is a prefix or proclitic that precedes the class prefix of nouns and some adnominal or nominalised modifiers (de Blois 1970). Formally, it is typically either identical to the Pronominal prefix (ppr) or it consists of the vowel of the ppr. Its function, if any, differs from language to language. Often, one can only list the conditions in which it does or does not appear, and the former tend to be far more numerous than the latter. Augments can be found all over the Bantu speaking area. Their loss is also well documented in many languages, because they often leave formal traces, such as so-called "latent augments" (de Blois 1970; Grégoire & Janssens 1999). This is probably why Meeussen (1967: 99) reconstructs an augment in PB, more precisely as a weak demonstrative in prenominal position that functioned as an anaphoric marker in specific syntactic contexts. However, the pre-posing of demonstratives is still a common process in Bantu, including in languages where the noun usually has an augment, which tends to be deleted in the presence of a prenominal demonstrative (Van de Velde 2005). Such prenominal demonstratives are very similar to the augment as reconstructed by Meeussen and arguably represent a new cycle of augment creation. Moreover, there are several Bantu languages in which the augment appears to be a relatively recent innovation, or that have (traces of) an older augment coexisting with a more recently developed one (Van de Velde 2019: 254–255), as in Nyakyusa M31 in (4). Nyakyusa has two paradigms of augments, one with a vocalic shape (4a) and one with a CV- shape (4c). The first one is part of the default form of the noun and has no clear semantic value, whereas the more recent CV-shaped augment is

an anaphoric marker, in line with Meeussen's reconstructed augment. Both are cognate with the proximal demonstrative *ʊ-jʊ* in (4b).

	- a. *ʊ-mu-ndʊ* 'the person'
	- b. *ʊ-mu-ndʊ ʊ-jʊ* 'this person'
	- c. *jʊ-mu-ndʊ* 'the very person'

The Nyakyusa data in (4) show that augments can emerge and disappear repeatedly. Since the demonstrative modifiers from which they develop are at least partially cognate, augments in different Bantu languages are cognate as well, without necessarily being reflexes of a single PB paradigm. The recurrent nature of augment creation and erosion makes it impossible to know whether an augment existed at any given proto-stage, much less at which state it was in its grammatical evolution.

The second illustration concerns the paradigm of possessive pronouns. Pronominal forms are extremely unstable in Bantu, with morphological material constantly being added and deleted (as shown, for instance, in Kamba Muzenga (2003), and Idiatov (2022 [this volume])). Consequently, Meeussen (1967: 107) points out that it is very difficult to reconstruct specific proto-forms. Instead, he tentatively provides one out of a number of alternative reconstructions for the forms that could have made up the PB paradigm of possessive pronouns. We are here less interested in the proto-forms of the pronouns than in the structure of their paradigm, and more precisely in the question of how many forms it contained. Among contemporary Bantu languages, there is a typological distinction between those with a full and those with a reduced paradigm. Languages with a full paradigm have a possessive stem for all the nominal classes to which a possessor can belong. The Mituku D13 examples in (5) provide a partial illustration of a full paradigm: possessors expressed by means of a noun of class 3, 4, 12 or 13 are each indexed by means of a different possessive stem (bolded in the examples).

	- a. *meli y-aɔ̂* 'its roots' (of a tree, cl. 3)
	- b. *meli y-ayɔ̂* 'their roots' (of trees, cl. 4)
	- c. *beópɩ́b-ákɔ̂* 'its wings' (of a bat, cl. 12)
	- d. *beópé b-átɔ̂* 'their wings' (of bats, cl. 13)

In contrast, languages with a reduced paradigm have only two stems for third person possessors: one for the singular and one for the plural. In the Mwera P22 examples in (6), the human class 1 possessor is indexed by means of the same pronominal stem as the class 14 possessor, the one also used for all other 3sg possessors.

	- a. *meyo g-aːkwe* 'her eyes' (the woman's, cl. 1)
	- b. *kunoŋa kw-aːkwe* 'its tastiness' (the beer's, cl. 14)

Both types of paradigm are found throughout the Bantu area (Van de Velde Forthcoming), so that current geographical distributions do not provide a clear hypothesis for reconstruction.3 Meeussen reconstructs a full paradigm, perhaps due to a general preference for the more complex of alternative reconstructions. However, in terms of diachronic scenarios, the path from a reduced to a full paradigm is much more likely than the reverse path. Possessive pronouns for third person possessors of class 2 upwards in full paradigms are transparent genitive (aka connective) constructions with a personal pronoun in the modifier position. This can be seen in (5), where the possessive stems consist of the genitive linker *a*, followed by a class marker and the personal pronoun stem *ɔ*. The scenario for the emergence of full paradigms is therefore trivial. In contrast, we would expect much less formal transparency in full paradigms if they had been handed down from PB. Moreover, there is no obvious reason why so many Bantu languages would have reduced their original paradigm. The hardest thing to explain in a scenario of paradigmatic reduction that must have repeated itself independently on numerous occasions is the uniform all-or-nothing nature of the typological distinction. All examples of reduced paradigms known to me have six members (one for each person and number) and all full paradigms have as many third person forms as they have noun classes, on top of first and second person forms. A plausible scenario of paradigmatic reduction would have resulted in partially reduced systems in at least some languages, e.g. along lines of animacy.

Now that more Bantu descriptive and comparative studies are available, we can and should be more attentive to attested patterns of morphosyntactic change in an attempt to verify whether plausible diachronic scenarios lead from proposed PB reconstructions to the current morphosyntactic variation. I will do this for relative clause constructions in the remainder of this chapter.

3 Full paradigms may be absent in zones A and B, i.e. the far North-West. This needs to be verified. If they are, this would strengthen the case for reconstructing a reduced paradigm in PB, as pointed out by Koen Bostoen.

#### **3 Typological variation in Bantu relative clauses**

According to much of the literature starting with Nsuka-Nkutsi (1982), the three types of agreement patterns in Table 2 can be found on the relative verb in contemporary non-subject relative clause constructions.

Table 2: Agreement patterns on the relative verb in contemporary nonsubject relative clause constructions

Type SBJ agreement is illustrated in (2), type NPrel-SBJ in (1c) and type NPrel in (1a–1b). These three agreement types strongly correlate with the choice of a paradigm of agreement markers. Agreement of type SBJ tends to be expressed by means of a Verbal prefix and agreement of type NPrel by a Pronominal prefix. Consequently, agreement of type NPrel-SBJ is normally expressed by a ppr-vprsuccession. Since Pronominal prefixes are typically used on adnominal modifiers to mark agreement with their head noun, this correlation is not surprising.

This general picture has to be clarified and completed on three accounts. First, as will be illustrated below, an additional marker of agreement with the relativised NP can occur in types NPrel and NPrel-SBJ, giving rise to two more agreement types, namely type NPrel-NPrel and type NPrel-NPrel-SBJ. Second, contrary to what appears to be generally assumed in the literature, all types of agreement can be found in subject relatives as well as in non-subject relatives. Third, in many relative clause constructions across the Bantu domain, agreement markers on the verb belong to a morphological paradigm that formally differs from the paradigms of both Verbal prefixes and Pronominal prefixes and that is found exclusively in relative verb forms. I will use the term *Relative prefixes* (rpr) to refer to such paradigms of agreement markers dedicated to relative verb forms. Nsuka-Nkutsi (1982) did not recognise a separate rpr paradigm because he relied on a binary distinction, identifying every paradigm of agreement markers as ppr as soon as it diverges from the vpr paradigm. As we saw in §2.1, the most important distinction is between paradigms that contain first and second person forms and those that do not. Dedicated rpr paradigms tend to be of the latter type.

Indeed, in subject relative clauses, the distinction between adnominal NPrel agreement and SBJ agreement is easiest to see with first or second person relativised NPs, because paradigms of adnominal agreement markers only have third person forms. Example (7) illustrates agreement type NPrel-SBJ in a subject relative clause. The first person plural form is indexed twice on the relative verb, once as its relativised NP (by a third person plural prefix of class 2 in Pre-initial position) and once as its subject (by a first person plural prefix in Initial position).

(7) Yao P21 (Sanderson 1922: 73) *uwe* 1pl *[u-tu-li* prein2-in1pl-be *ŵa-yao]* 2-yao 'we who are Yao'

In contrast, the second person plural pronoun in (8a) is indexed twice on the relative verb as its relativised NP and never as its subject, illustrating agreement of type NPrel-NPrel. Both agreement prefixes, *a-* and *ba-*, are class 2 forms, i.e. third person forms. Both differ from the second person plural prefix *mu-* seen in the following main verb *mu-raire*. Example (8b) illustrates agreement of type NPrel-NPrel-SBJ. It also shows how agreement prefixes in relative verbs can be formally distinct from those of both the vpr and the ppr paradigms. In Nkore-Kiga JE13/14 non-subject relative clause constructions, prefixes that would have an /a/ in the vpr or ppr paradigm have an /u/ in the rpr paradigm, hence *a-bu-* in (8b), instead of *a-ba-*. Something similar can be observed in (7). In Yao the class 2 rpr in the Pre-initial slot is *u-*, instead of the *a-* we would have found in the class 2 form of other paradigms.

	- a.