the university of chicago the phonology and ... - SIL International

The second major issue with respect to the external relationships of Adamawa-
Ubangi is its relation to its nearest linguistic neighbors, Gur and Kru. Based on
lexicostatistics, Bennett & Sterk (1977: 249-250) tentatively posit a group called North
Central Niger-Congo (NCNC) which includes Gur, Adamawa-Ubangi, and “probably”
Kru. Lexical innovations offer weak support—*I I I I ‘two’ is found in Kru and parts of
Adamawa-Ubangi, while *du ‘head’ is found in Kru and Adamawa-Ubangi and has the
form *yu in Gur. All three groups have suffixal noun class markers instead of the typical
prefixes in most of Niger-Congo.
Williamson (1989a: 15) casts doubt on the inclusion of Kru within NCNC. She
points out that Schadeberg’s (1986) reanalysis of the lexicostatistical data never shows
Kru grouped with Adamawa-Ubangi and Gur. Second, she quotes Boyd (per. comm.)
who doubts the reconstruction of *I I I I and *du for Adamawa-Ubangi. Third, she suggests
that the common suffixing of noun class markers may not have been a shared innovation,
since such suffixing must be posited elsewhere in Niger-Congo.
In fact, there is some doubt that Adamawa-Ubangi forms a linguistic unit at all,
but rather that it should form a group with Gur. Bennett & Sterk (1977) point out that
some Adamawa languages (e.g., Longuda and Tula) show higher cognacy scores with
Gur than with some other Adamawa-Ubangi languages. They suggest that Adamawa-
Ubangi and Gur form a continuum, or dialect chain. Bennett (1983a) reasserts this claim,
based on evidence from lexicostatistics and shared innovations. He is able to find no
phonological innovations and only a handful of weak lexical innovations to support the
unity of Adamawa-Ubangi. On the other hand, he states that there are a significant
number of lexical items shared by Adamawa-Ubangi and Gur. However, he admits that
the evidence for an Adamawa-Ubangi-Gur group is not as solid as he would like.
261