Chapter XX (1)

THE LANGUAGES OF THE KILIMA-NJARO DISTRICT.

(_a_) MASAI.
(_b_) KI-ČAGA, KI-TAVEITA, &c. (BANTU LANGUAGES).

The interest taken in African languages is a newly awakened but a growing one. The work of Bleek, Lepsius, Müller, Steere, and Schön; of Barth, Koelle, Krapf, and Reinisch—not to mention many other earnest workers in this freshly opened field, who each contribute their quota to our present sum of knowledge—has at length begun to meet with due appreciation, and though many of these patient grammarians and students of unrecognized forms of speech have passed away, yet in almost every case their work has begun to acquire a notoriety and a value that neither they nor their publishers hoped for when the grammars or vocabularies or handbooks were first issued to an unheeding public.

To face page 446.
]

Those who are beginning or prosecuting their African linguistic researches owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Robert Needham Cust[57] for his painstaking bibliographical work, which tabulates every known source of information on the subject, and where some form of order is introduced into what, from very paucity of knowledge, has long been a hopeless maze of conflicting theories. Imperfect as our grasp of the subject is, we are able now at least to rise from its contemplation with certain definite ideas as to the grouping or classifying of African tongues. We know there is the great Bantu family in the southern half of the continent; the common origin and relationships of the Hamitic languages becomes apparent; the tongues appertaining to the Semitic group in the north and north-east are relegated to their place; and if more general classifications of the vast number of Negro and negroid forms of speech are found to be at present illusory, we can at least recognize several very distinct and natural families, lacking, it may be, any appreciable relationships with extraneous linguistic groups outside their own area, but possessing evident signs of a common structural plan and a common origin. Such are the Nuba tongues, the Fula group, the Hausa, Kanuri, Wolof, Kru, Mande, Bagirmi, Šiluk, and Diṅka language-clusters of Central and Western Africa. Distinct also, and offering only a slight indication of possible affinities, is the language spoken with but little dialectal variation by the well-marked race known as the Masai, whose ethnological features have been treated of in the preceding chapter.

In the south, south-west, and south-central districts of Africa, _enclaves_ of the Bushman and Hottentot tongues are found—the “Click” languages, as they are often called, and the subject of their mutual relations is still much disputed by authorities. But Theophilus Hahn[58] shows that there is decided resemblance in many words of common use, and in the first three numerals, and even Bleek is constrained to admit that the difference between the speech of Hottentot and Bushman scarcely exceeds that between English and Latin or English and Sanscrit, languages derived from a common Aryan stock, though widely separated by time and manner of development.

(_a_) Masai.

As far as is known, the neighbourhood of Kilima-njaro offers languages belonging to only two of the African families which I have mentioned—the Masai and the Bantu. As has been already stated, helot tribes of En-durobo are often found in the vicinity of Useri, Kimaṅgelia, and the north-eastern slopes of Kilima-njaro, but those few with whom I came into personal contact only spoke Masai, and could not be induced to utter any words or phrases of their own speech if they still possessed any special dialect peculiar to them. My materials for a superficial study of the Masai language were principally derived from individuals, both Masai proper and the so-called “Wa-kwavi,” or agricultural Masai, who visited the chief Mandara for trade during my residence in Moši; from the Wa-kwavi of Kikoro, near Taveita; from the few Masai whom I met near Useri, and from the roving Masai who visited Gonǰa, at the foot of the Pare hills, and Semboja's town, Mazindi, on the western flank of Usambara. I find my vocabularies agree pretty closely with those of Krapf and Erhardt, and the chief differences arise from what I believe to be the more exact orthography I have employed. Erhardt gives in general the form of the word more correctly than Krapf. Both their vocabularies, however, are deserving of the highest credit as having been compiled with wonderful accuracy under circumstances of much difficulty.

Krapf called his work “A Vocabulary of the Wa-kwavi Tongue,” and Erhardt entitled his, more justly, “A Vocabulary of the Masai Language.” Neither seemed to be aware that they were studying the same form of speech, although practically the only difference in their vocabularies comes from the employment of diverse modes of orthography. The language they illustrated seems to be a tolerably pure form of Masai which is spoken in the vicinity of Kilima-njaro.

I find some discrepancy between my linguistic notes and those of Mr. Last, who visited the southern Masai, or Wa-kwavi dwelling in Northern Nguru. I believe that gentleman has in hand a voluminous MS. vocabulary which will, doubtless, exhibit an interesting study of the language; but the sentences and words given by him in the Royal Geographical Society’s “Proceedings” for September, 1883, seem to show that the dialect is either a very corrupt one or has been imperfectly understood. Some words are evidently borrowed from neighbouring Bantu dialects, and the possessive pronouns and persons of the verb are sometimes not in accord with the English translation.

About Northern Masai we know but very little. It was a great disappointment to me that Mr. Joseph Thomson, who is the sole European who has yet visited those regions where the Masai impinge on other races to the north, should have had no opportunities of making linguistic notes. He would otherwise have been able to throw some light on the affinities and origin of the Masai language. He mentions the people of Sūk who dwell somewhere to the north of Lake Bariṅgo, and observes that their language resembles Masai to a certain extent, with, however, distinct differences. What these differences are he does not tell us, and therefore we cannot conjecture, in the absence of information, what affinities the Sūk language may display.

The researches of Dr. Emin-Bey (the governor of the Egyptian Equatorial provinces, whose fate is still uncertain) throw a certain amount of light on the northern members of the Masai family of languages. He gives us a vocabulary of the Latuka language (of which a few words were also gathered by Sir Samuel Baker), and places the position of the Latuka people in about 5° N. of the Equator, where they are nearly surrounded by the negro tribes (and languages) of Madi, Šuli, and others. Dr. Emin-Bey says the Latuka belongs to the Laṅgo cluster, farther south, calls the Laṅgo a Galla language, and remarks that the Latuka also evinces Galla affinities. In these suppositions I am disposed to disagree with him. The Latuka language has absolutely less relationship with the Galla than the few slight and doubtful signs exhibited by the Masai: and the probability is that, as the Latuka is said to be closely related to the Laṅgo, this latter language is also of the Masai group. Though the Latuka tongue differs considerably from Masai proper, perhaps to the extent of fifty per cent., in the small vocabulary collected by Dr. Emin-Bey, there is, however, no doubt whatever that it is a language of the same family, and I shall endeavour to show in the appended vocabulary that it agrees in many test-words and essential points with Masai. The only other known tongue which can at present be said to form an independent member of this family is the Bari, a language spoken over a fairly large district on both banks of the White Nile between 4° and 6° N. latitude. The fact of its evident relationship to Masai was pointed out by Lepsius in the preface to his Nubian grammar, but this interesting discovery has been completely ignored by other authorities on African languages, who have grouped the Masai with Nuba,[59] Fula, and many other utterly dissimilar tongues.

At the present time, from the information we possess, we are able to constitute a separate family of African languages called the Masai, of which the undermentioned forms of speech are probably members. (I append a query to those of doubtful existence or affinities.)

Bari.
Latuka.
Laṅgo?
Sūk?
Samburu?
Masai.

The only possible affinities that the Masai group displays for other independent families of African languages are, on the one hand, with the Diṅka and the Šiluk tongues, and on the other, with the Galla branch of the Hamitic family.

With the Diṅka and Šiluk (Šuli, Lur, Šiluk, &c.), the resemblances are confined to a certain undoubted correspondence in the vocabularies, numerals, and pronouns; while in grammar there is scarcely any affinity.

Masai proper, more than the northern members of the family, approaches the Galla somewhat in grammatical construction, and there are, besides, a few cases of correspondence in the numerals and pronouns. There is absolutely no distinction between the Masai proper and the agricultural Masai, or “Wa-kwavi,” as regards their language. The vocabularies given by Krapf of the Wa-kwavi, and Erhardt of the Masai, only differ slightly in orthography, and are independent versions of one and the same form of speech. As I have already remarked, the Masai tongue, wherever spoken by Masai people, offers, as far as we yet know, little dialectal variation, though it is used over a district stretching between 5° 30′ S. and the Equator. In this uniformity it resembles the Galla language, which exhibits but trifling differences in the dialects spoken on the confines of Abyssinia (12° N. latitude), and on the coast of the Indian Ocean, near Mombasa. Doubtless the fact is due to the roving habits of the race, for, as has been already mentioned, the Masai warriors range in their raids over nearly the entire district that bears their name, and thus are kept in constant communication with the outlying tribes of their race.

Before describing in a superficial manner the grammatical construction of the Masai tongue, I feel bound to remark that for beauty and simplicity of expression it stands almost unrivalled among the languages of Africa. Compared with such dreadfully complicated forms of speech as the Fulde (spoken by the Fulbe or “Fulahs” in Central and West Africa), where there are some nineteen[60] ways of forming the plural, and the verbs with their many tenses and moods are worse than in Greek, the Masai language offers the grammatical simplicity of English. It has, moreover, a very copious vocabulary, and its combinations of sounds are harmonious, simple, and easily pronounced by Europeans. Another pleasant feature about it is that every syllable is so clearly enunciated by the people who speak it that a stranger may much more easily distinguish each word and realize its meaning than is ordinarily possible with a barbarian tongue.

The leading features of the Masai language are these. It distinguishes three genders or classes of nouns, answering approximately to _masculine_, _feminine_, and _neuter_ (or _common_). These genders are indicated by the form of the demonstrative article, demonstrative pronoun, nominal, adjectival, and participial prefix, but only the last—the neuter, or common—is represented in the personal pronouns and in the persons of the verb.

There are two numbers, singular and plural. The plural is formed by an addition to or a change in the _termination_ of the noun in the singular, sometimes by a change of article,[61] and in certain parts of speech (pronouns, a few adjectives, &c.) by prefixing or affixing _Ku_ or _K_ to the root.[62]

There are no cases or declensions of the noun expressed by inflection or change in termination. The substantive in the genitive case follows the governing word, with a particle interposed between the nominative and genitive. This particle seems to be either masculine, feminine, or neuter, according to the gender of the noun in the nominative case.

The adjectives are either independent substantives assuming an adjectival position, or else they are participles from a verbal root, preceded by the masculine, feminine, and neuter (or general, or collective) prefixes.

The personal pronouns _precede_ the verb. The possessive pronouns _follow_ the noun. The demonstrative pronouns may either be placed before or after the substantive. The interrogative pronoun precedes the verb, so also does the relative particle, and the interrogative particle precedes the noun.

The stem or root of the verb remains unaltered, but the tenses and modifications of the sense (such as a passive, a reciprocal, a causative meaning, &c.) are formed by adding both prefixes and suffixes. Many of these are traceable to abbreviated forms of independent verbs.

The negative particle is always prefixed to the verb. It is generally expressed by the particle _me_ (_m-_ before a vowel); but in certain tenses negation is indicated by the use of a separate prefix formed from an auxiliary verb.

The prepositions in Masai, as their name indicates, precede the word they govern. The only postpositions are certain enclitic adverbs.

The accent in Masai falls occasionally (especially in derivatives) on the first syllable of the word (generally the root), most frequently on the penultimate, and rarely on the last.

Having briefly noted the leading characteristics of the language, I will now proceed to examine its important features in a somewhat more detailed manner.

As regards the phonology of Masai it may be remarked that the vowels have mostly their Italian value. There are no obscure or modified sounds, and in this the Masai language resembles most of the Bantu forms of speech, wherein, also, there are no vowels that are not clearly and distinctly sounded as in Italian. In Masai words may end in a consonant (unlike the opposite rule in Bantu), but two consonants _never_ come together, unless one of them be a _nasal_ or a _liquid_. The sounds represented in the language are these:—

Vowels.—a, e, i, o, ô, u. (U is sometimes pronounced as a
semi-diphthong, like “u” in the word “sure.”)

Diphthongs.—ai, ae, ao, au; ea, ei, eo, eu; ia, ie, io, iu; oa, oe,
oi, ou; ua, ue, ui, uo.

Consonants.—(No _aspirates_; neither h, h′, nor χ (kh) are
represented). _Gutturals._—k, g. _Palatals._—y, ǰ (sounding both as
French “j” and “dj”), d′ (“dy′” an intermediate sound between “d” and
“j”). Č (_ch_ in church) is not present in Masai. _Dentals._—d, t, s
(no z), š (sh), ž. _Liquids._—l, r. _Nasals._—n, ṅ (ng′), ny.
_Labials._—m, b, p, w, v. (F and v are absent in Southern Masai.)

It may be noted here that in Masai the hard and soft forms of the gutturals, dentals, and labials are easily interchangeable. It is difficult to know sometimes whether to write D or T, K or G, B or P. In the same way Š, Ž, and ǰ are hardly distinguishable from one another. The word _Žore_, “friend,” is pronounced sometimes _Šore_, _ǰore_, and even _Dyore_. _Guduk_, “mouth,” may be _Kutuk_, _Gutuk_, or _Kuduk_.

The article in Masai[63] seems to be of three forms, viz. _ôl_, _el_, and _en_. The first may be taken as meaning “strong, big, masculine,” and is probably related to _ole_, _olewa_, “strong, male, manly.” Or it may be a compound between this sexual adjective and the second article _el_, which latter seems to be common in gender and collective in number, serving as plural to _ôl_, and sometimes preceding nouns of a collective character that have no singular. _El_ most probably is a demonstrative pronoun of common gender, and the same as _ele_, he, she, it, this (plur. _kulo_, they, these).

Both _ôl_ and _el_ drop their liquid consonant before the letter “s” beginning a word; as in Arabic, a double sound of that consonant is heard, as—_ossesin_ (= _ol-sessin_, “the body”), _ossoit_ (= _ol-soit_, “the stone”), _es-soit_ (= _el-soit_), &c.

The last of the three articles, _en_, assumes the forms _e_, _es_, _eṅ_ (sometimes _eṅg_), and _em_, according as it precedes nouns commencing with an _n_ or _m_, an _s_, a vowel, or a labial; as—_E-modi_, “a pan,” or “pot;” _e-naṅga_, “cloth;” _es-siaṅgiki_, “a wife;” _eṅ-oloṅ_, or _eṅ-goloṅ_ “the sun;” _eṅ-guduk_, “the mouth;” _em-bere_, “the spear.”

The article _en_ is mainly feminine in its significance, but it also gives a diminutive, depreciatory, weakened, playful, or affectionate character to the word it precedes. Thus _eṅ-ker_ is “a female sheep” (_ôl-ker_, “a ram”), _eṅ-doinyo_, “a hill” (_ôl-doinyo_, “a mountain”), _em-barawui_, “the Wa-kwavi, or agricultural Masai,” a contemptuous name used in the feminine sense by the nomad Masai to imply cowardice; _eṅ-guǰita_, “tender grass” (_ôl-guǰita_, “strong, rough grass”), and so on.

The article _en_ (with its variants, _e_, _eṅ_, _eṅg_, _em_, &c.) seems to be more immediately derived from _ena_, the feminine demonstrative pronoun answering to _ele_ in the masculine, before described. It is possible that _ena_ may be a compound of _el_, the common article, directive, or demonstrative, and _na_ the feminine particle—i.e. _el-na_, _e-na_, _ena_, _en_. Just as I already hinted that _ôl_ may be compounded of _o_ (_ole_, “male”) and _el_.

This consideration leads us to the discussion of the masculine, feminine, and neuter (or common) particles which are often prefixed to nouns and adjectives.

_O_, _oi_, _li_, _le_, indicate masculinity or strength when prefixed to a root. These forms are evidently derived from _ole_ (plur. _olewa_), “male,” a term which is possibly allied to the verbal stem _gol_, “to be strong,” and _iôlo_, _yôlo_, “to know,” “to be able,” and even _oloṅ_, _goloṅ_, “sun.” Placed before a root word, _ole_ has by contraction or abbreviation become _o_, _oi_ (_ole_, _o-e_, _o-i_), _le_, &c. This prefix is used at present to give a masculine character to the word it precedes: as _oigob_ (_oi-kob_; _kob_, “land”), “men of the land;”[64] _o-irok_, “black,” masc.; _o-ibor_, “white,” masc. (_ol-doinyo oibor_, “the white mountain”); _o-irosi_, “heavy,” masc.; _li-kai_, “another,” masc.; _l-ino_, “thy,” masc.; and so on.

The traces of the common or neuter prefix, _e_, _ei_, or _el_ (_ele_), are not so frequent as either the masculine or feminine particles; still there are several words in which it is indisputably present, as _ei-bardani_, “bride or bridegroom;” _ei-gulo_, “breast-bone;” _ei-baṅgi_, “a moderate-sized hill;” _e-ǰon_, “fresh, green;” _e-irok_, “black;” _e-ado_, “long;” _e-muaja_, “how much?” all adjectives in the common gender: and abstract nouns, as _eweji_, “place;” _eiso_ (Latuka, _eido_), “heaven;” _e-duwa_, “bitterness;” _e-gogo_, “old age,” &c.

The feminine prefix is _na_, and appears to be connected with the root, _nana_, “weak, soft, tender,” even in a depreciatory sense, “worthless, rotten.” It is united to all stems to which a special feminine sense is to be given. Thus, _na-ido_ “sister,” a term of address to women _oido_, “brother,” masc.; _eido_, “the brotherhood,” common; _na-daṅgile_, “dear one, darling”—a term applied to women; _na-do_, “long,” fem. (_enaṅga nado_, “the long cloth”); _na-gai_, “good, well,” adv. from _-gai_, “good” (_En-gai_, fem., “God, rain,” lit. “the good”); _na-ǰon_, “green,” fem., &c.

Examples of the above prefixes applied to the same root:—

_-ǰon_, “fresh, green.”
Masculine. Common. Feminine.
_Ôl-doinyo oǰon_, _El-ata éǰon_, _Em-benek naǰon_,
“the green mountain.” “fresh oil.” “the green leaf.”

There would appear at times traces as of all these particles—_o_, _na_, and _e_—forming or having formed themselves into pronouns for the classes they represent, especially in juxtaposition with the verb. At the present moment this only appears in participial adjectives formed from verbs, and not in the tenses, where only the common prefix, _e_, is represented. Whether anciently all three forms were used as pronouns—he, she, and it—or whether such a development is approaching, I cannot say. At present, he, she, it, they, are represented by a common verbal pronoun or particle—_e_ or _ei_. Thus we say—

Ôl-duṅani e-mud (-mud = the root of the verb).
En-daṅgile „
El-eduwa „
El-dana „

The man he disappears.
The woman she „
The bitterness it „
The people they disappear.

Also _ele_, the demonstrative pronoun, is generally accepted as a personal pronoun, meaning “he,” “she,” and “it.” “They” is ordinarily expressed by the plural form of this word, viz. _kulo_. Of course, for strictly demonstrative purposes, this pronoun has a feminine form, which will be treated of afterwards.

To summarize what I have been saying, it would seem as if originally there had been in Masai three genders or classes of nouns—_masculine_ or _strong_, _common_ or _general_, _feminine_ or _diminutive_—and that these three classes were provided with certain particles which were prefixed to word-stems to indicate the class or gender of the governing noun. This somewhat reminds one of the concord in Bantu languages, but the resemblance is not effectually carried out; if it were, you would be able to say in Masai—

_Ôl_-duṅani _o_-gol _o_-šam; ki-šam-_ole_;
The man strong he loves; we love him;
= The strong man loves; we love him;

or,

_En_-daṅgile _na_-lulunga _na_-kweni; ki-niṅ-na.
The woman healthy she laughs; we hear her.
= The healthy woman laughs; we hear her.

As it is you say—

Ôl-duṅani o-gol _e_-šam; ki-šam-_ele_, and En-daṅgile na-lulunga
_e_-kweni; ki-niṅ-_ele_.

In the Bantu tongues, where there is a large (in all sixteen) number of noun-classes, the governing prefix of the subject follows throughout. Thus in Swahili they say—

_Wa_-tu _wa_-zuri _wa_-ja; na-_wa_-ona;
The men handsome they come; I them see;
= The handsome men are coming; I see them;

or—

_Ki_-tu _ki_-dogo _ki_-mo; Tu-_ki_-pate.
The thing little it is within; That we it may get.
= The little thing is inside; let us get it.

In the sex-denoting Hamitic, Semitic, and Aryan tongues this concord, imperfectly as it is now represented, once existed, though the sex-denoting particles were generally added to the termination of the word instead of preceding it.

Thus in Galla (Hamitic) they say—

Ni_ti_ hie_ti_ obole_ti_-_ši_ ilal_ti_ _iši_ wam_te_.
Woman poor sister her saw (and) her called.
= The poor woman saw her sister and called her.

In this case the syllable _ti_, which has a feminine signification, and _iši_, its variant, run through all the words dependent on the governing noun.

In Hottentot[65] almost the same thing presents itself (I quote from Bleek’s Grammar):—

//Nã-tara-_ti_, sida !hau-s-di-_ti_, /nĩ !ā-s-!na //an-hã-_ti_,
hõ-_ti_-da-ra, gare-da-ra goma-n ã-_te_.
Those women our tribe’s they, another village in dwelling find them we
do, praise we do cattle of them.

= The women of our tribe who live in that village, we find them, we
praise their cattle.

In Arabic (Semitic) much the same concord is present as in Galla. Thus, to use the same phrase we might say:—

الامراة مسكينة شافت اختها و نادتها

Al-imr_at_ maskin_at_ šāfat uχ_t-ha_ wa nad_at_-_ha_.
The poor woman saw her sister and called her.

In many of the Aryan tongues the concord is exhibited by more or less uniform terminations of words according to gender, which are usually constant in their operation.[66] We most of us can call to mind the masculine, feminine, and neuter endings of familiar Aryan languages, which modify the same root in a generic sense, and which are repeated in the dependent adjectives and pronouns. It is as much a concord as what strikes us so particularly in Bantu, only it takes the form of a suffix instead of a prefix.

The personal pronouns in Masai are:—

Sing. Plur.
1. _nanu._ _iok._
2. _ie_, or _iye._ _endai._
3. _ele_ (he, she, it). _Vide_ demons. pron. _kulo._

The 2nd person singular _ie_ seems to be a somewhat mutilated form. I fancy there are slight indications in the language of its once having had a masculine and feminine form, as in the Semitic tongues; possibly _oiye_, _loiye_ (_loiye_ is still used as a form of saluting males) for the masculine, and _naiye_ for the feminine. The 2nd person plural seems to be of a feminine character, and to be composed of _enda_, demons. pron. fem., “that,” and _ie_ or _iye_, “thou”—so that it would originally assume the meaning of “you, there.” In Galla, all nouns, whether masculine or feminine, use the feminine pronoun, and are considered to be in the feminine gender when used in a collective sense.

_Ele_ and _kulo_, the 3rd pers. sing. and plur. are simply demonstrative pronouns, and when not standing with the verb would be common or masculine in gender. The female equivalents are _ena_ and _kuna_. The objective forms of the personal pronouns are apparently the same as those in the nominative case. In construction they are placed after the verb or predicate.

“I give you” is _Nanu aišo ie_.
I give you.
“Thou givest me” is _Iye īšo nanu_.
Thou givest me.

At the same time, it must be remarked that in speaking Masai the pronoun in the objective case is often understood rather than given. Thus “I give” will often stand for “I give him, or you, or them,” according to the context.

Reflective pronouns are often simply the ordinary personal forms, but in cases of peculiar emphasis the words _os-sesin_ (body), _ôl-dau_ (heart), are used in conjunction with possessive pronouns. Thus “I, myself,” is _nanu, os-sesin-lai_, lit. “I, my body;” or “I love myself,” _Nanu ašam ôl-dau-lai_, lit. “I love my heart.”

For the 3rd person, sing. and plur., a form _ninye_, or _nenye_, is sometimes used. This may possibly be an old feminine form of the 3rd person possessive article, _enye_, and may refer to a feminine noun understood. A reciprocal form of the pronouns is sometimes made by prefixing _pa_, a preposition meaning “for, by, with,” as _paiok_, _paye_, &c. This has often the force of “_each other_.”

Before the verb-root certain particles are used which seem originally to have been abbreviated forms of the personal pronouns.

For the 1st person sing. _a-_.
„ 2nd „ „ _i-_.
„ 3rd „ „ _e-_. (_Vide supra._)
„ 1st „ plur. _ki-_.
„ 2nd „ „ _ki-_.
„ 3rd „ „ _e-_.

Examples:—

-_kweni_, to laugh.
A-kweni, I laugh.
I-kweni, Thou laughest.
E-kweni, He, she, it laughs.
Ki-kweni, We laugh.
Ki-kweni, You laugh.
E-kweni, They laugh.

It is possible that the form of the 1st pronominal prefix in the verb was _na_,[67] an abbreviation of _nanu_. There are one or two cases in which it still seems to linger, as in _naji_, “I am called.” The form of the 1st and 2nd persons plural, it will be noticed, are the same. As may be noticed in several African languages, the 2nd person plural has not a very well fixed existence, and seems to borrow forms from the other persons.

The possessive pronouns are used as suffixes, and are:—

Sing. Plur. My, -_lai_, masc.; _ai_, fem. and -_lainai_, masc.; -_ainai_, fem. common. and common. Thy, -_lino_, masc.; -_ino_ or -_linono_, masc.; -_nono_, fem. and -_nono_, fem. and common. common. His, her, its, -_lenye_, masc.; -_enye_, fem. and common (sing. and plur.). Our, -_laṅ_, masc.; -_aṅ_, fem. and common (sing. and plur.). Your (doubtful; possibly -_inye_ or -_enye_, the same as his, &c.). Their, -_lēnyěna_, masc.; -_ēnyěna_, fem. (sing. and plur.).

Examples of above:—

_Arabe-lai_, my friend (masc.).
_Anaši-ai_, my sister (fem.).
_Eiboni-lino_, thy chief (masc.).
_Naiu-ino_, thy mother (fem.).
_Aji-enye_, his house (fem.).
_Tokitin-ainai_, my things (fem.).
&c.

The relative pronouns in Masai seem to present but one form, and that is a slight one. It consists of _n-_ prefixed to the pronominal particle preceding the verb, as:—

_Ôl-duṅani nešam_ (_n-e-šam_).
The man who loves.
_En-doki našam nanu._
The thing which love I.
= The thing which I love.

The interrogatives are:—

_Aṅai?_ “who? which?” _Nyo?_ and _Ainyo?_ “what?” _K_-, _Ka?_[68] is
often prefixed to nouns, and means “what sort of?” “what-?”
_Ka-l-kiteṅ?_ “what sort of a bullock?” &c.

All these interrogatives need the relative _n_- before the verb, as _Aṅai neno?_ “Who is coming?” _Ken-doki neti?_ “What thing is here?”

The demonstratives are:—

Sing. Plur.
Masc. Fem. Masc. Fem.
_Ele_ or _elo_. _Ena_, “this.” _Kulo_ or _Kule_. _Kuna_, “these.”
_Elde._ _Enda_, “that.” _Kulde._ _Kunda_, “those.”

Sometimes _n_ or _ni_ (a form of the adv. _eni_, “here,”) is prefixed to all the forms, and accentuates their position—_nelo_ means “this, here.” When prefixed to the plural, _ku_ is left out, as _nieldo_, “those, these.” All these demonstratives may take their place as personal pronouns.

Adjectival pronouns are:—

_Poki_ or _boki_, “all, every.”
(_Pokirare_, all two = both.)
-_kai_, other.

_Likai_, masc. sing. }
_Eṅkai_, } fem. } the other.
_Nakai_, } sing. and plur. } the others.
_Kulikai_, common. }

The adjectives in Masai are either independent nouns used in an adjectival sense (like in many of our compound substantives, such as, “dog-collar,” “mealworm,” &c.) and unassociated with gender or class; or else verb-roots, which are preceded by the class-prefix of the noun they qualify, and which are adjectives in a participial sense.

Of the first description there are words like _torono_, _torok_, originally a substantive meaning “destruction, anything broken, spoilt,” but now only used as an adjective with the meaning of “bad, very bad,” according to termination. _Torok_ is at once the plural and the intensified form. Thus:—

_Ôl duṅani torono_ is “the bad man.”
_Ôl duṅani torok_ is “the very bad man.”
_El duṅanak torok_ is “the bad men.”

Adjectives of this description generally agree with their governing substantive in _number_ (unless they are only found in a collective form possessing no plural), but exhibit no prefixes indicative of gender; but those of the second class, which comprise the bulk of the adjectives, and which may possibly be present-participles, always prefix to their stem the distinctive particle showing the class of the noun they qualify. Thus, _iroši_, a verb-root meaning “to be heavy,” becomes _oiroši_, masc., _nairoši_, fem., _eiroši_, common, according as it serves as adjective to—

_Ôl-alem_ (masc.), “the knife.”
_En-dolu_ (fem.), “the hatchet.”
_El-ekari_ (common), “the bread.”

These adjectives do _not_ change their termination in the plural. Masculine nouns, which, as I have already explained, go into the common, neutral gender when they become plural, change their adjectival prefix also. Thus you say:—

_Ôl-doinyo oibor_ (the white mountain), sing.;
but
_El-doinyon eibor_ (the white mountains), plur.

The adjectives, however, remain the same in both numbers for feminine and common nouns.

In Masai, the adjectives always follow the nouns.

In treating of the prefixes, pronouns, and adjectives, I have said so much about the substantive indirectly that there remains but little to remark respecting this important part of speech.

In Masai, it seems to me that the substantive originates from a verbal-root rather than that it gives birth to the verb, as seems to be the case in the commencement of Aryan speech, I shall treat of this further when discussing the verb.

I have already treated of the three genders, or classes of nouns, in Masai; I will now briefly explain how the plural is formed. This, in the majority of substantives, is done by adding _k_ or _ki_, _n_ or _ni_[69] to the root, with, unless it ends in a vowel or a liquid, a vowel in between the root and the plural suffix. As a matter of fact, most substantives end in a vowel.[70]

One or two seemingly irregular plurals are formed by adding _a_ to the root, or _tin_,[71] as:—

_Kera_, plur. of _Ker_, “a sheep.”
_Eweǰitin_, „ _Eweǰi_, “a place.”
_Tokitin_, „ _Toki_, “a thing.”

Many collective nouns, or nouns of neuter gender, form no plural, or occasionally (and this is also noticeable in certain adjectives) form a plural by _prefixing ku_. This prefix _ku_ will have been already noticed in the demonstrative pronouns where it forms the plural (_ku-na_, _ku-lo_, _ku-lde_, &c.). It is evidently an old plural prefix of neuter gender. There are no “cases” distinguishable in the Masai noun, but when it is used in a “vocative” sense the definite article is dropped and the class prefix substituted. Thus, in addressing children you say “_Na-kera!_” “Oh, children!” instead of _Eṅ-kera_, “the children,” “_Ô-duṅani_!” “Oh, man!” “_Eiboni!_” “Oh, chief!”

It is difficult to treat of the Masai verb without entering somewhat into the question of the construction of the Masai language.

I believe that it is possible to trace most of the fundamental ideas which form the base of this speech to monosyllabic roots. Many of these are still existing in their primitive form, side by side with their polysyllabic variants, and it is not difficult to guess at the agglutinative processes which have built up the structure of the language.

The particles which are used to form the different concepts that are built up from a single root may be placed before or after the stem. Sometimes they consist of independent verbal roots, prefixed or affixed, or they may be simple reduplications of the primitive idea with a view of intensifying it, or adverbial or prepositional prefixes, or affixed particles used in a passive sense, and so on. An example will better illustrate my meaning.

From the root, _ud_, “digging, boring, hollowing,” is derived—

eṅg-_ud_-uk (eṅg. = the art. fem. (“the mouth”) _ud_ = the root. uk = another stem, meaning “shining, glittering;” therefore eṅg-_ud_-uk means the glittering cavity, viz. “the mouth.”) eṅg-_ud_-uk-aǰi (aǰi = house. _Engudukaǰi_, lit. “the mouth of the (the “door”) house.”) e-_ud_-oto = “hole.” eṅg-_ud_-a = “the digger,” viz. “the field rat.” en-d-_ud_-e = “the bowels;” lit. “a cavity.” en-d-_ud_-ua = “a basket;” lit. the plaited or “dug into.” en-d-_ud_-unio = “the heel,” in the sense of the heel’s continually “digging” into the ground. -_ud_-i, = to be dug, hollowed. passive _ud_-i-ki = a kind of double passive; lit. “to be furrowed (viz. wrinkled) repeatedly.” = to purpose, intend, after reflection. -_ud_-i-kini = to be intended or destined for. i-_ud_ = to rub, to wipe. im-_ud_ = “im” = to pass; lit. to pass down, to set, as the sun. _Eṅ-goloṅ eimud_ = “the sun sets.” is-_ud_-o = to hide, conceal. is-_ud_-orie = to hide carefully, viz. hide different portions in different places. _Or_ = to divide. The prefixed s is from the adv. _si_ = again, and implies “repeated digging.” ib-_ud_[72] = to fill up. ib-_ud_-i = to be filled. &c.

Many of the leading verbal-roots will be found in the Vocabulary.

I will now give a few illustrations of the Masai verb and of its method of conjugation.

EXAMPLE I.
-_en_, to bind together.
ACTIVE VOICE.
_Present Tense._
Affirmative. │ Negative.
Nanu[73] a_en_, I bind. │Ma_en_, I bind not.
Iye i_en_, Thou bindest. │Mi_en_, Thou bindest not.
Ele e_ën_ (or He, she, it │M_ēn_, He binds not.
_ēn_), binds. │
Iok ki_en_, We bind. │Meki_en_, We bind not.
Endai ki_en_, You bind. │Meki_en_, You bind not.
Kuloe_ën_ (or They bind. │M_ēn_, They bind not.
_ēn_), │
│
_Past Tense._
Affirmative. │ Negative.
At_ena_, I bound. │Itu_aen_, I bound not.
It_ena_, Thou boundedst. │Itu_ien_, Thou boundedst
│ not.
Et_ena_, He bound. │Etu_ēn_, He bound not.
Kit_ena_, We bound. │Itu_kien_, We bound not.
Kit_ena_, You bound. │Itu_kien_, You bound not.
Et_ena_, They bound. │Etu_ēn_, They bound not.
│
_Future Tense._
(The particles used in forming this tense are evidently relics of the
roots _-lo_, _-po_, signifying “to go.” _Vide_ Vocabulary, verbs.}
Al_aēn_, I shall find. │Mal_aen_, I shall not bind.
(lit. _ālo_, I │ Thou shalt not
go. _aen_, to │Mil_aen_, bind.
bind.) │
„ │Mel_aen_, He shall not
│ bind.
Il_aēn_, thou shalt bind. │Mekil_aen_, We shall not
│ bind.
El_aēn_, He shall bind. │Mekil_aen_, (or You shall not
│ Mekipu_aen_), bind.
Kipu_aen_, We shall bind. │ „ „
(Kipu is an irregular plural of │ „ „
_alo_, to go, from another root.)│
„ │Mepu_aen_, They shall not
│ bind.
│(The vowels that come together in
│ this tense are often contracted
│ with one sound. Thus “Kipu_aen_”
Kipu_aen_, You shall bind. │ will be generally heard
│ “Kip_wen_.” I spell them thus to
│ show the proper mode of
│ conjugating the tense.)
Epu_aen_, They shall bind. │ „
│
IMPERATIVE MOOD.
Mat_en_, let me bind. │Mi_en_, bind not.
T_ena_, bind thou. │ „ „
Mat_en_, let us bind. │Mi_enieni_, bind ye not.
End_ena_, bind ye. │ „ „
│
SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.
│
_Present Tense._
P_ēn_, If, when, whilst │Pema_en_ or If I bind not
I bind. │ pem_ēn_,
Pe_ien_, If thou bindest. │Pemi_en_, If thou bind not.
&c. │ &c.

This tense is made by prefixing the preposition _pe_, if, when, whilst, &c., to the present indicative.

Another combination is with the relative particle _n_, _ne_, and expresses, “that I may,” &c. It always follows an interrogative pronoun or a preceding verb. This tense is often expressed by an infinitive in English, as:—

_Ayau_ n_aen_, I wish to bind; lit. I wish that I may bind.

After a relative or interrogative pronoun it is prefixed to the verb in the same manner, as:—

_Aṅai nēn_? Who is binding? lit. Who that is binding?

Its manner of uniting with the personal prefixes of the verb is the same as that of _pe_, _me_, and other particles already given, viz.:—

N_aen_, │_that_ I may, thou mayest, he may, &c., bind.
N_ein_, │ „
N_ēn_, │ „
Ne_kien_,│ „
Ne_kien_,│ „
N_ēn_, │ „

Both these particles, _pe_ and _ne_ or _ni_, together with others, such as _teni_, “if,” perchance, _K_, _Ka_, “What?” (Ka_ien_? “What art thou binding?”) may be prefixed to all the tenses of the indicative mood in the active and passive voices, thus giving them a subjunctive or potential sense.

Thus you may say:—

Pe_tena_, If he bound.
Ne_itukien_, That we bound not.
&c.
│
PASSIVE VOICE.
│
_-eni_, to be bound.
│
INDICATIVE MOOD.
│
_Present Tense._
│
Affirmative. │ Negative,
A_eni_, I am bound. │Ma_eni_, I am not bound.
I_eni_, Thou art bound. │Mi_eni_, Thou art not
│ bound.
&c. │ &c.
Adding for this tense _-i_ to the present indicative, active voice.
│
_Past Tense._
│
Affirmative. │ Negative.
_Atēna_ki, I was bound. │_Ituäten_aki, I was not bound.
_Itēna_ki, Thou wast bound. │_Ituiten_aki, Thou was not
│ bound.
And so on. │ &c.
Adding _-ki_ to termination of past tense, indicative; active voice.
│
_Future Tense._
_Alaeni_, I shall be bound.
&c.
│
IMPERATIVE MOOD.
_Tena_ki, be thou bound.
_Endena_ki, be ye bound.

Besides the above-mentioned tenses, others can be formed by the aid of auxiliary verbs, as:—

_Aidipa atena_, I had bound, I have already bound; lit. I have finished, I have bound. _Ituaidip atena_, I had _not_ bound, &c. _Ayau naen_, I would bind; lit. I would, will, desire that I bind.

Many verbs, especially derivatives, and those commencing with _i_, make their past tense differently from the mode already described, viz. by simply affixing _a_ to the root. Thus:—

_Aidip_, I finish.
_Aidipa_, I finished.
_Aiken_, I count.
_Aikena_, I counted.

The mode of forming the past tense in other verbs is, as in the first example, given by prefixing _-ta_, _-te_, _-ti_, _-to_, or _-tu_, to the root, and adding _a_ to stems ending in a consonant, as:—

_A_-t-_ena_ │I bound. (properly _a_-te-_ena_),│ ────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────── _A_-ta-_šama_, │I loved (from _šam_, to love). _A_-ti-_riša_, │I equalled (from _riš_, to equal). _A_-to-_roro_, │I trod (from _roro_, to tread). _A_-tu-_šuma_, │I put down (from _šum_, to put down).

It may be remarked that on the tonic vowel of the root, the vowel of the prefix _-t-_ generally depends.

The elements of construction in the verb may be briefly summarized.

The present affirmative is simply the root with the personal prefixes added. The past affirmative is formed by prefixing _-ta_, _-te_, _-ti_, _-to_, or _-tu_, to the root, and affixing _a_, or by doing the latter only in the case of most derivative verbs commencing with _i_.

It is possible that the _-ta_, &c., prefixed to the verb to form a past tense is related to the verb-root _-ta_, “to be, become, have.” The origin of the future tense has already been surmised. It is formed by prefixing _-l_ (_al_, _il_, _el_) to the three persons in the singular of the present tense, and _-po_ (_kipu_, _epu_) to the three persons in the plural.

The imperative, it will have been remarked, resembles greatly the past tense in the affirmative. In those verbs which form their preterite without prefixing _-t-_, the imperative also lacks this particle, and resembles the past tense exactly in the 2nd pers. sing. In the 2nd pers. plural, the _e_, _en_, _em_, _end_, placed before the verb, as in End_ašam_, “love ye;” End_en_, “bind ye,” stands for _Endai_, “you.”

The negative is generally formed by prefixing _m_ or _me-_ to the affirmative. This particle is derived from the adverb _emme_, “no, not.” The exception to this rule lies in the negative past tense of indicative where _itu_, _etu_ takes the place of _m_. I cannot obtain any clue to the origin of this prefix, unless it is related to _-toa_, “died, ceased” (_Atoa_, “I died.”)

The passive is usually formed by adding _i_ in the present, and _ki_ in the past tenses to the form of the active voice. In some verbs, _-i_ is replaced by _-ki_ or _-ni_, and either of these two may be doubled to intensify or modify the sense.

The meanings of verbal-roots may be altered by various affixes and prefixes. Among the former are—

_-šo_, causative (from _-išo_, to give).
_-ate_, reciprocative.
_-ie_, transitive.
_-si_, intensitive (from _-si_, again).
_-ge_, restrictive (from _-ge_, only, but).
_-ka_, applicative.

The verb “to be, to have (viz. be with), to become, to exist,” is expressed by three forms:—

_-ra_, _-ta_, and _-ti_.

_-ra_ applies more to actual existence, and is only used in the present tense, _-ta_ is used in present and past, and with compounds. It is often translated by “to have.” _-ti_ applies to locality generally, and is possibly no thing but the preposition _ti_, “in, on” (_Ati_, “I am here,” _Iti_, “thou art here, or there,” &c.). There are some few defective verbs, and one or two such as “to go,” “to come,” which are irregular, and made up of several different roots, as happens often in other tongues.

As previously explained, great variety of meaning may be obtained from the original monosyllabic roots, which express simple concepts, by the agglutinative process which tacks on before and behind other particles which enlarge, diminish, or intensify the primitive sense of the verb.

Adverbs in Masai are generally affixed, and prepositions prefixed to the verb-root. Many independent nouns or verbs have the form of adverbs and prepositions. The conjunctions are _au_, “or, either;” _o_ and _na_, “and, with,” according to gender.

Having now passed the main features of this language in review, we may be better able to fix its position and relationships among other African linguistic groups.

In the recognition of sexual gender it resembles the Semitic, Hamitic, and Hottentot tongues; but, as I have tried to show, this generic distinction is somewhat hazy and seems to have originated rather in differentiating the strong, big things from the small and weak. The three classes in Masai, viz. strong or masculine, neuter or common, feminine or weak, seem to occupy a somewhat intermediate position between the many arbitrary classes in the Fula and Bantu languages, and the two genders of nouns—male and female—in the Semitic and Hamitic families. The “feminine” consonant in Masai is _n_. In the Hottentot,[74] Hamitic, and Semitic languages it is generally _t_ (ϑ (_th_), _š_, _h_).

In the question of construction the primal roots of the Masai language seem to have been monosyllabic—in this differing from the Bantu and Hamitic (wherein they were probably dissyllabic) and the Semitic (in which they were trisyllabic and triliteral). The manner of forming the plural by adding an affix to the root resembles the plan adopted in certain Hamitic or Ethiopic tongues, particularly in Galla, where the few plurals that exist are made by adding _-n_, _-ni_, _-da_ to the singular form of the noun. The secondary and rarer mode of giving a plural signification to a root (chiefly in pronouns and adjectives, and in Bari in certain nouns) by changing the prefix to _ku_ (Bari, _ko_), reminds one of the prefix-governed families of African tongues.

The mode of forming derivative verbs by affixing various suffixes to the stem, thus imparting a reciprocal, causative, or intensitive meaning to the simple root, recalls the same method in the Galla and Bantu languages.

At the same time, although the Masai group offers certain points of agreement in grammatical features with the Hamitic and Bantu divisions, there is no positive approximation to either. Certain of the numerals bear a slight resemblance to those of the Galla, and there are also a few words alike in the vocabularies of both these groups, but the similarity is possibly accidental, or some of the words may have been borrowed, one from the other. Masai certainly resembles Galla in its recognition of sexual gender, but differs from it by the possession of a third or neuter class of nouns (the Galla, all Hamitic or Semitic tongues beside, only recognizes two genders, masc. and fem.). Judging by certain indisputable resemblances between the vocabularies of Masai and Bari and the Diṅka-Šiluk tongues, there is a great probability that the origin of the Masai family of languages is to be traced to the basin of the White Nile. Its affinities with the Galla branch of the Hamitic group raise the same interesting problems as the similarity which exists in certain grammatical features between the Hausa language of the Niger basin and the Berber tongues. On these points depend the solution of many difficult questions respecting the origin of the Hamitic and Semitic languages, and possibly races.

I append the following vocabulary of Masai for purposes of reference rather than with any idea of giving a glossary of the language. This would be out of place in a work of this sort, and therefore the following list of words is only given for the convenience of the student of African philology who may happen to take up this book.

I have added to the Masai vocabulary words from other African languages, either belonging to the same group or forming part of separate linguistic families which might seem to be remotely connected with the Masai.

The mode of spelling adopted in these and other vocabularies which follow, and throughout the volume where African names are introduced which have not a generally accepted orthography, is practically the same as that proposed in Lepsius’ “Standard Alphabet.” The following letters are used:—

Vowels:—

_a_, _ā_, _e_, _ē_, _i_, _ī_, _o_, _ō_, _ô_, _ö_, _u_, _ū_, _ü_.

Consonants:—

_k_, _g_, υ, χ, _h′_, _h_, _y_, _ǰ_, _č_, _d′_, _d_, ϑ, δ, _t_, _s_,
_š_, z, ˇ, l, r, n, ṅ, ń (ny), m, b, p, f, v, w.

In their pronunciation it may be said roughly that the vowels are sounded as in Italian and the consonants as in English, but for the benefit of those who have not studied Lepsius’ system I give a further explanation. Among the vowels

_a_ is sounded as in “master.”
_ā_ „ „ “rather.”
_e_ „ „ “met.”
_ē_ „ „ “grey.”
_i_ „ „ “bit.”
_ī_ „ „ “ravine.”
_o_ „ „ “not.”
_ō_ „ „ “bone.”
_ô_ „ „ “store,” or _a_ in “all.”
_ö_ like the German _ö_ in “Böse,” or French _œu_ in “cœur.”
_u_ „ „ “put.”
_ū_ „ „ “rule” (oo).
_ü_ like the French _u_ or German _ü_.

The consonants are sounded thus:—

_k_ as in “kitten.” _g_ as in “gate.” γ (the Greek gamma) like the Arabic غ (γain), a sound resembling the Northumberland “burr” or the French “_r grasséyé._” χ (the Greek chi), like _ch_ in German or خ in Arabic. _h′_, like the Arabic ح, a strongly aspirated _h_. _h_ as in “house.” _y_ as in “year.” _ǰ_ as in “jar” (the English “j”). _č_ as _ch_ in English or _c_ before _e_ and _i_ in Italian. Ča = cha. _d′_ a sound like “dy,” intermediate between _ǰ_ and _d_. _d_ as in “day.” ϑ as _th_ in “think.” δ as _th_ in “that.” _t_ as in “tale.” _s_ as in “sail.” _š_, English _sh_, as in “shawl.” _z_ as in “zinc.” _ž_ as in “azure” = the French “j.” _l_ as in “lace.” _r_ as in “Rome.” _n_ as in “need.” _ṅ_ as in “singing”—a ringing nasal sound like _ng_, but carrying on no sound of the _g_. _ń_, sometimes used at the end of words for _ny_ = the Spanish _ñ_. _m_ as in “maid” and “umpire.” _b_ as in “boat.” _p_ as in “perch.” _f_ as in “fail.” _v_ as in “veil.” _w_ as in “wait” and “nawab” (a consonantal _u_).

Where the accent is not marked, it generally falls on the penultimate.

(_b_) The Bantu languages of Kilima-njaro.

At the risk of wearying a majority of my readers, I will preface my vocabularies of the Bantu languages of the Kilima-njaro district by a slight sketch of the main features of this most remarkable family of tongues. The word “Bantu” has been so often used in this book that there are some who may be unaware of its meaning, and annoyed at its constant repetition and apparently meaningless character. To these, and not to the advanced in African studies, I tender this little general dissertation.

Map No. 5.—Map of Africa, showing range of Bantu Languages.
]