George Starostin

(RSUH / RANEPA / SFI)

The Nilo-Saharan hypothesis tested through lexicostatistics:

current state of affairs.
Draft 1.1 (January 2016)

This somewhat preliminary report follows the same lines as my previous report on East Sudanic
(2015). It summarizes all of my lexicostatistical work (mixed with elements of etymological analysis) on
the various potential members of the «Nilo-Saharan» phylum, whose goals are to clarify their internal
relationships and assess whether a «Nilo-Saharan», in any form, is detectable on the level of comparison
between the most stable segments of the basic lexicon (approximately the same way that one could detect
Indo-European by comparing the basic lexicon of even the most radically divergent present day Indo-
European languages, or the same way that even such controversial taxa like «Indo-Uralic» and «Altaic»
also receive some lexicostatistical support).
Like Greenberg, I follow a «step-by-step» methodology in trying to progressively assemble larger
taxonomic blocks from smaller ones. The crucial difference, which becomes more and more important as
one goes deeper in time, is that the methodology tries to reconstruct the optimal equivalent for the required
Swadesh meaning on each taxonomic level and then proceed to compare it further, instead of allowing to
compare any form from any modern language with a wide range of meanings semantically connected to
the Swadesh meaning. This is a serious safeguard against «garbage parallels», caused by sheer accidence
or by linguistic contacts between parts of the family (e. g. West Nilotic languages of the East Sudanic
family with Moru-Maɗi languages of the Central Sudanic family).
The first part of this report establishes the lexicostatistical validity of the large «Central Sudanic»
block, which seems to be only very slightly younger than East Sudanic. At the next stage, two more
families are identified: Saharan and Koman-Gumuz. Stage 3 is a comparison between all four of these
families; and finally, Stage 4 assesses the chances of all the remaining small taxa (Berta, Kunama, Fur-
Amdang, Maba, Kuliak, Songhay, Krongo-Kadugli, Shabo) to be affiliated with any of the larger groups.
Final conclusions are listed in the last section of the document.

Contents
Part 1. Common Central Sudanic 4
Part 2. Common Saharan 9
Part 3. Koman-Gumuz 11
Part 4. Parallels between the 4 main blocks of «Nilo-Saharan» 13
Part 5. Parallels between East Sudanic and potentially Nilo-Saharan «isolates» 16
Part 6. Parallels between Central Sudanic and potentially Nilo-Saharan «isolates» 20
Part 7. Parallels between Saharan and potentially Nilo-Saharan «isolates» 23
Part 8. Parallels between Koman-Gumuz and potentially Nilo-Saharan «isolates» 25
Final conclusions of preliminary lexicostatistical analysis 27

1
 Fig. 1. General scheme of lexicostatistical relations between all potential constituents of «Nilo-Saharan».

12000BC 11000BC 10000BC 9000BC 8000BC 7000BC 6000BC 5000BC 4000BC 3000BC 2000BC 1000BC
Nubian
Nara
Tama
Nyimang
SW Surmic
SE Surmic
Majang
Temein
Jebel
Daju
West Nilotic
East Nilotic
South Nilotic
Fur
Berta
Moru-Maɗi
Lendu-Ngiti
Mangbetu-Asoa
Kresh
Aja
Birri
Mangbutu-Efe
Sara-Bongo-Bagirmi
Krongo-Kadugli
Maba
Kunama
Kanuri
Tubu
East Saharan
Koman
Gule (Anej)
Gumuz
Kuliak
Songhay
Shabo

Note: Glottochronological dates are given according to Sergei Starostin's «experimental» formula (with variable
replacement rates for individual Swadesh items). By general induction, they deserve serious consideration up to the
point of 6,000-7,000 B.C. (the approximate dating of East and Central Sudanic); everything above that lies well within
the margins of error and is also dependent on subsequent identification of external lexical substrates (if they do exist,
they tend to seriously distort the results).

2
Legend:

No connection whatsoever (isolated taxon). The only partial exception is a suggested «blue
link» between East and Central Sudanic, unexplorable under current conditions but faintly
suggested by some core evidence (see part 4 for details).
Possible deep level connection (matches seem to exceed chance expectations, but idea of
genetic connection «resists» serious exploration before proper comparative work on lower
levels has been completed).
Probable «mid-level connection» (matches definitely non-accidental; glimpses of recurrent /
regular correspondences; proper comparative work can be carried out; genetic relationship
highly likely and can be regarded as a «working model»).
Genetic relationship beyond any reasonable doubt.
Dotted lines indicate that the corresponding taxon's general affiliation is not under doubt,
but that its position on the tree is insecure and could be influenced by further, more
thorough etymological research (e. g. the position of Kresh/Aja/Birri on the Central Sudanic
tree remains questionable, even if all three languages are unquestionably Central Sudanic).

Summary of binary and multi-lateral matches between the various subcomponents of «Nilo-Saharan»

Connections are summarised progressively, beginning with the lower levels and gradually «climbing up the tree».
Most of the reconstructions are mine, to be published in the forthcoming third volume of «Languages of Africa: an
attempt at lexicostatistical analysis» (Starostin 2016, forth.). Notes are usually given in abbreviated format, the
general readout is as follows:
(a) alignment — compared forms match as far as the consonantal class algorithm is concerned, although the
matching is not necessarily interpreted (particularly on deep levels) in regular correspondence terms;
(b) regular correspondence(s) — compared forms may not represent an actual alignment, but additional etymo-
logical data [Starostin 2014] show that the correspondence pattern is interpretable as recurrent (at least as far as the
«consonantal skeleton» is concerned; vocalic fluctuations are not always taken into account, and prosodic recon-
struction is currently impossible even for «mid-level» comparison, let alone «deep level»);
(c) possibly regular correspondence(s) — the recurrent pattern of the correspondence has not been reliably
established due to scarcity of data (e. g. just one additional convincing example is available).
Numbers are accompanied with a plus sign (e. g. 01+) in case of full automatic alignments according to con-
sonantal classes; with an asterisk (e. g. 01*) where the alignment is partial or non-existent, but the comparison reflects
regular or possibly regular correspondences.
Data transcription generally follows the system in [Starostin 2014] (see the Unified Transcription System for the
Global Lexicostatistical Database for details).
All data are available upon demand from the author (as Starling databases), and are also being gradually up-
loaded onto the Global Lexicostatistical Database website (http://starlin.rinet.ru/new100).

3
Part 1. Common Central Sudanic.

I. East Central Sudanic isoglosses (MM-LN: 27; MM-Mbe: 24; MM-Mbu: 18; LN-Mbe: 21; LN-Mbu: 16;
Mbe-Mbu: 18) > ECS subfamily.

№ Moru-Maɗi Lendu-Ngiti Mangbetu Mangbutu Word Notes

01+* fò h p ʽashesʼ ← ECS *=pu.
02+ r r k a ri ʽbirdʼ ← ECS ɪ.
03+ li ʽbloodʼ ← ECS ɪ. Cf. also LN ?
04+* kw *=kpa *=kpi ~ *=kpu ʽboneʼ ← ECS *kpV.
05* *ɔ *=o=nzi *o=nde ʽdieʼ ← ECS *=nzE.
06+ mb *=mb *ɔ=mvu-ɔ *a=mvu ʽdrinkʼ ← ECS *=mbu.
07a+ *ʔ *=ʔy ʽdryʼ
07b+ *o=nɖu *o=nɖi ʽdryʼ Vocalism morphologically affected.
08+ b *bɪ *u=bi ʽearʼ ← ECS *bi.
09+ ɲā ɲ *a=ɲɔ *a=nu ʽeatʼ ← ECS *ɲa ~ *=ɲɔ.
10+ *ɓú ~ ɓwa ɓ *ɓu i ɓu ʽeggʼ Unclear vocalism in Lendu-Ngiti.
11* *mi *ɲɔ ~ *ɲɪ ʽeyeʼ Same correspondence as in ʽthouʼ.
12+ a go a kɔ ʽfireʼ
13+ p ʽfootʼ
14+ *ɖ *=ɗi ʽhandʼ
15+* *ɖ (?) *ʓɔ *=ɖ u ɖu ʽheadʼ Not clear if Moru-Maɗi belongs here.
16+ *=r ʽhearʼ
17+* s āθ sú ʽheartʼ Unclear vocalism in Mangbetu.
18+* ʔyú ~ ʔy ʔy ~ *k a ʓu ʽhornʼ ← ECS *=ʔyu ~ *=ʔyi.
19+ *ma mā m m (?) ʽIʼ Mangbutu: Banda influence?
20+ f h *ɔ=pʋ *=fu ʽkillʼ ← ECS *=pU.
21+ b *bɪ *i=bi ʽleafʼ Same word as ʽearʼ.
22+ ā ā ʽmeatʼ
23+ mbā t i mba ʽmoonʼ Cf. also Lendu-Ngiti ?
24+ t t *u=ti ʽmouthʼ ← ECS *ti.
25+ rú *=rʋ ʽnameʼ ← ECS *rU.
26a+ ɗ *=a=di ʽnewʼ
26b* *=ɓu ʽnewʼ Dubious (irreg. correspondence).
27+ *ɔ mvɔ m ʽnoseʼ
28+ k ʽnotʼ Dubious (vocalic differences).
29+ a ɗɪ e ɗi ʽoneʼ
30+ iʓ ʽrainʼ
31+ k *ɪ kɔ *=kɔ ʽsmokeʼ
32+ *ɓɪ-ɓɪ i ɓi ʽstarʼ
4
№ Moru-Maɗi Lendu-Ngiti Mangbetu Mangbutu Word Notes
33+ āv v v ʽtailʼ
34+ *mɪ ɲ m *i=ni ʽthouʼ Root morpheme is *i.
35+ *l= ɖa d ɖ k a ɖu ʽtongueʼ
36a+ *s us ʽtoothʼ
36b+ *=ku *=k ʽtoothʼ Vocalism?
37* u kpa ʽtreeʼ
38+ i r ā s o ru ʽtwoʼ
39* gwò u we ʽwaterʼ If *uwe ← *ugwe.
40+ mā mǎ m *a=mu ʽweʼ Mangbutu: parad. levelling?
41a+ *a=ɗu *a=ɗ ʽwhatʼ
42b+ *a=si *a=ʓi ʽwhatʼ
43+ *a=ɗi *a=ɗ *a=ɗi *a=ɗe ʽwhoʼ

Notes:
1) ʽBloodʼ and ʽbirdʼ are near-complete homonyms in Moru-Maɗi (usually distinguished only in compound
forms or through the addition of the prefix k=), but show different resonants in Mangbetu; it is also
unclear if Lendu-Ngiti can be related to them at all — if yes, these may be all reflexations of a
specific, highly marked Proto-ECS resonant (retroflex?).
2) Moru-Maɗi *ɔ=ɖ ʽto dieʼ, despite phonetic similarity with the other forms, contains a retroflex explosive
that seems incompatible with the fricative phonemes in Lendu-Ngiti and Mangbetu. Mangbutu *=nde, on
the other hand, may be compatible, since Mangbutu has no instances of *-/n/z-, suggesting possible
fortification.

Conclusions:
Despite phonetic problems with some of the above comparisons (mostly limited to currently unexplai-
nable variation in root vocalism, which could be the result of interaction with various derivational suf-
fixes), all these four branches are unequivocally related. Moru-Maɗi and Lendu-Ngiti form the closest
pair; Mangbutu-Efe is the most remote link in this chain.

5
II. Central Sudanic isoglosses: East Central Sudanic + Sara-Bongo-Bagirmi + Kresh + Aja + Birri.
(ECS-SBB: 22; Kresh-Aja: 21; Kresh-Birri: 21; Aja-Birri: 13; ECS-Kresh: 18; ECS-Aja: 18; ECS-Birri: 20; SBB-
Kresh: 15; SBB-Aja: 14; SBB-Birri: 17).

№ ECS SBB Kresh Aja Birri Word Notes

01+* a rɪ *ʔyalɪ weri ʽbirdʼ Unclear w- in Aja.
02+ *=iri iri ʽblackʼ
03a+ *=otu (Mbu.) ɔtɔ ʽbloodʼ
03b+ *Us/a/ usa ʽbloodʼ
04a+ *kpV *kpɔ-kpɔ kpɔ ʽboneʼ
04b+ *ɕʋŋɔ ɕuŋgu ʽboneʼ Borrowing into Aja?
05* kakpi kiŋgbi ʽnailʼ
06+ i=li i=ri ʽdieʼ
07+* e si ( be.) *bisi ʽdogʼ Prefixation in SBB?
08+ *k=ɔno ɕ=ino ana ʽdogʼ
09a+ *=mbu *ɔ=mɔ a=mu ʽdrinkʼ
09b+ a=ya ʽdrinkʼ
10+ aŋ- ɔŋko ʽdryʼ
11+ *bi *mbi *mbi mbi nvö ʽearʼ Birri nvö ← *mve.
12+ *ɲa ~ *=ɲɔ *=ɲʋ a=ɲ ɔ=ɲɔ ʽeatʼ
13+ *ɓu *ɓU *ɓu ɓʌ ʽeggʼ
14a* mi (→ ɲi) i ɲi ʽeyeʼ
14b+ k a mU *mu mʋ ʽeyeʼ
15+ ā c ( ) *o=ɕo u=ɕa ú s ʽfireʼ
16* *=nɖi ~ *=nʓa ʽfootʼ
17+ *ɓɪ (MM) *bi *bi-bi bi-bi ʽhairʼ
18* *ɖɪ *ʓi ʽhandʼ Cf. ʽheadʼ.
19+* *ɖɪ ~ *ɖu *ɖɔ *ʓu-ʓu ʓu-ʓu ɖru ʽheadʼ
20+ *o=go ʽhearʼ Cf. also SBB *=wo?
21* *=ʔyu ~ *=ʔyi k a ʓU a ʓa u ö ʽhornʼ
22+ *ma *ma *a=ma ma ma ʽIʼ
23+ *=pU *=pʋ *=fu a=pʌʔi w ʽkillʼ Birri w- is unclear.
24+ *bi *mbi ʽleafʼ Same word as ʽearʼ.
25+ *ti *ta[-ra] tyi ʽmouthʼ
26+ *rU *ro ~ *ri i ri k i ri i ri ʽnameʼ
27* *nɖu *nʓo-nʓo ʽnightʼ
28+* *=m(v)ɔ *U=mU u ŋu mu-mu m ʽnoseʼ
29a+ - (LN) *ndV ~ *nʓV ʽnotʼ
29b+ k ( be.) *kU [Kara] gu ʽnotʼ Dubious.
30+ *=ɗI *k= ɗ ʽoneʼ

6
№ ECS SBB Kresh Aja Birri Word Notes
31* *=ʓe ~ *=ze *nʓi *nʓi nɖri ʽrainʼ See ʽhandʼ, ʽheadʼ.
32+ *=ka ~ *=kɔ *ka-ka k -k ka-ka ʽsmokeʼ
33+ aŋba aŋba ʽstoneʼ
34+* *k=aɖa *=aʓa k=udyo uɖra ʽsunʼ
35+ mi *i *u=mu mu-mu mu ʽthouʼ
36+* *= ɖa *nɖ *nʓa ndi-ndyi nɖ ʽtongueʼ
37a+ *sI *ɕe-ɕe s ʽtoothʼ
37b+ *=ku ~ *=kɪ u=ku ʽtoothʼ
38 *kp *kpi-kpi ɕi-ɕi (?) kpi ʽtreeʼ Aja dubious.
39+ *=ri(-ɔ) *riyo kw aːri ʽtwoʼ
40+* u (g)we u yu wu ʽwaterʼ
41+ *a=ma a=ma maː ʽweʼ Cf. also Yulu má .
42+ a ŋi ɔ ŋɔ ŋa ʽwhoʼ

Notes:

1) ʽBloodʼ: *=otu is not Common East Sudanic, but is well reconstructible for Mangbutu-Efe, which is the
first split off ECS and could theoretically host an archaism here. The alternate equivalent is an isogloss
between Aja and the Dongo variety of Kresh (ọːs in Santandrea's transcription), which could then also be
compared to Sara-Bagirmi *ma=su if the *ma= component there is indeed a fossilized prefix of liquids.
2) ʽEatʼ: cf. also Kresh *ɔ=šɔ = Kara-Sara-Bagirmi *u=sa (the latter seems to be an innovation in the basic
meaning ʽeatʼ, but the isogloss is nevertheless important).
3) ʽEyeʼ: two groups of forms are established, one with front vocalism (ECS *mi, with assimilative palata-
lization of nasal in Lendu-Ngiti and, probably, also in the related Aja) and one with back vocalism (SBB
*=mU, related to Kresh *mu). Both groups are possibly related, but not by a regular vocalic
correspondence: we would have to make an argument for a morphological alternation (e. g. SBB *=mU ←
*mi-ɔ with an additional vocalic suffix, etc.).
4) ʽFireʼ: possibly at least two roots here, since the vocalic correspondences are quite chaotic. Also, =cí is
not the optimal candidate for Proto-Moru-Maɗi (see the ECS list).
5) ʽ outhʼ: The match between ECS *ti and SBB *ta-(ra) is suspicious because of vocalism (hidden
morphology?). An additional isogloss is between Kresh and Bongo-Baka *kpa; however, distribution-
wise, Bongo-Baka *kpa is not the optimal candidate for ʽmouthʼ in SBB.
6) ʽThouʼ: ECS *mi is probably ← *i by analogy with 1st person *ma (or, possibly, *m= was a common
prefixal morpheme for personal pronouns already on the Proto-ECS or even on the Proto-CS level). Kresh
/ Aja / Birri mu is either assimilated or reflects Ubangi influence.

7
Conclusions:

1) There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that any of the taxa in question are unrelated: basic lexical
matches in the most stable sub-sets are numerous enough, including pronouns, body parts, verbs, etc. The
only issue is with internal classification, namely, the position of Kresh, Aja, and Birri.

2) Exclusive isoglosses between Kresh and Aja (not found or not found in the same meaning in ECS and
SBB) include: ʽblackʼ, ʽbloodʼ, ʽnailʼ (?), ʽdieʼ, ʽdogʼ, ʽdryʼ (?), ʽwhoʼ. The two languages also share the peculiar
u-colored form of the 2nd p. sg. and the strategy of reduplication of monosyllabic nominal stems. Very
few arguments exist that would put any of these two languages closer to a large branch of CS than to each
other; probably the only such case is ʽboneʼ, where Kresh has the ECS-like equivalent and Aja has the SBB-
like equivalent. The Aja-SBB isogloss is odd, but in the light of its uniqueness, should either be regarded
as the result of independent parallel evolution or borrowing (from Baka? presuming the two languages
were ever in contact, which is possible, but unprovable). Kresh-Aja seems perfectly valid as a single node.

3) Birri shares 1 exclusive isogloss with ECS (ʽbloodʼ — very weak), 3 with Kresh-Aja (ʽdogʼ, ʽwhoʼ, ʽstoneʼ),
1 with SBB (ʽdrinkʼ). Additionally, the shape of the 2nd sg. pronoun is u-colored, just as it is in Kresh-Aja;
and cf. also the word for ʽeyeʼ, which is closest in shape to Kresh rather than SBB, not to mention ECS (also
ʽtreeʼ). On the whole, this batch of evidence clearly puts Birri closer to Kresh and Aja than to any of the two
major groups.

One significant problem is the «unbalanced triad» between Kresh, Aja, and Birri, where Kresh shares 21
common elements with both Aja and Birri, but Birri and Aja have significantly fewer common items. This
could indicate the secondary nature of some of the Kresh-Aja matches (undetected borrowings from one
into another, or into both from an unknown third source?), but there is currently no etymological support
for distinguishing between two lexical layers in common between these two languages (one inherited, one
contact-based).

A more likely solution is that Aja is one of the «substrate-affected» Sudanic languages, and that the
decrease in matches with Birri is due to words of non-CS origin harmfully affecting our calculations.
There are indeed quite a few «very strange» (totally non-CS looking) words in Aja, indirectly confirming
its status as that of a language with «low lexical immunity». So, normally, we'd expect an even higher
percentage of matches between Kresh and Aja (on the level of about 30/50 matches), and a
correspondingly higher percentage between Aja and Birri.

4) There is very little evidence that would put Kresh-Aja-Birri closer to ECS than to SBB or vice versa;
this is seen both from the general statistics and the scarceness of exclusive isoglosses (the word for ʽsunʼ
is an interesting case between K-A-B and SBB, but it could easily be just a common retained archaism).
If there ever was a common «Kresh-SBB» or «Kresh-ECS» stage, it must have been so short as to be
negligible. Based on this evidence, we postulate an immediate or near-immediate tripartite split of
Central Sudanic into (A) East Central Sudanic, (B) Sara-Bongo-Bagirmi, (C) Kresh-Aja-Birri.
8
Part 2. Common Saharan.
(Kanuri-Tubu: 22; Zaghawa-Berti: 31; Kanuri-Zaghawa: 12; Kanuri-Berti: 10; Tubu-Zaghawa: 17; Tubu-
Berti: 15).

№ Kanuri Tubu Zaghawa Berti Word Notes

1* bû *ʔagu kú ʽbloodʼ Same correspondence as in ʽnightʼ.
2+ sl *suru *s1iruN šuru ʽboneʼ
3+* *turkɔn- *targʋ tagʋr ʽnailʼ
4+ nú- *nɔ-s- *nɪ- nuːsi- ʽdieʼ
5a* *keri *kidi ʽdogʼ
5b* *biɽi mirr ʽdogʼ
6 y *ya *ya- ya- ʽdrinkʼ
7+ *kʋya- kios ʽdryʼ
8+* *simo *k m keŋ ʽearʼ ← PSah *kImI.
9a+ bú- *bu- ʽeatʼ
9b+ *s se- ʽeatʼ
10* *gʋnʋ ʽeggʼ ← PSah (ŋ)gUl-.
11+* sîm *samo *s1iN siŋ ʽeyeʼ For coda corresp., cf. ʽearʼ.
12+ k( ) nnú *wuni ʽfireʼ Assuming «k-mobile» in Kanuri.
13* *digi *dei ʽfootʼ
14+ *ui ~ *wui ʌɨ ʽhairʼ
15* *ba mei ʽhandʼ
16+* *dau ~ *dahu *tafa t ː ʽheadʼ
17* f n- *ba-s- ʽhearʼ
18+ *k(=)agur- *aɣɔr- ʽheartʼ
19* *t dɪ š ti ʽhornʼ Dissimilation or palatalization in Berti.
20+ *yid- *yid- ʽkillʼ
21+ k lú *kolu ʽleafʼ
22* *(ʔ )w wiːŋ ʽlouseʼ
23+* *yani *ʔeni ni ʽmeatʼ
24+ *awri *w rɪ werr ʽmoonʼ
25a+ kǝyi *kɔi ʽmouthʼ
25b+ *ʔaː a ʽmouthʼ
25a* čû *kyu ʽnameʼ
25b+ *ʔ tʋr tir ʽnameʼ
26* *ʔım(m)ʋ bo- ʽnewʼ
27+* búné *gını gini ʽnightʼ Same correspondence as in ʽbloodʼ.
28a* *kya ʽnoseʼ
28b+ *sına sano ʽnoseʼ
29+* bâ *bʌ *-ɔ *-ba ʽnotʼ

9
№ Kanuri Tubu Zaghawa Berti Word Notes
30+ *tilo tǝro ʽoneʼ
31* k( ) ngê *g nǯʋ ʽsmokeʼ
32+ maːr marr ʽstarʼ
33* *ize *ʔɪdɔN ʽsmokeʼ Tubu z : Zaghawa d may be regular.
34+ n n(ǝ)- *n(V) ne-gi ʽthouʼ
35+* t(ǝ)lam tlǝm *tamsɪ tamsi ʽtongueʼ
36+ tm *tome ʽtoothʼ
37* k( ) sg *ekke ʽtreeʼ
38+ *su- su ʽtwoʼ
39a* ŋgî */i/yi ʽwaterʼ
39b* *bi mi ʽwaterʼ
40+ *ta- *t- s- (< *t-?) ʽweʼ
41+ *in=ni *n- n- ʽwhatʼ
42+ *ɲa *n- n- ʽwhoʼ

Conclusions:

1) The traditional separation of Saharan into Western (Kanuri+Tubu) and Eastern (Zaghawa+Berti) is
fully confirmed by this variety of the lexicostatistical method. It is also clear that Eastern Saharan is a
much «tighter» branch than Western, so that, for practical purposes of etymological research, etc., one
might as well adopt a tripartite structure (Kanuri / Tubu / Zaghawa-Berti).

2) There is also an obvious anomaly here: Kanuri/Zaghawa-Berti have much less in common than
Tubu/Zaghawa-Berti, although the binary split would suggest that they should have a comparable
number of matches. This can theoretically be explained in two ways:
— an anomalous increase between Kanuri and Tubu because of secondary contacts between them.
This does not look likely: many of the binary Kanuri-Tubu matches are based on non-trivial corres-
pondences, suggesting relationship rather than contact;
— an anomalous decrease between Kanuri and Tubu because of heavy substrate borrowing into
Kanuri. This looks like a more reasonable solution, considering the large number of Kanuri items
without any Saharan equivalents. Our current view is that Kanuri may have been «derailed» by early
sub-mixture with Central Sudanic (Sara-Bongo-Bagirmi) and later ad-mixture with Chadic languages,
although this requires a detailed etymological study for support.

10
Part 3. Koman-Gumuz.
(Koman-Gule: 19; Koman-Gumuz: 12; Gule-Gumuz: 5).

№ Koman Gule (Anej) Gumuz Word Notes

1+ ufu-n *=of- ʽashesʼ
2* *ɕ gɔ=ʓɔb ʽbloodʼ
3* šwi fiː-fi ʽboneʼ Koman š : Anej f is a regular correspondence.
4 *wu =wɔi ʽdieʼ
5+* *k aw aw *k owa ʽdogʼ Koman *k - : Gule 0- is possibly regular.
6+ *pi- *fa ~ *fi ʽdrinkʼ
7+ *kuɕʼ- =gɔʓ- ʽdryʼ
8+ *ɕʼe cʼe- ʽearʼ
9+ ša =s *sa ʽeatʼ
10+ is iš- ʽeggʼ
11* *ʔ *=anʓ- ʽfireʼ
12* *sɔŋkʼ *ɕog- ʽfootʼ
13* -n ʽhandʼ
14* - - ʽkillʼ Possible metathesis.
15+ *ɕʼe cʼe- ʽleafʼ Same root as ʽearʼ.
16+ šok- *sukun- ʽlouseʼ
17* šum fum ʽmeatʼ Cf. ʽboneʼ.
18* šunš fuf-an ʽnoseʼ Cf. ʽboneʼ.
19+ *ɗe di-di-n ʽoneʼ
20* *kuɗ *ɗuːk-a ʽsmokeʼ Possible metathesis.
21+ *k l keːlu ʽstarʼ
22* woš ɔf ʽstoneʼ Cf. ʽboneʼ.
23+ *tay taʔ ʽsunʼ
24* si-sin ʽtailʼ
25+ *ay aː-na ʽthouʼ
26+ šeʔ seː-n ʽtoothʼ
27+ *ɕwa *ʓa ʽtreeʼ
28+ *iya ~ *yi aːye *ay-a ʽwaterʼ
29+ *a-na a-nuːk ʽweʼ
30+ *adi ːde ʽwhoʼ

Notes:

1) Gule (Anej), a little-known and probably extinct language of Sudan, is clearly very distant from both
of the main branches of Koman proper (East and West) and has to be tested for relationship separately.

11
Conclusions:

1) Gule is quite positively identified as Koman. Shared items include some (not all) pronominal forms,
verbs, and body parts, and include at least one case of a fairly non-trivial phonetic correspondence
(Koman š : Gule f in ʽboneʼ, ʽmeatʼ, ʽnoseʼ, and ʽstoneʼ). Additionally, out of 22 matches between Gule
and Uduk (one of the most conservative Koman languages) only 6 belong to the second (less stable)
half of the Swadesh wordlist: this practically rules out the possibility of borrowing of all these lexical
items into Gule.
2) The situation with Gumuz is much more complex. The following parallels look very convincing:
ʽdrinkʼ, ʽeatʼ, ʽearʼ, ʽwaterʼ. The others are more problematic phonetically (e. g. assumption of metathesis,
non-trivial hard-to-prove correspondences like Koman *t = Gumuz ʓ) or could be thought of as bor-
rowings (e. g. ʽdogʼ or ʽeggʼ).

12
Part 4. Parallels between the 4 main blocks of «Nilo-Saharan»: East Sudanic / Central Sudanic / Saharan
/ Koman-Gumuz.

Distributional note: The etymon is considered eligible for comparison in this table only if (a) it may be
considered the optimal distributional candidate for the corresponding Swadesh term in the block or (b)
it is one out of several more or less equiprobably optimal distributional candidates for the corresponding
Swadesh term in the block. Phonetic similarities between single subgroups within East Sudanic,
Central Sudanic, etc., are not counted as matches if they can be safely discarded from Proto-East Su-
danic, Proto-Central Sudanic, etc.

№ ES CS Sah. Kom. Word Notes

1a+ *bur- *buru [SBB] ʽashesʼ Cf. also Kanuri uː?
1b+ *=pu [ECS] *ofu- ʽashesʼ
2+ *kVbVr- *kefuri [T.] ʽbirdʼ
3+ *s - [ES] *Sa ʽeatʼ
4+ *usi- [NNT] *=ci [MM, B] ʽfireʼ
5+ *bi beː- [Gm.] ʽhairʼ
6+ *a- *m=a *a-ga [Km.] ʽIʼ CS *m= may be detached as a prefix.
7+ *ʋ ʋ *=ti ~ *ta ʽmouthʼ
8* *=ri ~ *=rin *=ri ʽnameʼ Is *-n a fossilized suffix in ES?
9+ *=(u)mu mU ~ ŋU ʽnoseʼ
10+ *K L- [SBB] *k l [Km.] ʽstarʼ
11+ *Ib- *=avi ʽtailʼ
12+ *i- *m=i ~ *ɲ=i *ay [Km.] ʽthouʼ
13* *=ewe (?) *k(=)we ʽtreeʼ
14a+ *awri *=ri(-U) ʽtwoʼ
14b+ *su [Tb.] *suʔ ʽtwoʼ
15+ *yi [Tb.] *ay- ~ *yi- ʽwaterʼ
16+ *a-[g-] *a-g- ~ *a=m=a *a- ʽweʼ
17+ ŋV ŋV [K, A, B] ʽwhoʼ

Additionally: A comparative table of the «First 15» for all four families:

№ ES CS Sah. Kom. Word

1 *a- *m=a ? *a- ʽIʼ
2 *a-[g-] *a-g- ~ *a=m=a *t- / *y- *a- ʽweʼ
3 *i- *m=i ~ *ɲ=i *n- *ay ʽthouʼ
4 *awri *=ri(-U) *su *suʔ ʽtwoʼ
5 *mIɲ- / aŋw- *mi ~ *ɲi *sVN *zi ʽeyeʼ
6 ʽwhoʼ

13
№ ES CS Sah. Kom. Word
7 *usi- / maː- *=ci / *=KU *wan- (?) *ʔ - (?) ʽfireʼ
8 *Nal(ep)- *=nɖV *t(V)lam *leɗ [Km.] ʽtongueʼ
9 disqualified (highly unstable item in this region) ʽstoneʼ
10 *=ri ~ *=ri-n *=ri ~ *=ru *kyu ʽnameʼ
11 *ay- *=ɖi ~ *=ɗi *may (?) - ʽhandʼ
12 ʽwhatʼ
13 *di- / *ir- *=(n)ɖe ~ *=(n)ɖa *nu- *wu ʽdieʼ
14 disqualified (highly unstable item in this region) ʽheartʼ
15 *li- / *mat- *=mbU *ya *pi- ʽdrinkʼ

Conclusions:

1) The evidence seems weakly suggestive of a potential genetic relationship between East and Central
Sudanic on a much deeper level (if ES ≈ 8000-9000 BP and CS ≈ 5000-6000 BP, the common ancestor
would have been at least 12000 years old), with East Sudanic on the whole looking more phonetically
and structurally conservative than Central Sudanic. A brief description of the main isoglosses:

(a) A common pronominal system is reconstructible as *a- (1st p.), *i- (2nd p.). In CS, these pronouns
have the form *ma (1st p.) and *i (SBB) ~ *mi (ECS) ~ *ɲi (Lendu-Ngiti), where m= is most likely a
prefixal component (pure *a for the 1st p. is still preserved in Moru-Maɗi verbal forms), with
occasional assimilation in the 2nd p. pronoun (*mi > *ɲi). The plural forms are often reformed in
daughter languages, but a common *a-g- ʽweʼ with an archaic «Nilo-Saharan» plural marker seems
reconstructible as well.
(b) The numeral ʽtwoʼ in ES has the basic shape *(a=)ri, with an additional labial element strangely
manifesting itself in various positions around this structure (Nubian *awri, Tama *wari, West Nilotic
*=rɪaw, perhaps also Jebel *way- ← *wary-). In CS, we observe a very similar picture: the basic shape
*=ri is modified as *riyo in SBB, *=ri-ɔ in Lendu-Ngiti (unclear if Mangbetu *=oru belongs here as
well).
(c) In the interrogative pronoun system, ʽwhatʼ is very problematic when it comes to reconstruc-
tions, but ʽwhoʼ is unquestionably reconstructed as ŋ - for ES. In CS, this ŋ-based ʽwhoʼ is found in
Birri (ŋ ), possibly Kresh-Aja ( =ŋi and ɔ=ŋɔ respectively), and parts of SBB (usually in the form
n ŋ /Gula/ or nãː ← n ŋ /Sara/), but not in ECS.
(d) ʽFireʼ may be common between NES (*usi- in Nubian and Tama = ši- in Nara) and at least two
subgroups of CS (Moru-Maɗi *a=ci and Birri u=si; all the other subgroups of CS have their own
equivalents, meaning a lot of innovation throughout). In this case, Surmic *gu- and SES *ma- ʽfireʼ
would also have to be innovations, but there is nothing impossible about that.
(e) ʽNameʼ is a good isogloss between common CS (*=ri is the most common invariant), Nubian
( ǝ= i) and Nilotic, provided that *-n in Nilotic *rɪn is a fossilized (singulative?) marker (perfectly
possible, cf. WN *ɕı-n- ʽhandʼ, *yɛ-n ʽtreeʼ vs. y ː- ʽtreesʼ, etc.).

14
 (f) ʽNoseʼ is an excellent parallel whose credibility is somewhat undercut by the dangers of phono-
symbolism (roots like ŋu- or mu- for ʽnoseʼ are quite widespread among the world's languages), but
it is nevertheless significant that, for instance, Saharan and Koman have completely different
equivalents.

The following additional parallels may be authentic if we formulate a basic rule of root simplification from
«Proto-Sudanic» to CS: CVC > CV.

(a) NES *miɲ- ʽeyeʼ (distinct from SES ŋw- id.) = ECS *mi ʽeyeʼ (the relationship of this form with
SBB *kamU, Kresh *mu is unclear, because the labial vowel is not explainable here through mere
assimilation);
(b) NES *win- ʽto hear ~ earʼ CS *mbi ʽearʼ (if ← *mbin-, with *mb- → *w- in ES; this would need
serious additional confirmation as to regularity).

2) Apart from the system of personal pronouns (where different interpretations are possible as to the
primary opposition between 1st and 2nd person forms), no significant isoglosses seem to be tying Koman
languages with either ES or CS. The situation is even worse for Saharan, where there are three interesting,
but short CV-type matches with Koman, and almost nothing with ES or CS.

3) Practical consequences: A deep-level (no less than at least 12,000 years) genetic relationship between ES
and CS is potentially explorable — only under the condition that well-elaborated etymological corpora for
both ES and CS have been constructed and tested, based on systems of regular correspondences.
Exploration of genetic links between ES/CS, on one hand, and Saharan and/or Koman, on the other hand,
is likely to be quite unproductive even if reconstructions for Proto-Saharan and Proto-Koman-Gumuz are
produced.

15
Part 5. Parallels between East Sudanic and potentially Nilo-Saharan «isolates».

The data: «East Sudanic» roots are defined here as roots that share the same Swadesh meaning across at
least two or more subdivisions of East Sudanic. A distinction is drawn between «Northeast Sudanic» (N =
Nubian-Nara-Tama + Nyimang) and «Southeast Sudanic» (S = Surmic, Nilotic, Temein, Jebel, Daju); if the
optimal N candidate differs from the optimal S candidate, we allow to select both for comparison.

Note: Individual similarities between one or more «Nilo-Saharan isolates» and one member of East
Sudanic are not taken into account in this table. They may represent accidental similarities or sporadic
areal isoglosses and should not be seen as significant «first-order evidence» for genetic relationship.
Nearest relatives of ES, if they exist at all, should be determined on the basis of links with reliably archaic
roots, reconstructible on Proto-East Sudanic or at least Proto-NES / Proto-SES levels.

№ ES Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word

1 *bur- b b d ʽashesʼ
k awir- N
2 ʽbirdʼ
*=aw - S *awi-
3 k ɔly- ʽblackʼ
4 *=rɪm S ʽbloodʼ
5 *[ɠ]am ʽboneʼ
suŋ- N seŋgi
6 ʽclawʼ
*pal- S
7 diː- N
ʽdieʼ
*ɪr-~*r - S
8 *weɬ ʽdogʼ
liː- N
9 ʽdrinkʼ
*maʈ- S
10 — ʽdryʼ
*uɬ- N l =ilo
11 *(y)i- S ʽearʼ
*wIn- S
*kɔl- N
12 ʽeatʼ
*[C=]am- S am
13 *ɓur- S ʽeggʼ
*miɲ- N
14 ʽeyeʼ
aŋw- S n uŋi
*usi- N *isi
15 ʽfireʼ
maː- S mûː
16 — ʽfootʼ
17 *ye- ʽhairʼ

16
№ ES Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word
18 *[k=]ay- a(-n) ? k o- ? ʽhandʼ
*or N
19 *ol- S lú ʽheadʼ
*[k=]wi- S
20 *sig- ʽhearʼ
21 — ʽheartʼ
ŋawi- N
22 ʽhornʼ
*kuy- S
23 *a-y ~ *a-n *ay *a-ba *ay *a- ʽIʼ
24 *pay- *piy- fu- ʽkillʼ
25 — ʽleafʼ
26 *[s]iɲ- n=ina-ŋ ʽlouseʼ
27 — ʽmeatʼ
28 *ayi-~*awi- ʽmoonʼ
*Kul- N
29 ʽmouthʼ
*ʋ ʋ- S *ndu ? *wid- uto
30 a ri(-n) *yari ʽnameʼ
31 — ʽnewʼ
32 *war ʽnightʼ
33 u ŋ/mu- mú-ŋ *mundu ʽnoseʼ
34 *m- *=m- ʽnotʼ
35 — ʽoneʼ
*ar- N
36 ʽrainʼ
*kɔy- S kwi
37 *Pur- S ʽsmokeʼ
38 *w/mVɲ- ʽstarʼ
39 *kʋɽ S ʽstoneʼ
40 *ɽɔŋ~ yɔŋ S ʽsunʼ
41 *Ib =awi ? ʽtailʼ
42 *i-y ~ *i-n e-na ? *y ʓi ? ʽthouʼ
43 *ɲal- ~ ŋal- ŋeːl-a d aːli ? ʽtongueʼ
*ɲigi-
44 ʽtoothʼ
*ɲil-
45 k ay/we- ʽtreeʼ
46 *awri baːr- ? mbaːr ? au *yari ? ʽtwoʼ
*maw
47 ʽwaterʼ
*pi(ɽ)- p r
48 *a(y)-K- aː-me *a-ŋa ʽweʼ
49 *n- ~ *ɲ- *na-N ʽwhatʼ
17
 № ES Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word
50 ŋa ʽwhoʼ

Conclusions: A slightly lenient approach (taking into consideration all the parallels marked with
question marks) shows the following results: Fur+ES = 11/50; Berta+ES = 9/50; Kunama+ES = 8/50;
Kadu+ES = 6/50; Maba+ES = 4/50; Songhay+ES = 1/50; Shabo+ES = 2/50.

Further analysis of the individual pairings is as follows:

(1) East Sudanic + Fur-Amdang. The most impressive observation here is a consonantal structure
match between three of the most basic body parts: ʽeyeʼ, ʽearʼ, ʽmouthʼ (ʽearʼ with Northeast Sudanic and
ʽeyeʼ, ʽmouthʼ with Southeast Sudanic). Another fully satisfactory parallel is ʽrainʼ. Weaker potential mat-
ches include ʽeatʼ (a rather widely spread root, possibly sound-symbolic); ʽtailʼ, ʽtwoʼ (these require certain
assumptions on phonetic change, e. g. lenition *-b- → -w- and cluster simplification *awr- → aw-); ʽlouseʼ,
ʽtongueʼ (these require the assumption of elimination of initial consonant by nominal prefixes — to be fair,
initial consonant deletions are extremely common in Fur at least in verbal morphology). The pronominal
system of Fur is only comparable, however, if the morphemes ka and ǯi are analyzed as k=a and ǯ=i, where
the initial consonants represent secondary additional morphemes (deictic? emphatic? copulae?).
Practical solution: The Fur-ES connection has to be kept in mind as a «promising lead». However, a
better case for this connection is really only possible after a thorough reconstruction has been performed
for the basic lexicon corpus of ES. Additionally, more data on Amdang (former « imi») and on Fur itself
will aid in better understanding the complicated internal history of Fur for at least the past 1000 years.

(2) East Sudanic + Berta. First of all, it must be noted that this comparison completely ignores the
individual parallels between Berta and Jebel languages, which are clearly the result of prolonged linguistic
contact between these taxa over the past millennium. We take into consideration only those potential
matches that involve Berta and roots that are reconstructible for at least one of the two major binary
branches of East Sudanic.
Regarding these matches, everything on the whole seems to be a notch weaker than the Fur-ES
evidence: (a) pronominal resemblances are reduced to a single subjective prefix a= in the 1st p. pr.; (b)
body part terms are reduced to ʽearʼ (almost the same as Fur) and a weaker ʽmouthʼ (with unexplainable
prenasalisation), although they also include a stronger (but potentially sound-symbolic) ʽnoseʼ and ʽheadʼ.
ʽWaterʼ is an interesting isogloss between Berta and Nilotic (particularly South Nilotic, where the proto-
form is reconstructed with a resonant), but *pi(ɽ)- is not really the optimal candidate for Proto-ES.
Practical solution: The Berta-ES connection may be kept in mind as a «weak lead», due to a couple
curious exclusive isoglosses that are not replicated in Berta-CS, etc. comparisons. However, even if Berta is
separated from Proto-ES by no more than a couple thousand years, any perspectives of substantiating this
relationship remain faint.

(2) East Sudanic + Kunama / Kadu / Maba. Although a tiny handful of matches between ES and
some / all of these groups may be of an alleged «Nilo-Saharan» ancestry, there are no indications
18
whatsoever of a special relationship between these taxa and East Sudanic in particular. The isoglosses are
mainly confined to personal pronouns (*a- ʽIʼ, *i- ~ *e- ʽthouʼ), the widespread word for ʽtwoʼ (*ari ~ *awri ~
*bar-), and isolated matches that may or may not be incidental (ʽmouthʼ in Kunama) or phonosymbolic
(ʽtongueʼ).
Nevertheless, it may be worth noting that at least these groups all have from 8 to 4 similarities on
the 50-item list with ES — in stark contrast with Songhay and Shabo, which have practically nothing in
common with the most stable subset of the 50-item Swadesh wordlist in East Sudanic.

19
Part 6. Parallels between Central Sudanic and potentially Nilo-Saharan «isolates».

The data: «Central Sudanic» roots are defined here as roots that share the same Swadesh meaning across
at least two or more subdivisions of Central Sudanic. A distinction is drawn between «East Central
Sudanic» (E = Moru-Maɗi + Lendu-Ngiti + Mangbetu-Asoa + Mangbutu-Efe) and «West Central Sudanic»
(W = Sara-Bongo-Bagirmi); if the optimal E candidate differs from the optimal W candidate, we allow to
select both for comparison. Kresh-Aja-Birri roots, if they have no parallels in either E or W, are not eligible
for comparison (due to the less reliable historical status of these isolated and poorly described languages);
however, they can sometimes clinch the choice in favor of E or W as the optimal CS root.
Note: Just as in the previous section, individual similarities between one or more «Nilo-Saharan isolates»
and one member of Central Sudanic are not taken into account in this table.

№ CS Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word

*=pu E
1 ʽashesʼ
*buru W b b d
2 *(ʔy)aRi ʽbirdʼ
3 *=lu W ʽblackʼ
4 a i *ari *a=ri(-) ʽbloodʼ
5 *kpa *kuɓa ʽboneʼ
6 — ʽclawʼ
*=(n)ɖV E
7 ʽdieʼ
*=yo W *ɔy way *=ya
8 *(b=)isi asa ? ʽdogʼ
*=mbU E
9 ʽdrinkʼ
*=w/y W *=w wo
10 *=nɖV ʽdryʼ
11 *(m)bi ʽearʼ
12 *=ɲa/ɔ ŋa ŋwa *ɲɔ ʽeatʼ
13 *ɓU *ɓiɓ- ? ʽeggʼ
*mi ~ *ɲi E
14 ʽeyeʼ
*mu W *moy
a Kɔ E
15 ʽfireʼ
*paɗu W
16 *=nɖV ʽfootʼ
17 *bi ʽhairʼ
18 *ɖi ʽhandʼ
19 *ɖu ~ *ɖɪ *=aɗu ʽheadʼ
20 *=wo W ʽhearʼ
21 *=si/u E ʽheartʼ
22 a ʔyU ʽhornʼ
20
 № CS Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word
23 *m=a *ay *a-ba *ay *a- *aʔa ʽIʼ
24 *=pʋ *piy- *wi ? *uy ? fu- ʽkillʼ
25 — ʽleafʼ
26 — ʽlouseʼ
27 *=ɖa W *=uɗa ʽmeatʼ
28 *=imba E ʽmoonʼ
*=ti E
29 ʽmouthʼ
*ta[-ra] W
30 *=rU ~ *=ri *yari ʽnameʼ
31 *=ɗi E ʽnewʼ
32 *nɖU W ʽnightʼ
33 m/ŋU mú-ŋ *bobo- ? *mundu ʽnoseʼ
34 *kV ʽnotʼ
35 *=VɗV * d- *to *=ɔtɔ ? ʽoneʼ
36 *=ɖi *didi ? ʽrainʼ
37 *ka ~ *kɔ ʽsmokeʼ
38 *ɓi E ʽstarʼ
39 — ʽstoneʼ
40 *=aɖa W ʽsunʼ
41 *=avi E d=awi ʽtailʼ
42 *i e-na *y ʓi ? ʽthouʼ
43 *[n=]ɖa/ d ː- ? ŋ aɗɔ ʽtongueʼ
*=ku kʷay-
44 ʽtoothʼ
*si
45 *kpV ʽtreeʼ
46 *riyo baːr- ? mbaːr ? au ? *yari ʽtwoʼ
47 *=we~*=wu wo ʽwaterʼ
48 *a- aː-me *a-ŋa ʽweʼ
49 — ʽwhatʼ
50 *=ɗi E ʽwhoʼ

Conclusions: With the same lenient approach as in the previous case, the results are as follows:
Kadu+CS = 12/50; Maba+CS = 9/50; Kunama+CS = 6/50; Kuliak+CS = 5/50; Songhay+CS = 5/50; Berta+CS =
3/50; Shabo+CS = 3/50.
The only connections that seem worth pursuing here are with Kadu and Maba.

(1) Central Sudanic + Kadu (Krongo/Kadugli). An extremely important argument is the presence of
no less than four direct, phonetically credible exclusive isoglosses: ʽheadʼ, ʽmeatʼ, ʽnameʼ (the latter is ac-
tually further comparable with East Sudanic, but is lacking in any of the «isolates» included in the table),

21
ʽboneʼ (this is really a «Pan-African» root, but it is worth noting that within «Nilo-Saharan», it is well
reconstructible only for Proto-Central Sudanic and Proto-Kadu).
Four other isoglosses are non-exclusive, but also semantically precise, reconstructible on top or near-
top levels and phonetically unproblematic: ʽdieʼ, ʽdrinkʼ, ʽtongueʼ, ʽtwoʼ.
ʽBloodʼ is an interesting and possibly exclusive isogloss, but its validity depends on additional evidence
for - o as a suffixal expansion in Kadu (not available so far). ʽOneʼ is phonetically problematic.
As far as personal pronouns are concerned, Kadu shares 1st p. *a with Central (and East) Sudanic both
in sg. and pl. forms, but 2nd p. *u is unique. (A few CS languages also have u, or *m=u, to be precise, but
this is likely due to Niger-Congo influence).
Additional important parallels, not included in the table due to weaker distribution: (a) Kadu *isi ʽfireʼ
— cf. Moru-Maɗi *aci, as well as Birri usi (possibly archaic); (b) Kadu *awu ʽhairʼ — cf. Mangbetu *awɛ (the
optimal CS candidate is *ɓi, but the Mangbetu etymon formally looks like an inherited stem, possibly with
a close meaning); (c) Krongo m ʋn ʽnoseʼ (*=arɔ is the most frequent equivalent for ʽnoseʼ in this group,
but Krongo is an early offshoot and could theoretically preserve the more archaic root) — cf. the common
CS equivalent for ʽnoseʼ.
Practical solutions: Despite the major typological differences between Krongo-Kadugli and Central
Sudanic (which are not that hard to explain, given possibly thousands of years of Kadu co-existence with
Kordofanian languages in the Nuba Mountains), the fact that Kadu explicitly shows more homologies
with CS than with any other potential branch of Nilo-Saharan is not to be ignored. We can preliminarily
accept the distant relationship between these two taxa as a working model, but its subsequent develop-
ment will primarily depend upon improvements in Common Central Sudanic reconstruction.

(2) Central Sudanic + Maba. This connection is definitely weaker than the CS/Kadu connection, but at
least it involves pronouns systematically this time (*a ʽIʼ, *i ~ *y ʽthouʼ). Four more isoglosses are distribu-
tionally and phonetically solid, but non-exclusive (ʽbloodʼ, ʽdieʼ, ʽeatʼ, ʽnoseʼ), although ʽbloodʼ is exclusive
between CS, Maba, and Kadu (and is actually a better isogloss between CS and Maba than it is between
CS and Kadu). ʽKillʼ and ʽoneʼ are distributionally solid, but have phonetic problems (for instance, one has
to assume lenition *pu/y/ → *wuy → *uy in aba). ʽTwoʼ is only acceptable under the assumption of a
prefixal labial element (*mb- ː ).
The list may be further extended with several phonetically/morphologically questionable parallels (e.
g. CS *=pu and Maba *ʔawun ʽashesʼ; the correlation p/w would look exactly like the one in ʽkillʼ, but one
would also have to segment *-n as a fossilized suffix in Maba) and several parallels with weaker distri-
bution (e. g. WCS *=lu ʽblackʼ, cf. aba ù- úy- k ʽblackʼ; Kresh-Aja-Birri *VnV ʽdogʼ, cf. aba *iɲ- ʽdogʼ).
In terms of possible «non-trivial» correspondences, cf. the following: aba *ʓa/w/ ʽfootʼ vs. CS *=nɖV id.;
Maba *kiʓi ʽheadʼ vs. CS *ɖu ~ *ɖɪ id. (the development *ɖ → ʓ is frequently observed in various subgroups
of CS itself).
Practical solutions: The issue of possible genetic relationship between Maba and CS should probably be
investigated together with the CS-Kadu issue, on a «tripartite» basis. This would surmise the inevitability
of at least a few Maba-Kadu isoglosses as well, and a couple are, in fact, available (cf. Maba *du ʽblackʼ
Kadu *=ɗu/ɗu/ id.; Maba *to ʽoneʼ Kadu *=ɔtɔ id.). But at this time, this cannot be regarded as anything
more than a possible lead.
22
Part 7. Parallels between Saharan and potentially Nilo-Saharan «isolates».

№ Saharan Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word
buː W b ːs ː ?
1 ʽashesʼ
*sobu E
*kefuri W *kiraw ?
2 ʽbirdʼ
*t rfʋ E
3 E *im- ? ʽblackʼ
4 (V)gʷu- ʽbloodʼ
5 *siru- ʽboneʼ
6 *tarK- ʽclawʼ
7 *nu- ʽdieʼ
*kiRi W *kudo ? g l ?
8 ʽdogʼ
*biRi E
9 *ya- *=w ? *wo ? ʽdrinkʼ
10 — ʽdryʼ
11 *kem- ʽearʼ
*bu- W
12 ʽeatʼ
*s - E
13 (ŋ)gulu kúl-kúl- guŋguɽi ʽeggʼ
14 *sim- ʽeyeʼ
*wan- W
15 ʽfireʼ
*ye E
16 *degi *t gʷ ʽfootʼ
17 *(w)ui E *awu ʽhairʼ
18 *mai E ʽhandʼ
19 *Taf- tabu ʽheadʼ
20 *ba-n/s- W ʽhearʼ
21 *=agUr W *gur ʽheartʼ
*yayi W
22 ʽhornʼ
*t dɪ E
23 — ʽIʼ
*yid- W
24 ʽkillʼ
*ni- E
25 *kalu W ʽleafʼ
26 *( )w N W ʽlouseʼ
27 *yani iːno ʽmeatʼ
28 *(a)w rɪ =uwal ? ʽmoonʼ
*kɔyi W kaw
29 ʽmouthʼ
*ʔaː E
23
 № Saharan Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word
30 *kyu W k ː ʽnameʼ
31 *ɪmʋ W ʽnewʼ
32 gʷɪn ʽnightʼ
*=ngya W
33 ʽnoseʼ
*sɪn- E šonna
34 *bV =ba be ʽnotʼ
35 *tVRV W ʽoneʼ
36 — ʽrainʼ
37 KVŋge ? ʽsmokeʼ
38 maːr E ʽstarʼ
39 *emi W ʽstoneʼ
40 *izV(N) ʽsunʼ
41 — ʽtailʼ
42 *n(i) *ni ʽthouʼ
43 *t(V)lVm- d aːli ? ʽtongueʼ
44 *tVm- ʽtoothʼ
*esK- W
45 ʽtreeʼ
*gu E
*kyu W
46 ʽtwoʼ
*su E
ŋgi~ yi W
47 ʽwaterʼ
*bi E *biy- *biti ?
48 *t- ʽweʼ
49 *n- *na-N nambi ? ʽwhatʼ
50 *n- ~ *ɲ- *=no *na ʽwhoʼ

Conclusions: All of these results are disappointing. The number of tentative matches rarely rises
above 4/50, and even these tend to be partial (requiring the assumption of fused morphology) or mono-
consonantal (e. g. the n-like interrogative pronouns). Two interesting cases between Saharan and Fur
(ʽheadʼ and ʽmeatʼ) are clearly not enough to suggest relationship; neither is the ʽwaterʼ isogloss between
East Saharan and Kunama, and most of the other parallels are even shakier.

24
Part 8. Parallels between Koman-Gumuz and potentially Nilo-Saharan «isolates».

№ Komuz Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word
1 *Uf/u/- ʽashesʼ
*ɗi- K
2 ʽbirdʼ
*mit- G m ɕʼé ?
*ɕʼi- K *ɕʼiN ?
3 ʽblackʼ
xiː- G
4 *ɕʼam K ʽbloodʼ
šwi K
5 ʽboneʼ
žok- G
6 *ɕʼikir K *sak ʽclawʼ
*wU(y) K *ɔy way *=ya ?
7 ʽdieʼ
ša G
8 *kʼaw ʽdogʼ
9 *pi- ba ? ʽdrinkʼ
10 *Kuɕʼ- K kòɕ l- ʽdryʼ
11 *ɕʼe ʽearʼ
12 *sa ʽeatʼ
13 *is- ʽeggʼ
*zi K *se
14 ʽeyeʼ
*ɕa G
15 *antʼ- ʽfireʼ
16 *sɔŋkʼ- ʽfootʼ
17 *mbɔl- K *=mbiɽi ? ʽhairʼ
*(m)bitʼ K
18 ʽhandʼ
*el- G
*kʼup K
19 ʽheadʼ
*kʼwa G kʼoyi
20 gǝs- G ʽhearʼ
21 *kuɓic- G ʽheartʼ
22 *ke- K ʽhornʼ
23 *a- K *ay *a-ba *ay *a- *aʔa ʽIʼ
24 *kʼos- ʽkillʼ
25 — ʽleafʼ
26 šUk- ʽlouseʼ
27 šum K ʽmeatʼ
28 *ɕʼiawan K ʽmoonʼ
29 *tʼwa K ʽmouthʼ
30 *ɕʼea G ʽnameʼ
25
 № Komuz Kuliak Berta Kunama Songhay Maba Fur Kadu Shabo Word
31 *dis K ʽnewʼ
32 gakʷ- G ʽnightʼ
šunš K šonna
33 ʽnoseʼ
*it- G
34 — ʽnotʼ
*ɗe K * d-
35 ʽoneʼ
*=ta G *to *=ɔtɔ
36 — ʽrainʼ
37 *kuɗ~*ɗuk ʽsmokeʼ
38 *k l K
ʽstarʼ
biːž- G
39 woš K ʽstoneʼ
*ta(y) K
40 ʽsunʼ
*wok- G
41 *=iti ? ʽtailʼ
42 *ay K *e-na ? *y ʓi ? ʽthouʼ
43 *leɗ K ʽtongueʼ
44 še- K ʽtoothʼ
45 *ɕ(w)a ʽtreeʼ
*suʔ K
46 ʽtwoʼ
*mband G mbaːr ?
47 *ay- ~ *iy- ʽwaterʼ
48 *a- K aː-me *a-ŋa ʽweʼ
49 *tin- K ʽwhatʼ
50 *adi K ʽwhoʼ

Conclusions: The situation here is much the same as with Saharan. Particularly important is the
observation that neither Berta nor Shabo (two of the isolated Ethiopian neighbors of Koman-Gumuz)
show any significant relation to Koman-Gumuz, despite occasional suggestions that such a relation might
exist. A few similarities seem undeniable (cf. Berta ʽbirdʼ, ʽdryʼ; Shabo ʽheadʼ), but there is no reason why
we should think that they specifically point to a deep-level relationship (these words are far from the top
of stability rankings).
In agreement with the observations in Part 4, Koman personal pronouns show potential links with
personal pronoun systems of certain other small taxa that may be included in «Nilo-Saharan». Nothing
beyond these links qualifies as real evidence.

26
 Final conclusions of preliminary lexicostatistical analysis

1. There is no, and probably never will be any, solid basic-lexicon-based evidence for «Nilo-Saharan» as
originally envisaged by J. Greenberg and further explored by M. L. Bender, C. Ehret, H. Fleming, V.
Blažek, and any other expert working on etymological support for the hypothesis. There is, however,
some amount of evidence for large taxonomic blocks («stocks») that constitute subdivisions of this linguis-
tic phantom, albeit not necessarily the same subdivisions as postulated by Greenberg and his followers.

2. Of all the traditional subdivisions, East Sudanic (comprising Nubian-Nara-Tama, Nyimang, Surmic,
Temein, Jebel, Daju, and Nilotic) and the seemingly slightly younger Central Sudanic (comprising Moru-
Maɗi, Lendu-Ngiti, Mangbetu-Asoa, Mangbutu-Efe, the Kresh-Aja-Birri cluster, and Sara-Bongo-Bagirmi)
are generally well confirmed by preliminary lexicostatistics. Limited support exists for their connections
with additional groups: we may define Fur-Amdang and Berta as «Para-East Sudanic» languages and
Krongo-Kadugli, aba, and Kunama as «Para-Central Sudanic», pending, however, further necessary
investigation of these connections from an etymological standpoint.

3. Two small families of comparable, though still shallower depth than East or Central Sudanic, are
Saharan and Koman-Gumuz (the latter has a controversial reputation among Africanists, but some
striking isoglosses in «core» basic lexicon make the Koman-Gumuz case stand out among other binary
comparisons of the same type). They are, however, not relatable either to each other or to East or Central
Sudanic. Smaller isolates that also show no strong links to anything else are Kuliak, Shabo, and Songhay.

4. A genetic relationship between East Sudanic and Central Sudanic (including their «satellites») may be
possible, hinted at by isomorphisms in the pronoun system and some additional parallels reconstructible
on very high levels. Were such a relationship confirmed on an etymological level, it would bring together
the vast bulk of languages included in Greenberg's Nilo-Saharan (namely, everything except the language
groups listed in p. 3) and confirm the hypothesis at least to some major degree. However, in order to do
that, much more work on the reconstruction of East and Central Sudanic basic lexicon is necessary. Also,
this faint link may be easily amended or compromised once parts of Niger-Congo data are brought into
comparison (cf., for instance, the system of personal pronouns in Ijo, which is pretty much the same as in
East and Central Sudanic; if this may be interpreted as relics of some super-archaic reality, e. g. a «Niger-
Saharan», the entire situation will be seen in a different light).

27