4
compatible with the comparative concepts ‘class 1’, ‘class 2’, etc. developed in the Bantuist
linguistic tradition, so that adopting it complicates Bantu internal comparison. The reason for
this is that there are many instances of noun classes whose agreement patterns have merged in
the history of individual languages, whereas their nominal class markers have remained
unchanged. Therefore, most Bantuists prefer to follow the tradition of splitting up sets of
nouns that trigger the same agreement pattern into two or more classes if they have different
nominal prefixes AND if they participate in different singular-plural pairings, or if one set
contains singular nouns and the other plural nouns. For instance, Makwe G402 has two sets of
nouns that trigger the same agreement pattern in the singular: one with a prefix
mu-
and
plurals of class 4; and one with a prefix
u-
⁓
lu-
and plurals in class 4, 6, 10, 10a or 10b.
Following Bantuist practice, Devos (2008: 43) treats these as two separate classes, 3 and 11
respectively, which reflects the historical origin of the difference in nominal prefix.
Bantuists also have the somewhat inconsistent habit of distinguishing between a class 15 and
a class 17, even though these two classes tend to have exactly the same nominal prefix and
agreement pattern. Class 17 is one of the locative classes, together with 16 and 18. Its class
marker can be added as a pre-prefix to a full noun to derive a locative noun, which can trigger
agreement according to the locative class or its original noun class, depending on the language
and/or the construction. Class 15, on the other hand, is the class of infinitives in most Bantu
languages, except in the north of the domain, where infinitives are often of class 5, sometimes
also other classes (cf. Forges 1983, Hadermann 1999). Class 15 also contains a small set of
canonical nouns, mostly body part terms. Six have been reconstructed in Proto-Bantu with a
plural in class 6:
*-bókò
‘arm’,
*-gʊ̀dʊ̀
‘leg’,
*-tʊ́ì
‘ear’,
*-dúɩ̀
‘knee’ and
*-jápà
‘armpit’
(Doneux 1967). The arguments for splitting agreement class 15-17 into two distinct noun
classes, when explicitly mentioned, are rather diverse and usually not compatible with any
working definition of noun classes.
When sets of singular nouns trigger the same agreement pattern and have their plural in the
same class, but differ in the shape of their nominal prefix in ways that are not phonologically
predictable, they tend to be divided into subclasses.
ii
Bantu subclasses are typically labelled
by means of a letter after the class number. For example, Devos (2008) distinguishes in
Makwe G402 between class 10 (prefix ji-), class 10a (prefix ∅-) and class 10b (prefix jiN-).
Such subclasses and their labels are typically language-specific, or even description-specific,
with one notable exception: class 1a, which can be found throughout Bantu. The so-called
class 1a was first systematically described by Doke (1927) as a set of nouns that lack a prefix
in the singular and usually trigger class 1 agreement. It typically contains proper names, some
kinship terms, personified animals and borrowings. Class 1a is radically different from the
other subclasses. Its lack of a nominal prefix in most languages is not due to prefix loss, but
goes back to Proto-Bantu at least. It can be explained by pointing out that proper names and
certain suppletive kin terms tend to lack a determiner in the languages of the world, or an
augment in the Bantu languages (see Section 3), because they are inherently determined.
Names for personified animals function as proper names and borrowings are easily attracted
to any class without an overt class marker. The plurals of class 1a nouns are often marked by
an element
ba(a)
or
(b)ɔ
in which case they trigger the same agreement pattern as nouns of
class 2 and are treated as belonging to subclass 2a, when the vowel of the marker is
a
, or 2b,
when the plural marker has a back vowel. In Eton A71, the class 2b marker
bɔ̀
has the
phonological characteristics of a separate word and I have analysed it as a number word (Van
de Velde 2006a), an analysis that may be extended to other Bantu languages. Class 2a/2b
markers often express associativity. Associative constructions are used to refer to collectives
that consist of an identified referent and a number of associate referents. The relation between