Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Proto-Sotho and the Sotho-Group
From the early years of the Nineteenth Century, language investigation had been undertaken to show what the relationship was between the languages of Africa, and in particular, Southern Africa. Perhaps one of the earliest informed investigators who postulated the concept of distinctive language "typ...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
African Languages and Literatures
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867613244437299200 |
|---|---|
| access_status_str | Open Access |
| author | Auer, Richard Steven |
| author_browse | Auer, Richard Steven |
| author_facet | Auer, Richard Steven |
| author_sort | Auer, Richard Steven |
| collection | Thesis |
| description | From the early years of the Nineteenth Century, language investigation had been undertaken to show what the relationship was between the languages of Africa, and in particular, Southern Africa. Perhaps one of the earliest informed investigators who postulated the concept of distinctive language "types" among the languages of Southern Africa and particularly with the Southern Bantu languages, was Heinrich » Lichtenstein. Writing in 1 808, he divided the peoples and languages of Southern Africa into two distinctive groups: the "Hottentots" and the Hottentot class, of languages, and the "Kaffirs", and the "Kaffir" class of languages. He clarified this relationship by stating, "All linguistic types of the South African aborigines must be classified as dialects of 2 either one or the other of these two principal classes." Implied in this statement is the concept that within the group composed of all the languages of his "Kaffir" class, as indeed of his "Hottentot" class, distinctive dialectical qualities came about through dialectical divergence. Despite this implication he did not attempt to analyse the relational aspects of each of the dialects composing his "principal ("Kaffir") class". 1 .0.01 It was not until twenty-seven years later, in 1837» that William Boyce, in his introduction to Archbell’s "Grammar of the Bechuana Language", enlarged upon Lichtenstein's division by stating, "....(that) the second division or family, of his South African languages....(is composed of) the sister dialects spoken by the Kafir and Bechuana tribes." The linguistic boundaries were now enlarged to include two distinctive linguistic families, rather than "types", viz. the Hottentot family and the Nguni ("Kafir") and Sotho (Bechuana) families. In 18 5O, J. W.Appleyard, produced his "The Kafir Language; comprising a sketch of its History; remarks upon its Nature and a Grammar". In this work he postulates four groups within our future Bantu family, those of Congo, Damara (i.e. Herero), Sechuana and "Kafir" It is noteworthy that in this work he classified Sotho under the "Sechuana"^ group, from which it could be implied that Sotho was either a dialect or a separate Cluster of the Tswana group. This is the first discernible effort to note that under the main families of the Southern Africa geographical areas there could be dialects that were affiliated to larger groups. |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/30839 |
| institution | University of Cape Town (South Africa) |
| language | eng |
| last_indexed | 2026-06-10T12:33:04.194Z |
| license_str | Not specified — see source repository |
| provenance_str_mv | Harvested via OAI-PMH from UCTD — University of Cape Town Open Access Repository |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publishDateRange | 2020 |
| publishDateSort | 2020 |
| publisher | African Languages and Literatures |
| publisherStr | African Languages and Literatures |
| record_format | dspace |
| source_str | UCTD — University of Cape Town Open Access Repository |
| spelling | oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/30839 Proto-Sotho and the Sotho-Group Auer, Richard Steven African Languages From the early years of the Nineteenth Century, language investigation had been undertaken to show what the relationship was between the languages of Africa, and in particular, Southern Africa. Perhaps one of the earliest informed investigators who postulated the concept of distinctive language "types" among the languages of Southern Africa and particularly with the Southern Bantu languages, was Heinrich » Lichtenstein. Writing in 1 808, he divided the peoples and languages of Southern Africa into two distinctive groups: the "Hottentots" and the Hottentot class, of languages, and the "Kaffirs", and the "Kaffir" class of languages. He clarified this relationship by stating, "All linguistic types of the South African aborigines must be classified as dialects of 2 either one or the other of these two principal classes." Implied in this statement is the concept that within the group composed of all the languages of his "Kaffir" class, as indeed of his "Hottentot" class, distinctive dialectical qualities came about through dialectical divergence. Despite this implication he did not attempt to analyse the relational aspects of each of the dialects composing his "principal ("Kaffir") class". 1 .0.01 It was not until twenty-seven years later, in 1837» that William Boyce, in his introduction to Archbell’s "Grammar of the Bechuana Language", enlarged upon Lichtenstein's division by stating, "....(that) the second division or family, of his South African languages....(is composed of) the sister dialects spoken by the Kafir and Bechuana tribes." The linguistic boundaries were now enlarged to include two distinctive linguistic families, rather than "types", viz. the Hottentot family and the Nguni ("Kafir") and Sotho (Bechuana) families. In 18 5O, J. W.Appleyard, produced his "The Kafir Language; comprising a sketch of its History; remarks upon its Nature and a Grammar". In this work he postulates four groups within our future Bantu family, those of Congo, Damara (i.e. Herero), Sechuana and "Kafir" It is noteworthy that in this work he classified Sotho under the "Sechuana"^ group, from which it could be implied that Sotho was either a dialect or a separate Cluster of the Tswana group. This is the first discernible effort to note that under the main families of the Southern Africa geographical areas there could be dialects that were affiliated to larger groups. 2020-01-30T13:00:17Z 2020-01-30T13:00:17Z 1977 2020-01-30T12:58:40Z Master Thesis Masters http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30839 eng application/pdf African Languages and Literatures Faculty of Humanities |
| spellingShingle | African Languages Auer, Richard Steven Proto-Sotho and the Sotho-Group |
| thesis_degree_str | Master's |
| title | Proto-Sotho and the Sotho-Group |
| title_full | Proto-Sotho and the Sotho-Group |
| title_fullStr | Proto-Sotho and the Sotho-Group |
| title_full_unstemmed | Proto-Sotho and the Sotho-Group |
| title_short | Proto-Sotho and the Sotho-Group |
| title_sort | proto sotho and the sotho group |
| topic | African Languages |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30839 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT auerrichardsteven protosothoandthesothogroup |