The Conjunctive Article in Circumpontic Languages and

its possible pre-Indo-European Substratum

Gustavo-Adolfo Loria-Rivel Ph.D.

Iaşi, Romania

A very interesting feature of Albanian is the so-called "preceding article" (nyjë e

përparme), which introduces a large number of adjectives (which belong mainly to the oldest
stock of words), as well as nouns in genitive case. Let us examine a few examples:

një shtëpi e madhe "a big house"

një djalë i mirë "a good boy"
rruga e pazarit "the street of the market"
shtëpia e hamallit "the house of the porter"

Due to this characteristic of usually binding a referent and its modifier I shall call this
part of speech "conjunctive article" (< coniungo "to bind together").

The situation turns still more interesting when we examine the case of Romanian where
the "conjunctive article" exists in two different forms: the "possessive article" and the "adjectival
articles". The possessive article (al, a, ai, ale) precedes a noun in genitive case when the
modified noun has no definite article. E.g.

un capitol al cărţii lui "a chapter of his book"

oaia neagră a familiei "the black sheep of the family"

The adjective article (cel, cea, cei, cele) is optional and can be used only if the referent
has definite article. E.g.

rochia mea cea nouă

prietenul meu cel vechi

Of course, whenever we find a linguistic feature common to Albanian and Romanian, we

may propose the possibility that such a common feature is linked to Paleobalkanic substratum.
Here we find a first difficulty, as such characteristic cannot be found in other languages of the
Balkanic Sprachbund. The reason of such a situation must be found in the structural differences
between those Balkanic languages that have conjunctive article and those that have not. The
conjunctive article seems to appear only in those languages that fulfill the following two
conditions:

1) Topic: modified - modifier (noun – adjective, possessed object – possessor)

2) There is no prefixed definite article

Such requirements exclude Bulgaro-Macedonian1 and Serbo-Croatian, where the

adjective precedes the noun, and Modern Greek where the definite article is not suffixed but
prefixed. Therefore, the conjunctive article may be a substratum characteristic of the Balkanic
Sprachbund, limited to Albanian and Romanian because of structural reasons.

In previous articles2 we have pointed out the fact that many of those features that we
consider proper to Balkanic languages are common, in fact, to the tongues spoken around the
Black Sea, (Circumpontic languages). Among such Circumpontic characteristics we might
mention the prefixed definite article, the usage of the conjunctive instead of the infinitive, a
verbal mode that renders indirect speech or doubt, impersonal phrases of compulsion etc. It has
sense, therefore, to look for the existence of a conjunctive article in languages spoken around the
Black Sea.

Georgian and Armenian have no conjunctive article but such a fact is normal as in both
languages the topic is modified – modifier. Let us now examine the case of Persian. In this
language we find the so-called ezafet, a particle that links 1) the noun and the modifying
adjective, 2) the possessed and the possessor and 3) nouns in apposition. E.g.

joÆ SsB /asb-e-mard/ (the horse of the man)

jËÃQ ÍѾ /koh-e-boland/ (high mountain)

1
According to I. Coteanu, in Old Bulgarian texts we may find structures such as "ouñenïe se novoe" (new
teaching), where the demonstrative pronoun "se" (this) seems to function as a conjunctive article. Cf. Coteanu, I.,
Despre poziţia articolului în limba română, in Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, 1-2, 1956, p. 57-71.
2
Cf. Loria, G., Persian in the Context of Circumpontic Languages, presumed vestiges of a suffixed definite article,
Revista “Thraco-Dacica”, Bucharest, 1999; Direct Object marking in Circumpontic languages and Turkish, Revista
“Thraco-Dacica”, Bucharest, 1999; Bulgarian Indirect Speech Verbal Forms and the Circumpontic Substratum,
Revista “Thraco-Dacica”, Bucharest, 2000; "Have to-" Sentences of Compulsion in Circumpontic Languages,
Proceedings of the VIII-th Congress of Thracology "Thrace and the Aegean", Volume I, International Foundation
"Europa Antiqua - Sofia", Institute of Thracology – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 2002.
 ÅXsÑj ÕCËQ /banna-ye-dostam/ (the carpenter, my friend)

Such constructions can be found in all Iranian languages, such as Dari, Tadzhik, Tata,
Kurdish and others. Unlike the conjunctive article of Albanian and Romanian, the Persian ezafet
is invariable. Such difference is the result of the internal evolution of Persian. The modern ezafet
comes from the Old Persian deictic particle hya, which "is used after a noun to introduce
modifiers: an appositive substantive alone... or with preceding genitive; a common adjective...,
two successive common adjectives...; an ethnic...; a superlative with following genitive of the
whole...; a possessive genitive of a personal name...; or of a pronoun...; a locative substantive or
an instrumental with enclitic postposition..."3. That deictic particle, as it appears in the
Inscriptions of Darius, agrees with the referent in number, gender and case. E.g.

avam karam tyam hamiçiyam "that rebel army" (in accusative). DB 2.354.
Gaumata hya maguš "Gaumata the Magician". DB 1.445.
kara hya mana "my army". DB 1.46.
amiy hya Kurauš "son of Cyrus" DB 1.397.

The loss of the agreement of the Persian ezafet is certainly linked with the loss of gender.
In contemporary Kurdish, an Iranian language where the category of gender is kept, the ezafet
agrees in gender and number. The following chart and examples represent the Kurdish dialect
spoken in Azerbaidyan8:

Masculine singular -\, -е, -м, -ь

Feminine singular -а, -ь
Plural -\д\, -\н\, -ед\, -ен\, -н\, -е, -ь

кач'ка Сöлтэн the daughter of the Sultan

малуме аг'ы smart teacher
дифар\ бьльнд high wall

3
Cf. Kent, R., Old Persian (Grammar, Texts, Lexicon), 2-nd edition revised, American Oriental Society, New
Haven, Connecticut, 1953, p. 85.
4
Ibidem p. 95.
5
Ibidem p. 117
6
Ibidem p. 95
7
Ibidem p. 117
8
Cf. Бакаев, Ч. Х., Язык азейрбаджанских курдов. Издательство Наука, Москва, 1965, р. 48.
 As we can see, the Iranian ezafet, the Albanian previous article and the Romanian
genitival and adjectival articles are very close in nature, sense and usage. Therefore, we can
assert that all of these grammatical phenomena constitute manifestations of the same
"conjunctive article".

A most important question is that one regarding the origin of the conjunctive article in
Circumpontic languages. Did it arise as a the result of contact between languages, or are we
dealing with a characteristic inherited from a previous language or group of languages, maybe
Pre-Indo-European, spoken in the vicinity of the Black Sea.

It seems that in the area where nowadays Iranian tongues are spoken, the only language
that developed a kind of "conjunctive article" was Elamite. Dyakonoff9 says that the
demonstrative-relative pronoun for the inanimate objects "ak(k)a" as well as the one for animate
beings "arra" where used in Neo-Elamite as nota genitivi, under the influence of Old-Persian. Of
course, we do not deny that Dyakonoff might be right and that such structures could have been
borrowed from Old Persian due to the intense bilingualism that preceded the disappearance of
Elamite and the triumph of Old Persian. However, we should also take into account the
possibility the "conjunctive article" might have appeared as an internal process in late Elamite
and was eventually borrowed by Old Persian due to the conditions of bilingualism mentioned
above. Unfortunately, Dyakonoff gives no examples of the usage of the demonstrative-relative
pronoun as a nota genitivi.

Other languages that might have been spoken in South-East Europe before the arrival of
the Indo-Europeans are those that belong to the Semito-Hamitic group, the so-called Aegean
substratum. Indeed in Semitic branch of the Semito-Hamitic languages we find the a nota
genitivi which resembles the conjunctive article in its function of linking the possessed object
and the possessor. E.g. in Aramaic: "<KalUma yDi <FAñUKa" /kaspa di malka/ (the silver of the

King)10, in Old Akkadian "uard-u-m ču śarr-i-m" (the slave of the king)11 and in Arabic "èÄâ`ánãÂ

ïYå×áQ" /baytun li-rağulin/ (a house of a man)12. In Semitic languages he nota genitivi usually comes

from a demonstrative relative pronoun (like in Akkadian and Aramaic). In the case of Arabic, it

9
Cf. Дьяконов, И. М., Языки Древней Передней Азии, Издательство Наука, Москва, 1967, р. 106.
10
Diakonoff, I.M., Afrasian Languages, Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1988, p. 82.
11
Idem
12
Corriente, F., Gramática Árabe, Herder, Editorial Herder, Barcelona, 1988, p. 67.
comes from the preposition "Á" /l-/ (to, for). In Middle and Neo-Akkadian, as well as in

Aramaic, the nota genitivi is invariable, but in Old Akkadian it still varied according to gender
and number. The usage of the Semitic nota genitivi is narrower than that one of the Circumpontic
conjunctive article, as it links only the possessed and the possessor and not the adjective and the
noun.

The Hamitic branch of the Semito-Hamitic languages offers to us a rich and interesting
material regarding the possible Pre-Indo-European origins of the conjunctive article. The
"conjunctive article" seems to have existed in Old Egyptian where the particle /n/ links the
possessed object and the possessor in the so-called "indirect genitive case"13. This particle agrees
with the possessed object in gender and number. Let us examine some examples14:

¾!Fj‘O /h[m n )imj r) pr/ (the slave [m.] of the housekeeper)

¾!õìj‘O /h[mw nw )imj r) pr/ (the slaves [m.] of the housekeeper)

¾°OF°j‘O /h[mt nt )imj r) pr/ (the slave-woman [f.] of the housekeeper)

¾°OõF°j‘O /h[mwt nt )imj r) pr/ (the slave-women [f.] of the housekeeper)

The particle /n/ was also used when the genitive had adjectival sense. E.g.

pFLø«°ò /s n m) (t/ (man of truth, i.e. rightful man)15.

As the Egyptian language evolved, the particle /n/ lost its inflection and no longer agreed
with its referent. By analogy of its function of introducing genitives with adjectival sense, the
particle /n/ was eventually used to link many adjectives to the nouns they refer to. Let us see
some examples of the usage of the particle /n/ in Coptic, the last stage of Egyptian16:

psére n¡pnoute (the Son of God)

tmn¡tero nm¡péue (the Kingdom of Heavens)

13
Cf. Короствцев, М.А., Египетский Язык, Издательство Восточной Литературы, Москва, 1961, р. 29-30.
14
Cf. Петровский, Н.С., Египетский Язык, Издательство Ленинградсково Университета, 1958, р. 105.
15
Cf. Короствцев, М.А., Египетский Язык, Издательство Восточной Литературы, Москва, 1961, р. 30.
16
Cf. Martin Plumley, J., An Introductory Coptic Grammar, Home & van Thal, London, sine anno, p. 42-45.
pefsére n¡ouót (his only son)

neprovétéc n¡ouj (the lying prophets).

Of course, we might also say that in Coptic not the particle /n/ began to be used to
introduce adjectives, but that most adjectives started to be perceived as nouns and that, therefore,
the particle /n/ was used to introduce them. Such interpretation might be more correct but, for the
purposes of our research, however, what matters is that, in one way or another, as Egyptian
evolved, the particle /n/ was used more often to introduce elements of adjectival nature.

Thus, the usage of the Egyptian /n/-particle is wider than that one of the Semitic nota
genitivi and matches the usage of the "conjunctive article".

The /n/-particle exists in other Hamitic languages as well. Such is the case of Modern
Hausa, where this particles links both, 1) the adjective and the noun (in this order!) and 2) the
possessed and the possessor. E.g.

"gidan uba" (the house of the father)17

"babban gida" (big house)18

What is very atypical is that the topic of Hausa nominal phrase is on the one hand
possessed-possessor (modified-modifier) and, on the other hand, adjective-noun (modifier-
modified). Such a mixed condition is probably due to the influence of other African languages
spoken around (eventually Bantu). Hausa grammars do not consider the /n/-marker as an
independent suffix but regard the word followed by the /n/-marker as a single unit, called
"connective state"19.

In Berber, the /n/-particle is used only to link the possessed and the possessor and not the
noun and the adjective. Let us see an example from the Ibadhite dialect.

"Tamzida n Yuc" (the house of God)20

17
Смирнова, В.А., Язык Хауса, Издательство Восточной Литературы, Москва, 1960, р. 29.
18
Idem р. 59.
19
Idem р. 58.
20
Motylinski, C., Le nom berbère de Dieu chez les Ibadhites, Revue africaine, 1905, in Haddadou, M. A., Le Guide
de la culture berbère, Ína-Yas, Mediterranée, Paris, 2000, p. 180.
 We may draw the following conclusions:

The "conjunctive article", despite of the diversity of ways to call it, exists in Albanian,
Romanian, Iranian (Persian and Kurdish), Egyptian and Hausa.

The conjunctive article exists in languages spoken in the vicinity of the Black Sea, which
share two characteristics: a) nominal modifiers (adjectives and nouns in genitive case) follow the
modified noun; b) they have no prefixed definite article (i.e. either they have suffixed definite
article, as in Romanian and Albanian or they have no definite article at all, as in Persian). In the
case of languages spoken outside the Black Sea area, these two conditions do not exist. Indeed,
Old Egyptian and Hausa have "conjunctive article" though none of them has definite article and,
as we have seen, in Hausa the nominal modifier does not always follow the modified noun.

As it concerns a possible Pre-Indo-European substratum, we can mention two possible

sources:

a) Elamite: In a later stage of the development of this language, called Neo-Elamite, the
demonstrative-relative pronouns ak(k)a and arra were used as a nota genitivi. The
problem of this filiation is that such structures appeared during the period of bilingualism
Elamite-Old Persian and, therefore, we may suspect, as Dyakonoff does, that such a
phenomenon in Elamite was borrowed from Old Persian. Of course, such a suspicion
might prove false, as the relation source-borrower could be just the opposite. We know
that there was no conjunctive article in Elamite before this language got in contact with
Iranian, but we do not know whether Iranian had conjunctive article before it got in
contact with Elamite, as there are no Iranian texts prior to the contact of these two
languages. We just may assert that both languages Elamite and Old Iranian fulfilled the
two requirements mentioned above to have a conjunctive article. Both had a "modified-
modifier" word order and no prefixed article (Elamite might have had a suffixed definite
article while Old Iranian had no definite article at all).
b) On the other side of the Black Sea, the so-called "Aegean substratum" offers some very
interesting data. Both branches of the Semito-Hamitic family of languages present a nota
genitivi that resembles in many respects the conjunctive article. Such resemblance is
more evident in the case of the Hamitic branch. Egyptian had conjunctive article from the
oldest times until the Coptic period and Hausa has it up to day (even though Hausa
grammars do not regard it as an independent suffix).
 Out of the Semito-Hamitic material we may infer that linking particles, such as –n in
Egyptian, Berber and Hausa, were used first just as nota genitivi and later began to be used to
link nouns and adjectives. A similar evolution in the case of the Circumpontic conjunctive article
cannot be excluded.

The conjunctive article is, probably, a reality at Circumpontic level. The variety of names
by which it is called in different languages makes it difficult to realize that we deal with one and
the same phenomenon. It might well bring arguments in favor of the existence of a Semitic-
Hamitic substrate at least in part of the territories around the Black Sea.

Bibliography

1. Абаев, В. А., и др., Основы иранского языкознания, Новоиранские языки: Западная

группа, прикаспийские языки, Издательство Наука, Москва, 1982.
2. Бакаев, Ч. Х., Язык азейрбаджанских курдов. Издательство Наука, Москва, 1965.
3. Дьяконов, И. М., Языки Древней Передней Азии, Издательство Наука, Москва, 1967.
4. Diakonoff, I.M., Afrasian Languages, Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1988.
5. Haddadou, M. A., Le Guide de la culture berbère, Ína-Yas, Mediterranée, Paris, 2000.
6. Kent, R., Old Persian (Grammar, Texts, Lexicon), 2-nd edition revised, American Oriental
Society, New Haven, Connecticut, 1953
7. Короствцев, М.А., Египетский Язык, Издательство Восточной Литературы, Москва,
1961.
8. Loria, G., Persian in the Context of Circumpontic Languages, presumed vestiges of a
suffixed definite article, Revista “Thraco-Dacica”, Bucharest, 1999.
9. Loria, G., Direct Object marking in Circumpontic languages and Turkish, Revista “Thraco-
Dacica”, Bucharest, 1999.
10. Loria, G., Bulgarian Indirect Speech Verbal Forms and the Circumpontic Substratum,
Revista “Thraco-Dacica”, Bucharest, 2000.
11. Loria, G., "Have to-" Sentences of Compulsion in Circumpontic Languages, Proceedings of
the VIII-th Congress of Thracology "Thrace and the Aegean", Volume I, International
Foundation "Europa Antiqua - Sofia", Institute of Thracology – Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, 2002.
12. Mace, J., Modern Persian, Teach Yourself Collection, The English Universities Press
Limited, London, [1962].
13. Martin Plumley, J., An Introductory Coptic Grammar, Home & van Thal, London, sine anno.
14. Петровский, Н.С., Египетский Язык, Издательство Ленинградсково Университета,
1958.
15. Смирнова, В.А., Язык Хауса, Издательство Восточной Литературы, Москва, 1960