The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 31 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Sibilants in Libyco-Berber
Open accessAbstract
The second-century bce Libyco-Berber inscriptions from Dougga (present-day Tunisia) have seven different signs for sibilants. In this article the sibilant system of these inscriptions and of the language they represent is studied in detail. It is shown that the different signs are not just graphemic variants but represent different pronunciations. It is also shown that there is a possibility that the seven signs in fact represent three or four articulations with a length contrast, even though the evidence is very weak. As Proto-Berber has been reconstructed with only three sibilants (+ length opposition), the choice of how to analyze the seven Libyco-Berber sibilant signs has important implications as to how the relationship between Libyco-Berber and Proto-Berber is to be assessed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
28 Own interpretation · 23 Sources not found · 14 No basis given · 8 Own result · 1 Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the inscriptions themselves provide only very restricted linguistic material, consisting mainly of names and functions (Février 1956;Rebuffat 2006) .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Février 1956
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Rebuffat 2006 source
In “La formule onomastique” (pp. 268–269), Rebuffat says that a very large number of Libyan epitaphs begin with the deceased’s name and the father’s name. The opening discussion (p. 267) identifies words denoting a person’s function, while its focus on a small set of recurring words supports the characterization of the linguistic material as restricted. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second-century bce Libyco-Berber inscriptions from Dougga (present-day Tunisia) have seven different signs for sibilants .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the exception of z 2 , which is only attested in the word gz 2 b(t 3 ), all sibilants are attested both in word-initial and in word-medial position.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In word-final position, we find only two sibilants”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of the seven sibilants, there is nothing that points to graphemic conditioning, as shown in Table Three .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of these inscriptions are bilingual and contain both a Punic and a Libyco-Berber text .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the second place, in the Berber variety of Awjila in eastern Libya there are two sets of correspondents to northern Berber /s/ and /z/: s/š and z/ž, respectively .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites van Putten 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this one exception, the spelling of names and words is highly regular .”
- Also stated in: § b) Consistency within words · plain
“Even though some of the signs are less common than others, their use is entirely consistent within words and names .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § b) Consistency within words · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This letter is commonly found in Libyco-Berber words and names with a Punic background, e .g., špṭ 'a dignitary; personal name' and a number of personal names such as šmn (Punic ʿbdˀšmn), rš (Punic ˀrš), and wdštr (Punic ʿbdštrt).”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“On the other hand, a number of names with <š> clearly belong to Libyan name types, such as yrštn (Jongeling 1994: xv) .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jongeling 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates an associationSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
In the paper
“In the first place, in Zenaga of Mauritania the regular correspondent to northern Berber /s/ is [ʃ], while the regular correspondent to /ẓ/ is [θˤ].There are two correspondents to northern Berber /z/: [θ] and [ʒ] (non-strident), both corresponding to [zː] when geminated.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Taine-Cheikh 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the present language the presence of [θ] and [ʒ] is unconditioned, and they thus represent different phonemes.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Taine-Cheikh 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The script used in the Dougga inscriptions is similar to that in vertical inscriptions from the same region, but it contains a number of letters that are absent in the latter (Pichler 2007: 69) .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pichler 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Up to now, fourteen texts in the Dougga script have been published .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three other signs are not attested in word-final position and have no instances where the (graphemic) word-initial attestations could not be interpreted as being preceded by a word-initial vowel: s 2 (), z 2 (), or ṣ () .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“RIL 2 is dated to 138 bce, and the other texts are probably from roughly the same period (Février 1964(Février -1965: 85) : 85) .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Février 1964-1965
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table Two shows that the different sibilant signs are attested all across the inscriptions .”
- Also stated in: § a) Co-occurrence · plain
“In one inscription, RIL 3, all seven sibilant signs are attested .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § a) Co-occurrence · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that the choice of symbols for the reconstructed phonemes *s, *z, *ẓ is purely conventional; in view of the Zenaga and Awjila reflexes, one should remain agnostic about their phonetic realization in proto-Berber .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All in all, the evidence is ambiguous in the case of the emphatic consonants, and Galand's interpretation is less compelling than it may look at first sight.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, it does not make much sense to provide a phonological analysis of all Libyco-Berber texts together, as there is no reason to assume that they all represent the same stage and dialects of the language .”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“As shown by van Putten (2014: 265-68), there is no clear conditioning to this distribution; he therefore suggests that Awjila may have retained a contrast lost elsewhere .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites van Putten 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also shown that there is a possibility that the seven signs in fact represent three or four articulations with a length contrast, even though the evidence is very weak .”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are the official inscriptions from the city of Dougga in present-day Tunisia (Latin: Thugga; Punic and Libyco-Berber: tbgg), a closely related group of texts using the same script, and different from all other Libyco-Berber inscriptions in that they are written from right to left rather than from bottom to top .”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This would be the case of s 1 , š, z 1 , and z 3 :”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Libyco-Berber inscriptions are written in various scripts, they are attested over a large area, and they date from different periods (for recent overviews, see Pichler 2007;Springer Bunk 2014;Casajus 2015;Mora Aguiar 2017) .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pichler 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Springer Bunk 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Casajus 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Even though Kossmann (1999: 249) reconstructs a triple opposition /f/ -/b/ -/β/, there is only very scanty evidence for *b versus *β, and a slightly more audacious reconstruction could easily do away with the opposition .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kossmann 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These would then, potentially, correspond to long consonants .”
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The presence of long consonant signs at the beginning of an orthographic word would point to an initial vowel.
In the paper
“There is no doubt that the language and culture of the Dougga inscriptions were heavily influenced by Punic (Février 1956), so one could easily imagine Punic influence on the consonant system .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Février 1956
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among these, /ṣ/ is either a loan phoneme from Arabic or an assimilated variant of /ẓ/.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following up on the assumption that long consonants appear only in word-medial position, any sign appearing in word-final position should be considered short .”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are, however, major tendencies as to their distribution, which suggests that the opposition is the result of a phonemic split and is therefore a Zenaga innovation .”
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the first place, the Punic script distinguishes only two emphatic sounds, <ṭ> and <ṣ>; thus, a further emphatic sound could easily hide behind one of the Libyco-Berber letters corresponding to Punic <s> or <z> .”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“which may be due to the restricted corpus, and to the specific makeup of many Libyan names, which tend to end in a small number of consonants (cf .Jongeling 1994: xiv-xxi)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jongeling 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All in all, we are thus confronted with seven pronunciations in Libyco-Berber as opposed to only three reconstructible sibilants in proto-Berber .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Proto-Berber has three reconstructible sibilants.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The little lexical information that we have at our disposal is not very helpful for this question .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The analysis of most other terms is strongly debated, and although Berber equivalents have been proposed (e .g., Marcy 1936;Rössler 2001aRössler [1958]]; Rössler 2001bRössler [1962Rössler -1964]]; Chaker 1995Chaker , 2005)), 2 there is no consensus about this .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Marcy 1936
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rössler 2001a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Chaker 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the other analysis, Libyco-Berber had seven different sibilant positions .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All in all, an interpretation of the seven-way distinction in Libyco-Berber as a three-way distinction + length and an additional consonant cannot be ruled out .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This would mean that <ṣ> could indeed appear in initial position and that the absence of proof for this in Dougga is simply accidental .”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This does not seem to present insurmountable problems to the idea that Libyco-Berber descends from proto-Berber exactly like any of the modern Berber languages; one has to concede, however, that the evidence for this analysis is extremely weak .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
The Dougga inscriptions constitute a sufficiently homogeneous linguistic corpus to be analyzed as a single phonological system.
“These are the official inscriptions from the city of Dougga in present-day Tunisia (Latin: Thugga; Punic and Libyco-Berber: tbgg), a closely related group of texts using the same script, and different from all other Libyco-Berber inscriptions in that they are written from right to left rather than from bottom to top .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The presence of long consonant signs at the beginning of an orthographic word would point to an initial vowel.
“Thus, one could assume that the presence of long consonant signs at the beginning of an orthographic word would point to an initial vowel .”
The paper relies on this without support.
Berber has an opposition between long and short consonants.
“Berber-like many other Afroasiatic languages-has an opposition between long (”
The paper relies on this without support.
In some cases, the basic pronunciation of a single consonant changes when it is lengthened.
“In many cases, this is purely an opposition of length, but in other cases the basic pronunciation of the single consonant changes when it is lengthened.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In most Berber languages, short [ɣ] corresponds to long [qː].
“Thus, in most Berber languages, short [ɣ] corresponds to long [qː], showing a difference in length, closure, and voicing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In most modern Berber languages, long sibilants do not have phonetic differences beyond length.
“In most modern Berber languages, sibilants are among the consonants that do not have such differences, and the long (”
The paper relies on this without support.
Proto-Berber has three reconstructible sibilants.
“All in all, we are thus confronted with seven pronunciations in Libyco-Berber as opposed to only three reconstructible sibilants in proto-Berber .”
Citations
Cites
Krahmalkov, C. R. (2001) · BRILL eBooks · doi:10.1163/9789004294202 · Cited by 121
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
(2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55065-7_301345 · Cited by 74
On the Classification of Berber
(2010) · Cited by 44
Recueil des inscriptions libyques
(1940) · Cited by 33
Aires sémantiques des principaux mots libyques
Rebuffat, R. (2006) · Mélanges de l'École française de Rome. Antiquité · doi:10.3406/mefr.2006.10984 · Cited by 28
Friedrich, J., Rölling, W., Mayer, W., & Amadasi, M. G. (1999) · doi:10.2307/600202 · Cited by 27
Les inscriptions libyques bilingues de l'Afrique du nord
(1936) · Cited by 25
Galand, L. (1973) · Revue de l'Occident musulman et de la Méditerranée · doi:10.3406/remmm.1973.1216 · Cited by 25
North-African Names from Latin Sources
(1994) · Cited by 18
Inscriptions libyques du Constantinois (Fonds H.-G. Pflaum)
Galand, L. (1997) · Antiquités africaines · doi:10.3406/antaf.1997.1264 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Chabot, Jean-Baptiste. 1918. Punica (fin). Journal Asiatique, 11th ser ., 12: 249-302 .
- ---. 1921. Mélanges épigraphiques. Journal Asiatique, 11th ser ., 17: 76-96 .
- Dolgopoľskij, Aron B. 1976. Numidijskoe (vostočnolivijskoe) piśmo Severnoj Afriki. In Tajny drevnix piśmen-Problemy dešifrovki, ed. Igor M. Ďjakonov. Pp. 384-443. Moscow: Progress.
- Militarev, Aleksander Ju . 1994 . Glazami lingvista: Garamantida v kontekste severoafrikanskoj istorii . In Garamantida (afrikanskaja Atlantida), ed. Ju. M. Kobiščanov and A. Ju. Militarev. Pp. 230-82. Moscow: Vostočnaja literatura.
- Springer Bunk, Renata Ana . 2014 . Die libysch-berberischen Inschriften der Kanarischen Inseln in ihrem Felsbildkontext. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Historia, V. A. D. L. F. D. G. E. (2021) · Vegueta: Anuario de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia · doi:10.51349/veg.2021.2 · Cited by 7
La transcripción del alfabeto líbico-bereber canario: el ejemplo de El Hierro
Mora Aguiar, I. (2021) · Vegueta: Anuario de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia · doi:10.51349/veg.2021.2.04 · Cited by 6
La transcripción del alfabeto líbico-bereber canario: el ejemplo de El Hierro
Mora Aguiar, I. (2021) · Vegueta. Anuario de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia · doi:10.51349/2021.2.04 · Cited by 2
Vertical and horizontal tribars in Eastern Numidian inscriptions
Kossmann, M. (2026) · Études et Documents Berbères · doi:10.3917/edb.053.0055
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kossman, M.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Oriental Society
- Publisher
- American Oriental Society
- Published
- 2021-09-19
- Volume
- 140
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0003-0279 (ISSN-L)
- 2169-2289
- OpenAlex
- W3112528180
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 2.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Oriental Society (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and language evolution
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › North African History and Literature
- Keywords
- sibilants, phonetic reconstruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sibilants in Libyco-Berber. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.4.0875
- The paper
- Kossman, M. (2021). Sibilants in Libyco-Berber. Journal of the American Oriental Society. https://doi.org/10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.4.0875
