 So as most of you know, I'm Joey Love-Strand. I'm a post-doctor fellow at SOAS University of London here to hosting this linguistics webinar for our department. And excited to have Guillaume Hittang here to present his work on the ethnobiology biology of muscle, muscle languages. Guillaume's a PhD student at the University of Lieber in Brussels, where he's working on primarily a description of the grammar of Gize. He's also been involved in work at LeCun, including the discourse reporting project. Previously, he did a master's in linguistics at the University of Lloyd and Cameroon. And he's also one of the leaders of the Chetic Languages and Cultures Working Group. So if anyone is interested in this kind of presentation and wants to be a part of that group, you can contact Guillaume later about how to be involved in those monthly meetings. So Guillaume, thank you for coming today and being willing to present this project that you've been working on for a while. And we look forward to hearing what you have to say. Yeah. So thank you very much, Guillaume, for the introduction. And thank you for having me here. I also wish to thank all of you for coming. It's a real pleasure for me to share a part of my work on Gize and more generally on the muscle languages. Now, just to be sure, if you ever get the impression that the quality of my microphone is possible, please don't hesitate to stop me so that I fix the things. OK, so I think we can start slowly while other people are joining. OK, so as you can see from the title, I'm going to discuss briefly overview the linguistics ethnobiology of a few muscle languages. What I'm going to do, as I said, is overview the structure of animal and plant names in the muscle languages. I will specifically look at the linguistic side of muscle for taxonomy. That is the morphological structure of animal and plant labels. What I will not do is do a systematic examination of muscle at taxonomies. That is, I will not look at it on the line, conceptual structure behind the names that I'm going to show to you. I will not also systematically point at correspondences or lack of correspondence between muscle for taxonomy and the linear more scientific classification, which you should be aware of. For example, I will not tell you if muscle at taxonomies or muscle taxonomy do things like over differentiation. That is cases where you take the same species in the linear classification and the muscle languages create two or maybe three species out of the same species. I will not also point at things like under differentiation. That is, I'm going to do that. And I guess you understand why I'm not a biologist. I'm just a linguist. So I will limit myself to the linguistics reflection of the taxonomies. Now, I will not try to convince you on the importance of reviewing the names of plants and animals in giving communities. Just to point out that, as, for example, Berlin points out, the names of plants and animals reveals much about the ways people conceptualize the living things in the India environment. And I hope, as we go through the presentation, you are able to see exactly how Massa communities conceptualize the living things in the environment. That is also one important thing. It provides very useful insights into the history of communities. The names of plants and animals, as well as words in the languages, document specifically for names of plants and animals. They document geographical trajectories, changes in lifestyles of the people, changes in the environment. They become real archaeological material in time of rapid environmental changes. And from a more linguistics perspective, it also provides insights into the processes involved in the creation and maintenance of words in giving communities. And this poses possible the strongly persistent question about the arbitrary or not arbitrary nature of words. I will show throughout the presentation that there is some non-abituriness in the ways the names of plants and animals are formed in these languages. I will specifically point out how the characteristics of plants and animals are projected into their names. So this is what I will cover. I will give some background information on the languages. Then I will walk you through different types of animals and plant names in these communities. So let's start with some background information on the languages discussed in the presentation. So I have said it already from the beginning. So I'll be talking about the Masa languages. And the Masa languages are discussed as a part of Chadwick, which is composed of four branches, West, U-Mandara, U-Mandara and East, plus Pasang, as you can see for the year. And Chadwick itself is part of Afro-Asiatic, which is generally accepted to involve Semitic, Omotic, Shutec, and Bairbair languages, including also Chadwick, as I said. So you can see Chadwick in blue on this map. Now the Masa branch itself involves two groups, the Northern and the Southern group. So in this presentation, I'm going to focus specifically on the Northern branch, the Northern group of Masa, which involves two sections. We have the Masa section, which involves Masana, the Giusevina continuum, and there is Sumaia, which is an extant language. Then you have the Moseh section, which involves Moseh, Ham, and the Mar-Balleu-Monovoi continuum. So when I use the term continuum here, I wish to point the fact that some of the members of the continuum, there are questions about their exact status, whether they are independent languages or part of a dialectal continuum. Now the languages, the languages be them from the Southern group or from the Northern group. The Masa languages are mostly under-described and some of them are not described at all. It is the case for example, of Ham, which is totally not described and it is rightly pointed out that this is a language that might be in real danger. Now, and for those languages that have had some descriptions, as you would expect, the literature is generally very fragmentary. And as Joué said in the beginning, I am currently preparing a grammatical description of Giusevina. We financial support from the Université Libre de Bruxelles that is the promo moment. And I'm just telling you this because I'm sure you are going to observe a Giusevina bias in the data that I show. Now, if we look at the location of the languages on the map, so most of these languages span the Cameroon, Cameroon, Chad, Borders. You have Masa, Masana, which is here. You have the Giusevina continuum here around the Fiangalic. You have Mosei, which is here. You have Marba Leo, which is here. And then you have the tiny Ham community, which is also here. Now, a few words about the data that I'm going to discuss. So most of this data come from dictionaries or draft dictionaries of these languages. You have the draft dictionary of Mosei. You have the dictionary of Masa, a dictionary of Giusevina, and here a dictionary of Marba. This one is a comparative word list, which involves something like 1,400 entries from Giusevina, Ham, Leo, Marba, Masana, and Mosei. So it's also very useful, and you have various entries for thrilling plants and animals in that word, it is well-organized. Now, apart from the data in this draft dictionary by Shirok, most of the animal and plant names that I'm going to discuss are connected by Agonino Mélis. I think I saw Mélis here. Bonjour, Padre. And so Mélis, he's a biologist, he's a linguist, and he is currently acting as the director of the Centre culturelle de Mosei de la Valle du Logon in Iagoa. And you can Google the Centre culturelle of Giusevina, Valle du Logon. There is a very informative website that you can consult, or you can use the QR code that I created there. If you have time to study. Okay. Now, so this is just to give you an idea, a general idea of the number of entries that attack as botanical or zoological vocabulary in the various sources. You probably have less than what is indicated there, apart from the cooperative lexicon, which for which I have, I'm sure about the exact figures because I counted them manually. But for the other ones, they need to be cleaned. So this is just an indication of the amount of botanical and zoological information that you find in these sources. I was not able to retrieve the information from the dictionary of Mosei. Yeah, because it is not structured in exactly the same way as the others. And so now, as you would expect, there are gaps in these sources, probably because of the kinds of data that we use and because also the question of the training that we have, some of the people working on this language is a linguist alone, not biologists at the same time as it is the case for me, it is. So you have entries like in the draft dictionary of Mosei, a plant, you can't exactly identify which plant and you have the same situation even for topologies. It is sometimes very difficult to identify all the elements. So you have examples here of a kind of mouse that is edible, but you can retrieve the identity of the exact mouse that is indicated. So it is generally not an easy task. And also, for my case, for example, in the narrative data that we collect, you have names of plants and animals that show up in the data and you can't exactly identify the item. So it is not a perfect set of data, but I'm sure you will find a lot of interesting stuff in what I show. I think we are now set to go into the details of the animals and plant names in these languages, but before another background stop about terminology so that we assure exactly of the terminology that I used here. So basically what I'm using is Kotlin's terminology and Kotlin's identifies two kinds of labels for animals and plant names in different communities. So there are composite labels like the example that you have the white oak. So composite labels are labels that involve a headword which specifies a taxon or a category and then you have an attributive element which qualifies that headword. It is the case, for example, of white oak where oak is a taxon, is a category and then you have white, which is the attributive, which qualifies oak. And then you have unitary labels. Unitary labels are those labels that do not show the kind of endosypticity that you find with composite labels. With unitary labels, you have two types, two subtypes. You have simple ones that is those that are segmentable like oak, which is not segmentable further. And then you have the complex ones like frozen oak. So basically these are exocentric compound in the sense that they do not show the same endosypticity which you find here with composite labels. So clearly a poison oak is not a kind of oak. So basically that is the idea. Now, the other terminology that you find in the literature you have, Berlin, which comes with other flavors. So basically it distinguishes between primary labels and secondary labels. The primary labels can be simple like fraud or segmentable. Then you have the complex ones, which can be productive like catfish. Catfish is a kind of fish. And then you have the productive ones like silverfish. Silverfish is not a kind of fish. It is not a silver, it is an insect. And then you have the secondary labels like white oak, which are always complex and often they always involve paradigmatic contrast with other kinds of the headword. As white oak as you have them. I think we've now seen the terminology. So everything is clear. We can now go into the details about the labels in the Maza language. So I will not come back to these definitions. Maybe just if you go, let us discuss the data from the languages. Now, so the composite labels. So the understanding that we get from what I said so far is that composite labels are endocentric. So they often, they always describe the kinds of the headword or some classes of the head. So these are examples from today. So you have who, which is the head term, which refers to caprine. And then who plus these attributives, who neg, who meh, who gamli, who dimi, who pat, identify different categories of subcategories of the category head. And so these are the attributive elements. So I just want to point a few things here. The items that you see, nada, nada, nada, nada. These are determinants. These are items that provide information about definiteness and gender number. And so you can hardly pronounce a noun in these languages without the article. I don't know them systematically, but I think in pronouncing the nouns, I think I always include them when I see the names. So don't get surprised if I say nada and you don't see the nada written there. Now, the other thing is that the attributive elements, the meanings of these attributive elements are sometimes very difficult to identify independently. And the reason for it is that in some cases, the attributives can stand alone as the names of the species. So for example, if I say dida, you understand that it has to be referring to you. If I say gamli, now it's a pram. If I say mehka, you understand that it is a biligump. And this is what complaint refers to as abbreviation in this definition. And also the moment you use the word who, we understand that you are referring at least to one of the members of these categories. That is what is referred to as generalization in this definition. Now, I think I've talked already about this. So these composite labels, so the composite labels are also called binomial labels. So the binomial labels are head initial. I've said it already. So you have the head which specifies the set of categories and then you have the attributives that come after. Now, if you examples, so you have this example is a chal, which is a common noun for many fish species. So you have chaldu, chakor, chakuriyum, chakling, which is the strong one. As you can see, the meaning of link can be identified, whereas the other ones are more difficult to get. The same thing here for guk, which refers to gullumide. So you have gukbule, which is the speckled pigeon versus green pigeon berber, pile, the loving dove, the African morning dove. So these are animal examples from the Zoological Vocabulary. Here you have examples from binomial labels in plants. So you have the examples of gukbule, the same, which is kurdi, and then you have the kurdi, which is the kurdi, the dam kurdi, the kocomba, you have the kurdi, which is the kurdi of the hyena, which is the horned melon, the coalescent, I think this is usually called egusi, I think this is egusi, which is the horned kurdi, and then you have this one, which is the kurdi of the squirrel. Barang is grass, and so you have the red barang here, and then you have other subcategories. Now, contrary to the image that I'm trying to portray with these examples, there are only very few labels that have more than three subclasses. Usually it is a maximum of two, as you can see from these examples, from Marba, Giuse, Masana, yes, and Masana. And I'm going to review some of these structures because I'm going to dispose the attributes, yeah, from now. So basically, when you look, you can factor out two structural patterns in these binomial labels. The first pattern involves a relator, so you have the category noun, which does not involve an eternal determiner, and then you have a relator, so we want to call it copula, but it's a relator. And then you have a second element, which is either a noun or an idiophone in this position, and then you have an external determiner. So it is either data puruta or data puruta for the black scrub rubin. And then the second pattern, you have the head now, so this pattern always expresses an inability. So you have the head with an eternal determiner, and then you have the preposition V of, and then you have a second NP with an external determiner. So these are two structural patterns, and I'm going to look at them in detail now. So for the first pattern is the relator, the second item always indicates color, texture, or sex. We have a few examples from Jose. So if you take WAP, so the porn errone is the white, the white errone. The white-pressed tiger errone is the black, the black errone. The same thing for the snake, the nai-nai, which is white, for the roof of the snake. Jumul, the male one, the main Jumul, and the female Jumul. So that is the contribution, the usual contribution of attributes in these examples. Now, when I talk here, I said, okay, the relator can be overt or covert, but there are examples like this one, where it seems you need to use the relator. For example, when you say Birem, Birem Majufma, the male Birem, it must be there. Daumafula, you must use the relator there. But in some cases, like for you, when you put the relator there, it is possible, but does not sound good. And so I've been wondering, does this kind of structure, you also find it out of the, out of the fauna and flora vocabulary, as you can see here. So I've been wondering, whether these indicate two different stages of lexicalization, something from phrasal labels to something like compound labels. This is not much of our concern here, but I just wanted to point out this. Now, the second pattern is the one involving alienability. And so basically you discuss the structure already. So these are examples here. You have Suweda Vihina, which is the ground nut of the squirrel. So you still have the head item, which specifies the category. It is a kind of ground nut, but it is described as the ground nut of the squirrel. The same thing here for the secondary bird, which is referred to as the fowl of bird. So it is a fowl that belonging to God. So, and you can see already the simplification here. So here you don't have the V that you find here, but you find the internal determiner, as I said. Now, okay. We've seen binomial labels. We can now look at the unitary ones, which constitute most of the vocabulary, the plant and animal vocabulary in these languages. So as I said, in the beginning, the unitary labels are those that do not involve the kind of endospecificity that we had with the binomial ones. And according to, as I said, also in the beginning, the simple ones are segmentable. Then you have the compound ones that are segmentable. And then I am proposing that we specify a third category of reductatives, which say some different stories that need to be discussed independently. Now, the simple ones have not been much time on them, just to tell you that this is the most frequent type. You can find examples here from Barbara and Dizay. I'll just ask you to pay attention to this prefix that I isolated. I'm going to come back to it by the end of the talk. Now, the compound ones. So basically, as I said, these are endocentric compounds, that is compounds that are not analyzable, at least superficially, as denoting hyponames of an internal head. So they are not kinds of the head. And basically there are two structures. So there are metaphor-based ones, and they are also metonymid-based compounds. And I'm going to show you exactly the distinction. So let's begin with the metaphor-based ones. So the metaphor-based unitary compounds have the structure of endocentric compounds, like they are just like the binomial ones. They involve an N1, the conceptual refrain, which is analyzable metaphorically as a semantic and syntactic head. And there is a second NP, which is the complement of N1. So these constructions generally express alienability or inalienability, as I'm going to show. So for those that express alienability, as I said, you have the same structure as the binomial ones. So you have the examples here, Coulomb-Rouda, the horse of the scorpion. So it is a kind of spider. You agree with me that in the linear classification, you won't put spiders in the category of horses. So this is just a metaphorical projection of the qualities of the horse on that spider. You have a simple example here, Suday Dina. So these are fizzies of the dog. You would agree with me that an insect can't be the fizzies of dogs. And so, okay, so in some cases, I put some information here that is useful in the way to say how people conceptualize animals and plants. So here the belief is that if rain drops on dogs, fizzies, the fickle matter transforms into this insect, which looks like a flying termite. So, but it has not been identified. I don't know if the Masa people here can tell me more about this insect. Now, these are other examples. So if you take the example of the Nile perch, which is the child of the fish. So the Nile perch can't be the child of the fish, but this projection of the qualities of child on the fish. And I put some examples here. The ways the different languages refer to the same item. So you can see Ham and Muzay have an original word, which is similar. And then you have Masana, which uses gokuluf like in Dizay. And then there is also gorsile. Silege is the word for tilapia. And then you can see from Marba in the Marba Nile that they either use gorkuluf or gor plus the thing that Ham and Muzay use. So it is interesting to see the different ways, the different directions things go. Now, okay, I've talked about this. So if you take the case of gurduda, you can have it as gurduda, where you have the internal determiner and the preposition of. So also thinking about two lexicalizations. This is not very important. Now, going now to the genitive constructions that express in and inability. So they have this, so you have N plus N followed by an external determiner. So this is an example here for dizay del bukka. So you have, it means literally the neck of the pigeon. So the conceptual reference is neck. And so this plant is metaphorically a kind of neck. So there is this metaphorical projection that you also see here. So these are other examples from Masana. So basically you see, yeah. So these are examples from Masana. So you find things like the heel of the elephant, the testicle of the squirrel, the foot of the bird, the teeth of the viper, the teeth of the bushcat, et cetera, et cetera. So there is always this idea of, so I call these ones relational compounds as they involve the projection of body parts onto a specific reference. So, okay, so this was botanical vocabulary. Here you have zoological vocabulary. So you have the tail of the sardine, the tongue of the cattle. And then there are examples like these ones in which you seek to identify something, but you can retrieve the exact metaphor because you can identify the content of the second item. So if you take the case of the namakwa dough, so you have del, which is actually neck, and then you don't know if it is the neck of something. So since you can't get the meaning of the second item, it breaks the identification of the metaphor. But generally, if consultants can identify the plant on animal, they can point at the exact metaphor that is found there. So maybe this is something that needs to be done more properly. So the patterns of the metaphor-based constructions expressing inner and the inner ability that I've shown so far. What you always have an N1, which is the body part now, as I pointed out, T, head, eye, foot. And then you have an N2, which is the name of an animal. Elephant, squirrel, bushcat, fowl, is it you are? So it is always a zoological extension, never a botanical one. So for example, you can find things like the branch or the hand of the acacia to refer to a kind of snake. No, you don't find such things. And it is already interesting in the serve that is always an animal zoological extension projection that is done. And I need to quantify this exactly, but I feel there are more metaphor-based compounds in the flora vocabulary in the fauna vocabulary. You can see in the zoological vocabulary, I give you two examples. Whereas here you have plenty of them. Now, you also have generative constructions expressing inner and inner ability, but which are not relational compounds that they don't involve body part projection on the reference. So you have examples here, sumzi metna, which is the mother of the wind. Apparently, if you feel cold, if you eat the sumzi metna, then you also have the mother of the soil, sumna gata, which is the saran san boa. And which also refers at the same time to this insect that was not identified. And apparently, if you hit the ground, singing sumna gata, sumna gata, sumna gata, this insect comes out of its habitat and dances to the tune of your song. So yeah, so this is some interesting information on the insect. Now, let's look at the metonymy-based unitary compounds. So basically the metonymy-based ones compounds whose composite meanings capture a specific characteristic of the refrain. The meanings that are usually expressed by these labels are the x that does y, the x that is located in y, et cetera. You will see some of the meanings in the examples that I show. So you have the examples there from guisei, the Spanish fly, which is actually, which means literally, it burns you for no reason. And then you have other examples, kuhi, which is all identified to us, the thing that lies in the middle of the hill, the harlotin quail, the thing that lies in the middle of water, tor buzei, the thing that scratches testicles. So actually this is a fish and the belief is that, voilà, so I let you picture the image, so you eat the fish and you have your testicles that begin to scratch. I don't know exactly how. And then there is this example of the goulon guru, which I'm not very sure, but it seems like it is the thing that makes the water, the pond, not the pond, black. And then you have other examples, I promised on Twitter that I was going to have a slide on the beautiful sun bird, so this is it. So basically the beautiful sun bird, there is also a belief about it. The belief is that you live only 10 years after eating the beautiful sun bird. And so that belief is presented in the way the bird is named in these languages because you can see from the guisei form, you are years at 10. So basically everything is said there, so you eat it, you die after 10 years. So that's the belief and it is interesting to see how the other languages render the same thing. So you have ham, which encodes that same leaf. You have masana, which encodes it here too. And then you have marbala, which has an original word. And then guisei also uses jet, jet, which is something different from the more, I don't want to call it humorous, but the more descriptive one. And then you also have this word, yad viamna. And the yad here is like an imperative saying, let go, let go that thing. And the viam is a parasitic plant. And the idea is that the beautiful sun bird always sits on the yad viamna. And so they tell you, let go the viamna and do something else, so something in that direction. You have the example of the bayad fish, which people think when you, I don't know if it is exact, that it freezes when you hold it beard. And so they tell the bayad fish, don't spoil your beard. And that is what is rendered here as black georengdi, which is a negative imperative, don't spoil your beard. And it is interesting also to see how the other languages render it. So ham always, and I'm going to come back to why ham has a digital labels. You have Jomolong here in Muzay, and then still the specifics here in Mar-Ba-Leo, Masook. Then you have Ru-Lak-Georengdi, which is the same thing as it is a, and then Masana makes a distinction apparently between the young and the adult. Bayad fish, and you see that the adult one is exactly the same word used in ham, and Jomolong looks particularly at the point here in Muzay too. Final example, with the mythology based one, so the purple starling, which loves sitting in soil that was washed out by rain. And so you have Lak, Lak, which is watch out soil. And then you have Luay, which is rain. So also the projection of the feature of that bird onto the name. Okay, I think we can go to the end of the talk. Now let me just quickly discuss the derivative ones. So I'm going to go click on it. So basically these are labels that involve the doubling either complete or partial, the lower indication of some base. You have example here with a partial indication to get gill for this snake. And then you have to wait to wait for this corwing lap wing. So still there from the same. Now there are two patterns that I'm going to discuss. There is partial CVC or CVC, the indication and then you have total notification. So the first, the partial indication pattern, you can see it in this example. So it is always the notification of the last syllable of a base that examples here. So you have a zoological vocabulary here and then here it's a botanical vocabulary. The CVC partial rejuvenation index is length, straightness and large quantity. About length and straightness, you can see basically when you look at it, it always refers to the snakes or other animals that have a long feature. And the same pattern is found out of fauna and flora vocabulary. You can see it from the word gill-gill, very long, thinning, larger, large quantity. The analysis I make of these forms is that there is one characteristic of the base which is an iconic representation of a feature of the animal or the plant. And then there is a long feature of the animal or the plant which triggers a CVC indication. So if you take the case of the Senegal Cucal, so in terms when you find people imitating the sound of the Senegal Cucal, it is always cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. So I have the impression that you have an imitation of the call, which is cuckoo. And then you have a long feature, in my opinion, which triggers the CVC duplication. And I was wondering if it is not related to the tail of this bird. So you will tell me what you think about this analysis. Now there is the last category of replicatives and the total replicative forms. So, and you have total replications which is iconic for the iconic case, you have an iconic representation of some important feature of the plant or the animal. So in the case of animals, it is sometimes easier because if you take the case of the black wing tail, it is actually an imitation of the call of the bird, cuckoo, cuckoo or cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, depending on how it is rendered. But in some cases, it is very difficult to get the item that triggers the total replication. So if you take this caterpillar, which is not identified, you can say exactly what is the feature that triggers the total replication. And the same difficulty is found in botanical vocabulary because I mean, it is what makes the Tambuki grass be rendered as Corle Corle, the same thing for the other ones, the sacred dalek here, why is it the way the way? It's not very, it's not directly accessible the reasons for the total replication. Now, in addition to that, there are other forms, there are other forms that are analogical total replications. So these are forms that do not iconically represent whose total replication is not an iconotical, iconotical projection of a feature of the plant or animal. So in this paper, I analyzed it as a diaconic change from CV, prefixed partial replications to total replications. I will not waste, I will not spend time on it just to let you know that. So this is the idea that I developed because let me show you data, it is easier. So if you look at this table, basically you can divide it into two. You have this book where you have CV, partial replications and then you have Giuse Ham and Masana where you have total replications. So there are two directionalities. Either you say the change is formed because obviously there is change. So the directionality can be from total replications to partial replications or for partial to total replications. I have been defending the idea that it is from partial to total replications because this is actually, in my opinion, another way of rendering the prefix that I showed in the beginning in the word for chameleon and so on. So that is a prefix that a classifier for botanical, zoological vocabulary that you find in Afro-Asiatic in general and also in italic languages. So yeah, this is something we can discuss later on. I think it is high time I conclude it because I'm looking at time. So as part of conclusion, in the beginning I was asking a question on the importance of doing this. And then I think I hope I was able to show that, to show, to give insights into the ways the Masa people conceptualize the living things and the environment. Now, I talked about the insights into the history of the communities. I just want to look at the pay-wise, lexical distance, calculation between Ham, Masala and Mosaic. So if you look, if you think nouns only in these languages you can see here that Ham has only 50% of unique vocabulary. For the nouns in general. But if you zoom in into specific categories you begin to see that in the vocabulary for fish, we see Ham has 45% of unique vocabulary compared to Masala and Mosaic. Why is this interesting? Begis, in this 2006 paper makes some advocacy for the description of Ham. Because actually Ham is spoken by less than 5,000 people. And it seems that the Ham people have completely changed their way of life and they have adopted the way of life of the Masa people. And so they are changing their lifestyle because in the beginning there were fishermen and now they are becoming pastoralists just like the Masa people. And so now although the Ham language is dangerously shifting towards the direction of Masala and Mosaic, we can still find traces of the fact that this was actually initially a fisherman community as you can see from the richness of its vocabulary concerning fish species. So this is something interesting inside that you can get from this. And I also tried a phylogenetic reconstruction using a computer-based approach with this, with link-py, with link-py. And yeah, there is some high degree of covenancy between the different languages. But it is interesting to see how the different languages are clustered. The languages that are suspected to be dialects of the same thing are clustered together. Because yeah, I used 146 biological terms. You see Giusei and Masana are together. They are suspected to be one language, Marba Leo together. The only difference is the position of Ham. In the classification I showed in the beginning, Ham was in the Mosaic section according to Medis. But here it looks like an early division of Masa. There is probably something that needs to be verified there. And it is interesting that the vocabulary of the fauna and flora vocabulary give this information. Now I also talked of the insights into the processes of lexical creation and maintenance. So basically these are the things that I showed. Composite labels, unitary ones, metaphor-based, metonymy-based. And then you have the duplicative ones, CV, duplication, iconic, and analogical duplication. These are patterns that we find out of the fauna vocabulary too. And I think I was able to show that there is some high descriptive force in the binomial labels, which is enhanced by metaphor and metonymy. And in the reduplicative ones, you clearly saw some iconicity in it. So the idea is that these features have what Berlin refers to as adaptive significance, which makes names of plants and animals easy to learn and remember. And since there are, people say, you can, a single individual can remember 300 to 500 names of plants and animals. So this is some kind of way to cheat nature, since there are many, many, many, many labels to learn for one single individual. Now, thank you very much for your attention. I'm leaving you with this switch that I took on the field. So this is a tree that I like, the Acacia albida, because it is the guy which is always different. So this is the rainy season. Everything is green around and it has the shape that you can see. Then in dry season, when everybody is sleeping, it is the greenest guy in town. So thank you very much for your attention. I hope we can discuss a little more now. Thank you very much, Guillaume. That's very interesting. Certainly makes me wish I had some more training in biology or get a biologist to come work with me in research as well. So we have some time here for some questions and discussion. If you have a question or something you'd like to discuss with Guillaume, feel free to use the raise hand function Zoom or to write in chat that you would like to ask a question. Or if you don't want to use your microphone, you can type out your question in the chat and I can read it for you. So we've got a question already from Andrew. So Andrew, do you want to go ahead and ask your question? Thanks, Joey. Hi, Guillaume. Thanks for the talk. Towards the beginning, you were talking about compounds and you had mentioned that the bitter yam is called the yam of the bush. Yeah. The species of groundnut that's called the groundnut of the squirrel. And I'm wondering if this groundnut of the squirrel, is it less desirable as a human food or is it a human food at all? No, I think if I remember where it is not a human, it's not human food. Because I think it's right somewhere that it's not something that is edible. I just mentioned this because it's a I see in Gorwa one of the languages that I work with spoken in Tanzania. A lot of the time when there's a similar plant or a plant that could be construed to sort of look like or behave like a cultivated plant. Or if there's a wild berry or fruit that maybe doesn't taste as good as a garden variety, they'll tack the name of an animal on to us. Oh, that's the groundnut of the squirrel and it's less desirable or you don't eat it. So it's an interesting pattern. Yeah, OK. Yeah, really, really interesting. So yeah, because I think the general pattern is the more it has a functional importance for the community. There is no need for this, the binomial structure. And then when it is something that is less desirable for consumption, they send it in the bush. Yeah, it makes it a pattern. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, sure. There's a question in the chat from Paisa Kumbu that I can read out for you. I wonder if you have considered whether the vocabulary are mostly borrowed by Masa languages or whether each language developed them individually. Ham may provide a lead in thinking about this. Yeah, so I always say this in the Masa group that Ham is a very interesting language because it is really in the middle of the Masa, at least the northern Masa languages. There are lots of things. You have the impression that Ham is really a conservative language. And so there are interesting things that you can found just from examining the vocabulary in general and looking specifically at Ham because sometimes the pattern is either it goes with Masa or it goes with Muzai. Or it has original terms. And I think it is hardly towards Marba Leo, for example. And yeah, of course, there is some borrowing, but this has to be controlled systematically. There are easy ones. If you take the word for that, for example, in these languages, it is mostly Paturu. And I think Paturu is something related to Fudui. If I'm not wrong. And so there is borrowing. Those are the easy ones, but for the ones that you can identify easily, it did something interesting that something be done there to see how it works. Are they all original terms that were inherited from Proto Masa? Do we find borrowings? If yes, what is the directionality of borrowing? Is it Masa internal? Is it Chadic internal? Is it from the other Mawa languages that we find in the environment? They could be influences from Thupuri, from Arabic, and so on. So yeah, it is an impressive question. Thanks. Maybe I can ask a question about the variation that you mentioned near the beginning. And you were talking about the use of the relativizer or relator or whatever you want to call it, where in some cases it's required. Some cases you can't use it. Some cases it seems to be optional. So obviously you can do this sort of diachronic hypothesis that it would have been there in the beginning, and now things are getting shorter and more compact over time. You probably don't have the data from a dictionary to test that kind of thing. You would need some obviously more sophisticated data. I'm wondering if there's also a potential explanation that has to do with the semantics of the modifier. It seemed like the one example you gave where you can't use the relator, that was also a modifier that could be used as an abbreviation where the other modifier is what it was required. It seemed like a more general word, like a color word or something. I wonder if there's something to do with the semantics of the modifier that also predicts whether that relator is going to be used when you're naming an animal. Yeah. So yeah, it is really interesting your observation. This is also a direction I've been checking. For example, I noticed that when the attributive element refers to sex, male, female, it seems you must use that thing in the middle. It seems you must use it. And everybody refers to something like color. There is, you can't or you cannot use it. So it is possible to have it covered or covered. And then in those cases where you can't identify the meanings of the attributives independently where you really have the impression that these are idiophonic items. I'm not very sure about what I say. But in those cases, it doesn't sound good to have the relator in the middle. And so yeah, definitely there is something about the semantics of the attributive. But I don't, yeah. So maybe it's one of several factors. And so it's hard to distinguish. Yeah, possible. But I have another question. But let me just pause to see. Does anybody else have another question or comment? It can be in English or in French. I'll just ask a question about reduplication because I work with Bahrain, another Chadic language spoken further east in Chad. In that case, I've seen names of species that are differentiated by reduplication. Does that function, does that never occur in the muscle languages where you would have a name for one species that then when it's reduplicated or repeated, it becomes a name of a different species? Yeah, so I think I've seen something like that. But it is not very, it is not a productive process. Because, yeah, I think I have seen it, but I don't remember exactly where. And I have the impression that it is not in the northern Masar data, but instead in the southern Masar data. I think it should be data from Zimei in which I saw that kind of thing, but not in the northern Masar languages. So it is very interesting to see that. So is it partial reduplication? Do you get another species or it's always partial reduplication? I think there's both, definitely full reduplication. I think there may be partial reduplication as well. I mean, it's not a huge number of animals that I've seen do this. And I don't have a long list of species anyways, but I've just seen it a couple of times. Oh, okay, okay. Good, well, if there's no further questions or comments, we'll end our session together there. And say thank you again to Guillaume for putting this presentation together. We look forward to reading or you'll eventually write and publish on this topic. Certainly for me, it gives me things to think about and to incorporate into my own research as well. So thank you for being here to share today. Thank you. Thank you, Guillaume. Thank you all of you for coming. And thank you for this discussion session. I hope I was not too long and boring, so. That was great. Thank you. Thank you everyone for coming. Bye. Bye.