29. Semitic influence in Celtic?

Yes and No *1

Abstract

Filppula (1999) explains the sparing use of Yes and No made in Irish English as a
result of language contact: Irish lacks words for 'Yes' and 'No' and substitutes what
Filppula calls the Modal-only type of answer instead. This usage is carried by Irish
learners of English from their native language into the target language. In my paper
on Yes and No in the history of English (Vennemann 2009a), I explain the rela-
tively sparing use the English make of Yes and No and the use instead of the Mo-
dal-only type of short answer [(Yes,) I will, (No,) I can't, etc. I likewise as a contact
feature: Brittonic speakers learning Anglo-Saxon earned their usage essentially
the same as in Irish from their native language into the target language. In the
present paper I deal with the question which is prompted by this explanation: How
did Insular Celtic itself develop this method of answering Yes/No-questions with
Modal-only sentences? The best answer to this question would be one which uses
the same model, namely reference to substrata in this case, pre-Celtic substrata -
of the Isles. Fortunately there exists a theory of such substrata: the Hamito-Semitic
theory of John Morris Jones (1900) and Julius Pokorny (1927-30). Accounting for
the Insular Celtic response system in terms of these substrata would yield another
instance of what I have called the transitivity of language contact in Vennemann
2002d and illustrated with the loss of external possessors in Vennemann 2002c.
Therefore I have established, for the most part with the assistance of professional
Semitists, that in the ancient Hamitic and Semitic languages, decision questions
were indeed answered in ways that may have set a pragmatic model first for Insular
Celtic and then, by transitivity, for Standard English and the "Celtic Englishes".

29.1. Introduction

In section 7.2 of his book The Grammar of Irish English (FilppuIa

1999: 160-167), Markku FilppuJa describes the way decision questions,
i.e. Yes/No~questions, questions that may be answered by Yes or No in
Standard English, are typically answered in Irish English and explains it
by substratal influence of Irish on the English spoken in Ireland by
native speakers of Irish and their descendants: Modern Irish, Jacking
words meaning 'yes' or 'no', instead possesses a system of answering
Yes/No-questions by short sentences consisting of a positive or negative
auxiliary or modal verb in the appropriate tense, mood, person and
624 Yes and No

number, accompanied by a personal pronoun where needed; and

speakers of Irish when speaking English carried this habit into their new
language, answering Yes/No-questions in what Filppula calls the
"'Modal-only'" way, i.e. with short sentences such as (He is the
teacher?) He is; (Don't you like that chair?) I don't; (He doesn't own
this book?) He doesn't; (Do people eat it still?) They do; (Are you
telling me their names?) I amn't. The answer may also consist of the
main verb or a full sentence, either in addition to a Modal-only response
or by itself: (D 'you have the song?) I haven't, I have only the openin'
line of it; (So you belong to that parish?) Belong to that parish.
In Vennemann (2009a), I point out that Standard English uses a
similar system, differing mostly by a more frequent use of Yes and No,
either by itself or in addition to the Irish English Modal-only type of
response, e.g. (Are you ready now?) I am / Yes, I am; (Won 'f Ed be
coming?) He won't / No, he won't; (Did the others help you?) They did
not 1164/ No. they did not (cf. Ungerer et al. 1984: 27). I there explain
this Standard English answering system, which differs markedly from
the inherited Germanic answering system, the simple response with
words for 'yes' and 'no', by substratal Brittonic influence, Welsh
possessing essentially the same answering system as Irish.
In the Indo-European languages we find various kinds of answering
systems, such as the particle type like German Ja 'yes' and Nein 'no'
and sentential structures like Latin Ita est 'so it is' and Ita non est 'It is
not so'. But the Insular Celtic type of Modal-only response is unique in
the family, as far as I know. Therefore it requires an explanation setting
it apart from Indo-European, just as English required an explanation
setting it apart from Germanic. Of course, the best explanation would be
one modeled on that given for English. Since working with an assump-
tion of language contact has led to success in the case of Irish English
and Standard English, it would be unfortunate if we had to look for a
different explanatory strategy in the case of Irish and Welsh. Scientific
methodology would certainly favor a uniform approach to this set of
problems.
Fortunately the ground for such a parallel explanation of the Insular
Celtic response system has already been laid. Celtologists such as John
Morris Jones (1900) and Julius Poklorny (1927-30) as well as several
other scholars since then" have developed a theory that explains a num-
ber of structural developments of the Insular Celtic languages as conse-
quences of substratal influence by Hamito-Semitic languages spoken in
the Isles before the advent of the Indo-European Celts; cf. the catalog of
such features based on Pokorny's work (the "Pokorny list") in Ven-
nemann (2002d, 323-326). Quite specifically Pokorny attributes one
 Yes and No 625

concomitant of such a development, the loss of words for 'yes' and

'no', to this substratal influence, and he gives further hints to which I
return further below. 3

1m Neuirischen gibt es keine Worte fUr "ja" und "nein"; in diesem FaIle muS
die Antwort in der Regel stets in Form eines Satzes, bzw. Verbums erfolgen.

Auch wenn die Antwort in unbestimmter Form erfolgt, muB sie stets die
Form cines ganzen Satzes haben. Auf die Frage "Cad e an nul e sin?" 'Was ist
dasTantwortet man nicht Leabhar 'ein Buch', sondem Leabhar is eadh e oder Is
leabhar e 'es ist ein Buch' ....
GemaB den Beispielen aus dem Schottisch-Galischen, die mir Prof. Watson
freundlichst schickte, erfolgt hier die Antwort noch haufiger als im lrischen in
Form eines ganzen Satzes ....
1m Altirischen gibt es allerdings noch Worte ftir "ja" (t6) und "nein" (naiee),
aber im Lauf der Entwicklung hat sich das nichtidg. Idiom immer 1165 mehr
durchgesetzt. Die Tendenz, mit einem ganzen Satz zu antworten, zeigt sich aber
schon altirisch ....
Die Tatsache, daB die air. Worte flir "ja" und "nein" vollig verschwunden
sind, weist uns darauf hin, daB wir in dem neuir. Bmuche keine archaische idg.
Gewohnheit suchen dUrfen, obwahl vielleicht auch idg. einst die Antwort in
Form eines Satzes, wenn auch meist verkUrzt, erfolgt sein dtirfte; wir haben
hier einen der einleitend erwahnten Hille, wo voridg. Sprachgewohnheit erst
spater mit dem Untergang der herrschenden Kaste zur Herrschaft gelangt ist.
Hochstens kann es sich hier darum handeln, daB die alte idg. Gewohnheit durch
den EintluS des primitiveren Substrates erhalten blieb. Heute gibt es ja
auBerhalb des Keltischen keine idg. Sprache, die in der Antwort die Satzform so
haufig erforderte. (Pokorny 1927-30: 16,236-238)

lIn Modern Irish there are no words for "yes" and "no"; in this case the answer
as a rule has to be given in the form of a sentence, or a verb ... ,
Even if the answer is given in an indefinite form it always has to take the
form of an entire sentence, The answer to the question "Cad If an ruti e sin?"
'What is that?' is not Leabhar 'a book' but Leabhar is eadh e or Is leabhar e 'It
is a book' ....
The examples from Scottish Gaelic that Prof. Watson most kindly sent me
show that there the answer takes the form of a whole sentence even more fre-
quently than in Irish ....
It is true that Old Irish still possesses words for "yes" (t6) and "no" (naice) ,
but in the course of its development the non-Indo-European idiom increasingly
got the upper hand, However, the tendency to answer with a whole sentence
shows itself even in Old Irish, .,.
626 Yes and No

The fact that the Old Irish words for "yes" and "no" have entirely disappeared
makes it clear that we must not consider the Modem Irish usage an archaic
Indo-European habit, even if perhaps in Indo-European the answer was
originally given in the form of a sentence, though shortened most of the time.
Rather we have here one of the cases, mentioned above by way of introduction
[in Pokorny 1927-30: § I, esp. page 103f.], where pre-Indo-European
linguistic habits only became dominant with the decline of the ruling caste. At
best the old Indo-European habit was preserved through the influence of the
more primitive substratum. Nowadays there isn't a single Indo-European
language outside Celtic that would so often require answers to take the form of
sentences. I

In the following sections I would like to add plausibility to Pokorny's

suggestion that properties of the assumed pre-Celtic substrata of the Isles
have something to do with the development of the Insular Celtic re-
sponse system. Since I am not a specialist in the Hamito-Semitic lan-
guages, and since I learned fairly early that there exist no specialized
studies of Hamito-Semitic response systems, I turned to colleagues for
r
help. These l66 colleagues most generously provided me with such a
wealth of information, while at the same time allowing me to cite them
verbatim, that the following pages may at the same time be read as a first
brief introduction into the response system of some Hamito-Semitic lan-
guages.

29.2. Yes and No in Hamitic

I begin with some quotations specifically referring to ways of answering

Yes/No-questions in some Hamitic languages.

Egyptian

1m Altiigyptischen pflegt, wie mir Prof. Sethe sagte, in den alteren Zeiten nie
mit einem Nomen allein geantwortet zu werden, sondern es muB ein ganzer
Satz stehen. Ebenso gibt es hier keine Worte flir "ja" und "nein".
Auf die "Wirst du kommen?" kann man nur antworten "Ich weide
(nicht) kommen", auf die Frage "Was ist das?" nie "Ein Buch", sondem nur
"Ein Buch (ist) das." (Pokorny 1927-30: 16.238)

[In Ancient Egyptian one would, at earlier stages of the language, never answer
with an isolated noun but always with an entire sentence. Also there exist no
words for "yes" and "no" in that language.
 Yes and No 627

The question "Will you come?" can only be answered by "I will (not)
come", the question "What is that?" only by "That (is) a book", never by "A
book".]

Pokorny cites similar examples showing a tendency to answer in com-

plete sentences from other African languages, viz. Nuba (Sudan) and
Kpelle (Liberia).
Unfortunately there do not seem to exist comparative treatments of
this problem with regard to the other Hamito-Semitic languages. But
with the help of colleagues I have been able to obtain some information.
As for Berber, Stephen Laker (then Munich, now Leiden) writes:

Berber

Native Berber speaker Ali Oumghar informs me that in his Algerian Kabyle
dialect answers to questions are given in a similar manner to English.
Although Kabyle does possess words for 'yes' and 'no' (ih and ala,
respectively), answers are given in the form of short verbal sentences. An
unaecentuated form of the word for 'yes' does, however, generally occur at the
end of such affirmative sentenees. By contrast, in f l67 negative answers the
word for 'no' is not included as a rule because the sentence is already
explicitly negated. Ali Oumghar tells me that this way of answering questions
with short sentenees is also common to other northern Berber dialects known
to him, such as those of Morocco. (Stephen Laker in an e-Ietter of 30 July
2002)4

29.3. Yes and No in Semitic

Concerning the Semitic languages, I have received a considerable

amount of information from the Semitoiogist Lutz Edzard (Oslo), who
in turn corresponded about my question with the Akkadologist Michael
P. Streck (then Munich, now Leipzig), all in e-letters of April and May
2002.5 The evidence they provide shows a clear tendency to answer
Yes/No-questions with short entire sentences rather than with words
meaning 'yes' and 'no' in the Central and East Semitic languages.
Lutz Edzard writes:

Central and East Semitic languages

Wenn ich recht sehe, waren schon im (Alt-)Griechischen und Lateinischen in

Gerichtverhandlungen auf Satzfragen Antworten wie o(omai 'Ua,] der Meinung
628 Yes and No

bin ich' bzw. ita est cx:Ier sic est 'Ua,) so ist es' tiblich (cx:ler auch Antworten
wie sequi), obwohl - zumindest im Griechischen ein Wort flir 'ja' (nai, so
noch heute) existiert(e). Auf jeden Fall wurde die positive Antwort tendenziell
umschrieben.
Der Befund in den alteren semitischen Sprachen ist ahnlich, d.h. es fehlen
direkte Aquivalente zu "ja". Immerhin gibt es Worter mit dem Sinn 'gewiB'.
Zum Teil fungieren solche Worter auch als rein satzeinleitende bzw. topikaJi-
sierende Elemente ('indeed, .. .').
1m Akkadischen ware da anna 'ja, gewiB' zu nennen (vgJ. [von Scx:len 1965,
I: S.vv. anna, annu(mJD. 1m Eintrag zu annu(m) findet sich auch der Hinweis
auf kfnu 'zuverlassiges Jawort'.
1m biblischen Hebraisch ist der Befund ahnlich. Wahrend es ein Neinwort
gibt (10(,), entsprechen die Elemente, mit denen positive Aussagen gemacht
werden, eher unserem "so list esJ". Zu solchen Wortem zahlen ken (verwandt
mit akk[adisch) kinu) - im modemen [vrit das Wort ftir 'ja' - cx:Ier auch "ak
(z.B.'ak melelfyiJra"el hun 'das ist gewiB Israels Konig').
1m Altsyrischen (als der am besten belegten aramiiischen Sprache) sieht es
ahnlich aus, d.h. es gibt Elemente wie "en 'ita' ("formula juris jurandi"), vgJ.
[Brockelmann 1995: s.vv. 'en ... cx:Ier hii/ian(ii)1. Aber ein Beleg flir eine
schlicht mit 'ja' beantwortete Satzfrage ist mir nicht bekannt. f l68
Lediglich im klassischen Arabischen gibt es neben Iii 'nein' ein genuines
Jawort, namlich nacam (etymologisch steckt in der Wurzel 'Segnung, Wohler-
gehen'), das auch heute noch so gebraucht wird.
1m Athio-Semitischen gab und gibt es positive Jaworter, wie Gecez "awwa,
Amharisch awo, Tigrinya "awa etc. (vgl. [Leslau 1987]). Interessanterweise sind
es hier die Neinworter, die, obwohl synchron einfach 'nein' bedeutend, mor-
pho\ogisch zusammengesetzt sind, z.B. Amharisch yiillam 'there is not, is not
present' als zirkumfigierte Negation von alta 'es gibt' (vgl. [Leslau 1995], 442
unten).
Monographisch gibt es bei uns zu dem Thema noch nichts. Der einzige
relevante schon altere Literaturhinweis ist vielleicht [BergstraBer 1914).
Hier noch ein bibliographischer Nachtrag, in dem es urn arabische affirma-
tive Prafixe und Partikeln im semitischen Vergleich geht: [Testen 1998] ....
DaB die Be\egJage zu Ihrem Thema uneinheitlich ist, habe ich schon gesagt.
Hier noch ein koran-arabi scher Beleg (Sure 3, Vers 81), in dem das Hauptver-
bum in der bejahenden Antwort wiederholt wird, wie es ftir theologisch-juristi-
schen Kontext nicht untypisch ist (obwohl es das Wort nacam 'ja' an sich gibt):
[Gott fragt die Propheten vor Muhammad]:
'a-"aqrartum wa-'afJad!um calii rfilikum 'i~r-f?
Fragepronomen-ihr:erkenntan und-ihr:nehmt tiber jencn Vertrag-mein
(resultati ve Perfektformen, daher prasentisch tibersetzt)
'Erkennt ihr (es) an und flihlt ihr euch mir gegentiber daran gebundenT
 Yes and No 629

[Antwort]:
Qalu ' aqrarnii
sie:sagten wir:erkennen:an
'Sie sagten: (Ja,) wir erkennen es an.'
(Obersetzung von Rudi Paret)

[If I see it correctly, answers such as olomai '[yes,] that is my opinion' and ita
est or sic est '[yes,] so it is' (also answers such as sequi) were common as early
as Classical Greek and Latin in response to Yes/No-questions in courts of law,
although a word for 'yes' existed, at least in Greek (nai, also in Modem Greek).
But the tendency was to circumlocute positive answers.
The situation is similar in the older Semitic languages, Le., direct equiva-
lents for 'yes' are lacking. Yet there exist words meaning 'certainly'. In part
such words also function as pure sentence-introducing or topicalizing elements
('indeed, ... ').
For Akkadian anna 'yes, certainly' has to be mentioned (cf. von Soden
1965, I: s.vv. anna, annu(m). In the annu(m) entry there is also a reference to
kinu 'positive affirmative answer'.
In Biblical Hebrew the situation is similar. Whereas there is a word for 'No'
(lot), the elements used for positive responses rather correspond to our "thus
(it is)". To this group of words belong ken (related to Akkadian f 169 kinu) ,
which is the word for 'Yes' in modem Ivrit, and also 'ak. (e.g. 'ak meleli
yisra'el hUO 'that certainly is the king of Israel').
Similarly in Old Syriac, the best attested Aramaic language: There are ele-
ments such as 'en 'ita' ("formula juris jurandi") and hiik.an(a), cf. Brockelmann
1928: s. vv. But I am not aware of a single example of a Yes/No-question sim-
ply answered with "yes".
Only in Classical Arabic is there, alongside Iii 'no', a genuine word for
'yes': nacam (etymologically the root means 'blessing, well-being'). The word
is still used in this way.
Ethio-Semitic did and does possess words for 'yes', such as Gecez 'awwa,
Amharic awo, Tigrinya 'awa, etc. (cf. Leslau 1987: s.v. "awwa). Interestingly
it is here the words for 'no' that are composite morphologically, even though
synchronically they simply mean 'no', e.g. Amharic yallam 'there is not, is
not present' as a circumfixed negation of aila 'there is' (cf. Leslau 1995: 442).
We do not have a monograph on the subject in our discipline yet. The only
relevant though somewhat dated title may be BergstrtiBer 1914 [1968].
Here follows a bibliographical addition dealing with Arabic affirmative pre-
fixes and particles in a Semitic comparison: Testen 1998 ....
I already said that the attestation for your topic is uneven. Here follows an
Arabic example from the Koran (sura 3, verse 8) in which the main verb is re-
630 Yes and No

peated in the affirmative answer, which is not untypical for theological-juridical

contexts (even though there does exist the word nacam 'yes');
[God asks the prophets before Muhammad:]
'a-~aqrartum wa-'afJad!um cala fiilikum 'i~r-i?
Interrog.pronoun-you(pl.):recognize and-you:take over that contract-mine
(resultative perfect forms, therefore translated as present tense)
'Do you recognize (it) and do you feel bound by it in regard to me?'
[Answer:]
Qjilu :>aqrarnii
they:said we:recognize
'They said: (Yes) we recognize it.']
(The above translation of the Arabic example is owed to Rudi Paret.)

As for Hebrew, I would like to add a passage from Steiner (1997) from
which I conclude that the lack of a simple word for 'yes' is compen-
sated by a strategy quite similar to that in Insular Celtic, the repetition of
the predicate in the appropriate form. r170

Additional statement concerning Hebrew

Hebrew originally had no word for 'yes' .... Affinnative answers to yes-no
questions consist of a restatement of the question in positive terms with change
of person (first to second and vice versa) but not of word order. The answer is
often simplified through deletion of all but its first word; thus, the affirmative
reply to hay@,Ctiim 'i:i!..-M!zan hiin-naljowr 'do you know Laban son of Nahor?'
(Gen. 29:5) is just ya4tnu w 'we know' (not 'we know him') and the answer to
luif),owla!id ziih 'is that your voice, (my son David)?' (1 Sam. 26: 17) is ko wliY
'my voice, (my lord king'). (Steiner 1997: 167)

Additional statement concerning Akkadian (from a letter of Michael P.

Streck to Lutz Edzard)

Eine spezielle Untersuchung zu Deiner und Venne manns Frage gibt es fUr das
Akk[adische] nicht. Ich habe mich ein wenig umgetan und in den Lexika einige
Belege fUr anna 'ja' und ulla 'nein' Uberpriift und auch sonst einige Texte mit
Fragen und Antworten eingesehen. Es scheint, dass man auf JaiNein-Fragen
immer das in der Frage enthaItene Verbum wiederholt. Ein schOnes Beispiel fin-
det sich in einem langen aus Fragen und Antworten bestehenden Abschnitt aus
der zwolften Tafel des Gilgameschepos Z. 254ff. (s. [George 1999], 187ff.), wo
auf die Fragen 'Hast du X gesehen' stets mit 'lch habe gesehen' oder 'Ich habe
nicht gesehen' geantwortet wird. In einigen Rechtsurkunden findet sich auf die
 Yes and No 631

nie direkt gestellte Frage der Richter manchmal zusatzlich 'ja', also 'Ja, das und
das ist geschehen'.
Auch zur Pragmatik von affirmativen und negativen Partikeln im weiteren
Sinne gibt es nur ganz wenig. [Sallaberger 1999] bespricht auf S. 173 und
176f. kurz die Verwendung von "Negationen des Gegenteils" statt des
Gebrauchs von Aufforderungen bzw. die Kombination von Aufforderung +
Negation des Gegenteils. [Mayer (1989: 145-170)] behandelt "Die Verwendung
der Negation im Akkadischen zur Bildung von Indefinit- bzw.
Totalitatsausdrticken" (fyp 'dies nicht dies' flir 'was auch immer').

[There is no specialized investigation of your and Vennemann's question for

Akkadian. I have looked around and checked a number of attestations of anna
'yes' und ulla 'no' in the lexicons as well as several texts with questions and
answers. It seems that in response to Yes/No-questions the verb contained in
the question is always repeated. A beautiful example may be found in a long
passage consisting of questions and answers in the twelfth tablet of the Gil-
gamesh epos, lines 254ff. (cf. George 1999: 187ff.), where the question 'Have
you seen X' is always answered by 'I have seen' or 'I have not seen'. In some
r
legal documents l7l the answer to the question of the judges, which is never
posed directly, sometimes contains the additional element 'yes', thus 'Yes, such
and such happened.'
There is likewise very little material on the pragmatics of affirmative and
negative particles in a wider sense. Sallaberger (1999: 173 and 176f.) briefly
treats the use of "negation of the opposite" instead of demands, or the combina-
tion of demand + negation of the opposite. Mayer (1989) deals with 'the use of
negation to form indefinite or totality expressions in Akkadian' (of the type
'this not that' for 'whatsoever').]

4. Conclusion

The essence of the above quotations is that not only Egyptian, the
Hamito-Semitic language cited by Pokorny in this context, but also Ber-
ber and, furthermore, the Central and East Semitic languages and thus
all the Mediterranean Hamito-Semitic languages appear to answer
Yes/No-questions in ways resembling the Insular Celtic, British English,
and Irish English strategies. This certainly is in harmony with the theory
- now over a century old - that the Isles were Hamito-Semitic before
they became Celtic.
All these correspondences were clearly seen, though interpreted in a
different, namely areal-typological perspective, by Heinrich Wagner.
632 Yes and No

Hamito-Semitic, Insular Celtic, English

Es entspricht darum dem irischen Sprachsystem, wenn es bejahende, vemeinen-

de oder fragende Adverblen ("ja, nein, so, doch" u.a.) kaum kennt und daB auf
eine Frage mit dem cntsprechenden Verbum geantwortet wird. Nach Mitteilung
von Herrn Dr. B. Hartmann wird im Arabischen in der Antwort der Inhalt der
Frage einfach wiederholt und dassel be gilt nach Irene Lande [1949: 62] auch im
Hebraischen. In den mlr bekannten Monographien tiber berber[ische] Dialekte
kann ich nichts diesbeztigliehes finden, vermute aber auf Grund melner Lekttire
berberischer Texte, daB auch im Berber[ischen], falls der Fragesatz ein relner
Verbalsatz ist, in der Antwort das Verbum wiederholt werden muB, vgl. z.B.
Hanoteau [1896], 156 inna has: rna ternused dey imuhay? inna has: ahaggar a
rnusey'Er sagte zu ihm: wer bist du unter den Imuhar? er sagte zu ihm: ieh bin
ein Ahaggar' (Hein Ahaggar daB ich bin"), Bezeichnend ftir diese Sprache ist, daB
das korrespondierende Praedikat in der Antwort stehen mufJ, wahrend es etwa i m
Franzosischen oder Deutschen fakultativ ist. Richtig weist I. Lande [1949], 63
auf die englischen Verhallnisse hin, wo in der Antwort normalerweise we-
nigstens das Hilfsverb (do, will u.a.) wiederholt wird. Dies gilt strikt im
Anglo-Irischen (Durchbrechung des Parallelismus von Frage- und
Antwortpraedikat). Man sagt also: will you come? 1 will! didf 172 you do that? 1
did! Fakultativ ist hier nicht das Verbum, sondem das Adverbium (I did oder
yes. 1 did). (Wagner 1959: 223)

[The fact that Irish hardly knows any affirmative, negative or interrogative aj.
verbs ("yes, no, so, yet") and that questions are answered with the
corresponding verb is therefore in harmony with the Irish language system. In
Arabic the answer simply repeats the content of the question (Dr. B. Hartmann,
pers. comm.), and the same holds true for Hebrew (Lande 1949: 62). As for the
Berber dialects I cannot find any relevant information, but I suspect on the
evidence of the Berber texts I have read that in Berber too the answer to a verbal
interrogative sentence has to repeat the verb, e.g. inna has: ma ternused dey
imuhay? inna has: ahaggar a musey'He said to him: Who are you among the
lmuhar? He said to him: I am an Ahaggar' (Han Ahaggar that I am") [ef.
Hanoteau 1896: 156], It is characteristic of this language that the corresponding
predicate has to occur in the answer, while it is optional in languages such as
French and German. Lande (1949: 63) is right when pointing to the situation in
English where the answer normally repeats at least the auxiliary verb (do, will
etc.). This holds strictly for Irish English (the breach of parallelism between
interrogative and answering predicates). Thus one says, will you come? 1 will!
did you do that? 1 did! What is optional here is not the verb but the adverb (l did
or yes, I did).J
 Yes and No 633

I only differ from Wagner in the interpretation of these parallels: Where

he sees, for the Hamito-Semitic and Celtic correspondences, areal-typo-
logical convergence, I see what I have called "the transitivity of lan-
guage contact", namely the consequences of prehistoric and ongoing
substratal language contact throughout, Semitic ~ Insular Celtic ~
English I Irish English.

Notes

First published 2009 in: Esa Penttila and Hell Paulasto (eds.), Language
contacts meet English dialects: Studies in honour of Markku Filppula,
163-175. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1. Markku Filppula has done much to further my work on the transitive sub-
stratal influences in the development of English. To mention just two such
events: He invited me to participate in the eminently important Mekrijarvi
Colloquium on Early Contacts between English and the Celtic Languages,
24 to 26 August 2001, from which my paper "Semitic ~ Celtic
4 English: The transitivity of language contact" (Vennemann 2002d)
developed. And he asked me to contribute a paper to the special issue Re-
evaluating the Celtic hypothesis which he edited, together with Juhani
Klemola, for English Language and Linguistics (Vennemann 2009). I am
grateful, therefore, to be allowed to contribute the following pages to his
Festschrift. I am also grateful to Lutz F.dzard (Oslo), Stephen Laker (then
Munich, now Leiden and Manchester), Angelika Lutz (Erlangen), Wolfgang
Schulze (Munich) and Hildegard Tristram (Freiburg) for commenting on
earlier versions of this paper and for making valuable suggestions. Special
thanks are due to Lutz F.dzard and Stephen Laker as well as to Michael P.
Streck (then Munich, now Leipzig) for sending me material on the question
of Yes and No in Semitic and Berber and for permission to quote them.
Square brackets mark my translations of quoted German passages.
2. Notably Gensler (1993), who also provides an extensive "History of the
problem" his chapter 2 (pp. 47 -191).
3. I omit most of the examples because they are similar to those already cited
from Filppula 's book above.
4. Repeated from Vennemann (2002d: 319).
5. This correspondence is referred to but for reasons of space limitations not
quoted in Vennemann (2002d: 319).