Abstract

Titre et résumé en français

العنوان والملخص بالعربية

Introduction

Riddles occupy a distinctive position within oral verbal art because they depend on a controlled imbalance between recognition and concealment. A successful riddle does not merely hide an answer: it provides a description that is sufficiently constrained to be solvable while reorganising familiar properties in an unfamiliar form. This combination of opacity and recoverability makes riddles especially useful for studying figurative language. Their brevity concentrates lexical choice, analogy, sound patterning, grammatical categorisation, and culturally shared knowledge into a small textual space, while their question-and-answer organisation also presupposes an interaction between a poser and a respondent.

Within Kabyle oral literature, riddles belong to a broader repertoire that includes poetry, tales, proverbs, songs, formulaic speech, and other genres transmitted and recreated through performance. Their value is therefore not exhausted by the idea of a linguistic game. In the settings described in the source corpus and in published Kabyle collections, riddling is associated with collective occasions, intergenerational exchange, memory, observation, and verbal skill. These functions should nevertheless be distinguished from what the present article can directly demonstrate. The material analysed here consists primarily of riddle texts and their solutions; it does not constitute an ethnography of complete riddling sessions. Claims about pedagogy, social cohesion, or ritual value are consequently treated as contextual propositions to be supported by field documentation or by the specialist literature, rather than as effects measured by this study.

The analytical problem addressed here is narrower and more testable: how do Kabyle riddles construct an indirect description of their referent, and what rhetorical operations make that description both misleading and interpretable? The source manuscript usefully foregrounds metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, personification, paradox, oxymoron, euphemism, and circumlocution. A closer examination, however, shows that these labels cannot be applied mechanically. A single riddle may combine several operations, and some examples are better explained by structural analogy or paradoxical predication than by the category initially assigned to them. The aim of the present revision is thus not to replace the author’s thesis, but to sharpen its central insight by making the classification criteria explicit and by distinguishing the linguistic evidence from broader cultural interpretation.

The distinction matters because the riddle’s enigmatic force often lies in relations rather than in isolated words. Similarity may connect the eyes to pearls, a cloud or mist to a garment, or the mouth to a cave. Contiguity may foreground an adornment, a component, or an effect associated with the target. Personification may recast a plant, fruit, tool, or architectural element as a human agent. Grammatical gender may become a resource for paradoxical narration, as in the riddle whose referent receives differently gendered names at successive stages. In other cases, the apparent contradiction is resolved by recognising that a word is being used in a local figurative sense. These mechanisms can overlap, and their interaction is analytically more informative than an exclusive one-label taxonomy.

The article also keeps the cultural dimension in view. The riddles repeatedly draw their vehicles and clues from agriculture, mountain ecology, domestic architecture, weaving, food storage, the human body, kinship, and religious or social imagery. Such recurrences show that interpretation depends on situated cultural competence: a respondent must recognise not only a lexical form but also the shape and use of a loom, the appearance of a plant, the organisation of a house, or a conventional association. Yet this dependence on local knowledge does not justify moving directly from a finite corpus to claims about a single, stable “Amazigh worldview” or the “deep structures” of Berber thought. The safer conclusion is that the corpus documents locally meaningful modes of description and categorisation whose broader distribution can be tested comparatively.

Three research questions guide the revised analysis. First, which figurative and rhetorical operations are mobilised in the Kabyle riddles examined here, and how can their classification be made more explicit? Second, how do these operations interact with recurrent semantic domains such as the natural world, material culture, the body, and social relations? Third, what can the corpus legitimately support about the relationship between figurative form, cultural knowledge, and the poetics of riddling, once claims that require frequency counts, performance data, or wider comparative evidence are separated from the textual analysis? These questions preserve the manuscript’s focus on stylistic sophistication while setting a clearer evidential threshold for each level of interpretation.

The contribution is therefore twofold. Empirically, the article makes a substantial body of Kabyle riddle examples available in transcription and English translation and relates them to published collections. Analytically, it proposes a disciplined reading in which metaphor, metonymic cueing, part-whole relations, personification, paradoxical predication, and circumlocution are treated as potentially overlapping strategies for constructing opacity. This approach helps explain why riddles can be simple in form yet dense in interpretation, and it places Kabyle material within international work on riddles and verbal art without dissolving its linguistic and cultural specificity.

1. Theoretical and analytical framework

Analysing figurative language in Kabyle riddles requires a framework that accounts simultaneously for the riddle’s formal organisation, the rhetorical mechanisms that conceal its referent, and the culturally situated knowledge that makes its resolution possible. No single theoretical tradition is sufficient for all three levels. The present study therefore brings together insights from riddle and folklore scholarship, theories of figurative meaning, and research devoted specifically to Kabyle and Amazigh oral literature. This combination makes it possible to distinguish the textual properties that can be established directly from the corpus from broader claims about performance, cognition, or cultural representation that require additional evidence.

Three complementary perspectives organise the discussion. First, riddles are approached as forms of verbal art whose interpretation depends not only on their propositional content but also on genre conventions and interactional framing. Second, the analysis draws on distinctions among metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, personification, paradoxical predication, and circumlocution to establish explicit criteria for classifying figurative operations. Particular attention is paid to cases in which several mechanisms coexist within a single riddle, since the enigmatic effect often results from their interaction rather than from one isolated figure of speech. Third, Kabyle examples are situated within the broader scholarship on Amazigh language and oral literature, while maintaining a strict distinction between features documented in the Ait Kouffi corpus and observations derived from comparative collections.

This framework is deliberately analytical rather than taxonomically rigid. Its purpose is not to assign each riddle permanently to a single rhetorical category, but to identify the relations that make the description interpretable: similarity, contiguity, part-whole association, anthropomorphic projection, semantic contradiction, indirect designation, and culturally conventional knowledge. Such an approach is better suited to the density of riddle language, where a few words may activate several interpretive pathways at once.

1.1. Riddles as form, interaction, and verbal art

The riddle has been approached from folklore, linguistics, anthropology, literary studies, and pragmatics. Structural definitions have emphasised the relation between a descriptive proposition and a referent to be identified, while performance-oriented approaches have shown that the meaning of a folkloric form also depends on the social event in which it is used. Abrahams (1968, 1972) and Abrahams and Dundes (1972) helped establish the riddle as an object of literary and folkloristic analysis rather than a minor amusement. Georges and Dundes (1963) likewise proposed a structural perspective on riddles, and later work has continued to examine how form, genre expectations, and performance interact. Bauman’s (1975) account of verbal art as performance is particularly useful here because it prevents the written transcription from being mistaken for the whole communicative event.

For the present article, this literature has a methodological consequence. The transcribed riddle is treated as a textual artefact that can be analysed for lexical, semantic, and rhetorical organisation; claims about the social event of riddling require additional contextual evidence. This distinction matters because the source manuscript sometimes moves from a textual property to a social function without showing the intermediate evidence. A metaphor involving a tool may encode knowledge of that tool, for example, but the fact that the riddle can be pedagogically useful does not by itself demonstrate how it was taught, who learned from it, or how frequently it was performed.

Riddle scholarship also cautions against defining the genre exclusively through one formal template. The Kabyle examples discussed here often use a conventional posing formula such as Graɤ-ak-tt-id (“I pose it to you”), but the enigmatic relation is not reducible to the interrogative frame. What makes the sequence recognisable as a riddle is the combination of genre framing, semantic misdirection, a culturally licensed answer, and an expectation that the hearer reconstruct the intended relation. The answer is therefore not an arbitrary solution added after the fact; it is the interpretive key that reveals which features of the description were relevant.

1.2. Figurative meaning: similarity, contiguity, and layered categorisation

The source study draws on conceptual metaphor theory, especially Lakoff and Johnson (1980), to describe recurrent mappings between domains. Conceptual metaphor provides a productive vocabulary for relations based on similarity, embodied experience, and conventional association, but it must be used at the appropriate scale. A poetic riddle metaphor is not automatically evidence for a broad conceptual system, and a single image does not establish the prevalence of a mapping across a community. Kövecses’s later work on the contextual variability of metaphor reinforces the need to attend to local usage and discourse setting rather than assuming uniform conceptual structures.

The analytical distinction between metaphor and metonymy is especially important. Metaphor typically organises understanding through resemblance or cross-domain mapping; metonymy relies on a relation of contiguity within a conceptual frame, such as part for whole, producer for product, container for content, or a salient associated feature for the target. Synecdoche can be treated more narrowly as a part-whole relation. In riddles, however, an expression may exploit both similarity and contiguity. A descriptive phrase can evoke the target through physical resemblance while another clue points to a part, location, effect, or associated object. The revised analysis therefore permits co-classification rather than forcing every item into a single exclusive category.

Personification is treated as a particular form of mapping in which a non-human referent is presented through human agency, bodily attributes, kinship, occupation, or social action. Its occurrence is analytically clear when a plant “lets down its hair”, a fruit is represented as a parent with many children, or the components of a loom are made to stand, sleep, or sing. Such formulations can be culturally resonant without requiring the analyst to infer an “animistic worldview”. The textual fact is anthropomorphic representation; any stronger claim about cosmology needs independent ethnographic support.

Paradox and contradiction require a similarly careful vocabulary. An oxymoron, in a strict rhetorical sense, usually involves the compact juxtaposition of apparently contradictory terms. Several Kabyle examples instead build a contradiction across an entire proposition: an entity is said to have milk yet cannot be milked, to have wings yet not fly, or to answer while remaining silent. “Paradoxical predication” is therefore a more accurate umbrella term for these cases. The contradiction is not nonsensical; it directs the hearer toward a non-default sense of one or more predicates.

Circumlocution designates indirect description through a longer or less direct formulation. Euphemism is more specific: it implies that the indirect form mitigates a socially sensitive, taboo, offensive, or threatening expression. Because the source corpus does not systematically document speakers’ reasons for choosing each expression, the revised analysis reserves the label euphemism for cases in which a mitigating function can be supported. A metaphorical description of a waterskin as a boar is vivid indirection, but it is not euphemistic merely because it avoids naming the waterskin.

1.3. Kabyle and Amazigh scholarship

The analysis is anchored in work on Kabyle and Amazigh oral literature, including published riddle collections by Boulifa (1913), Genevois (1963), Attab and Amrane (1993), Allioui (1990, 2005), Khalfa (2003), and the author’s own earlier research (Tabti, 2008, 2019). Studies by Chaker, Galand-Pernet, Haddadou, Merolla, Kaouas, and others provide broader linguistic and literary contexts. The value of this literature lies in its attention to forms, lexicon, transmission, and cultural specificity. At the same time, the present article distinguishes what is directly documented in the Ait Kouffi corpus from generalisations drawn from the wider Amazigh-speaking world.

This distinction is particularly relevant for terminology. The source manuscript records several Kabyle labels for riddles and a long list of designations from other Amazigh varieties. Such lexical diversity is potentially important for comparative work, but each regional form should be traceable to a documented source. In the revised article, the list is retained as part of the author’s comparative horizon, while the final published version should supply item-level references for forms not collected directly by the author.

2. Corpus and methodology

The study is qualitative, textual, and comparative. Its core material consists of riddles the author collected during fieldwork in Ait Kouffi, a Kabyle-speaking village in Tizi Ouzou, between 2010 and 2018. The source manuscript states that these materials belong to a larger corpus assembled for the author’s doctoral research. Published riddle collections are used as comparative resources, notably Boulifa (1913), Genevois (1963), Attab and Amrane (1993), Khalfa (2003), Allioui (2005), and Haddadou (2009). The final version must state the exact number of field items and the exact number of riddles analysed in this article; without that denominator, the study can make qualitative statements about recurrence but should not claim statistical prevalence.

The field corpus also requires a clearer provenance protocol. Each riddle cited in the article should carry either an anonymised field code or a bibliographic source with a page number. This is especially important because field-collected material and published examples currently appear in the same sequence. The distinction does not alter the stylistic argument, but it enables readers to assess the evidential basis of each claim and prevents an example from being inadvertently presented as primary field data when it derives from an earlier collection.

According to the source manuscript, the riddles were transcribed in a Latin-based system associated with INALCO and accompanied by French and English translations. For publication, the transcription convention should be identified by name or by an explicit character inventory, and apparent variation in symbols should be checked consistently. The translation policy should also be stated: who produced each translation, whether it was checked by another competent speaker or linguist, and when a literal gloss has been preferred over idiomatic English. The present revision retains the author’s transcriptions and solutions rather than silently normalising linguistic data whose intended phonological value must be confirmed by the author.

Three complementary levels of analysis are maintained. Structural analysis considers formulae, syntactic organisation, parallelism, and the relation between clue and answer. Semantic analysis examines the relations that make the clue interpretable, especially similarity, contiguity, part-whole structure, grammatical categorisation, and semantic contrast. Pragmatic analysis is limited to contextual information actually supported by field documentation or specialist literature: the interactional role of the posing formula, the expectation of a response, and the cultural knowledge required to recognise particular tools, plants, practices, or social images.

Coding the figures of speech follows an explicit decision rule. A metaphor label is used where the central clue depends on perceived resemblance or cross-domain mapping; metonymy where an associated element within the same frame gives access to the target; synecdoche only where a demonstrable part-whole relation is central; personification where non-human entities receive human properties or roles; paradoxical predication where apparently incompatible properties become coherent once a figurative or grammatical reading is found; circumlocution where the referent is described indirectly without the stronger claim of taboo mitigation. More than one label may apply to the same riddle. This multilabel procedure better reflects the layered construction of the examples.

The analysis is interpretive rather than quantitative. No inter-coder reliability procedure is reported in the source manuscript, and no frequency table is supplied. Accordingly, the revised article avoids statements such as “metaphor is the most prevalent figure” unless the author later provides a coded inventory and denominator. What the examples can defend is that metaphorical analogy is highly recurrent and structurally productive across several semantic domains. Future work could formalise the coding scheme and test its reliability on the full corpus.

Finally, the article requires a concise ethics and data-integrity statement. The collection spans 2010–2018 and may predate current institutional procedures, but publication still requires a factual account of how informants were approached, whether they consented to recording and scholarly reuse, how names or identifying details were handled, and how the material is stored. No contemporary ethics approval should be reconstructed retrospectively if none existed. The appropriate editorial solution is a transparent statement of the procedure actually followed, together with any present-day author attestation required by the journal.

3. Kabyle Riddles: Designations, Functions, and Cultural Context

Before analysing the rhetorical mechanisms in detail, the genre must be situated linguistically, socially, and historically. The following subsections therefore move from the designations and working definition of the Kabyle riddle to its reported performance functions and, finally, to the cultural and historical contexts in which those practices have been described. This contextualisation does not turn textual evidence into ethnography; rather, it establishes the lexical, interactional, and historical coordinates needed to interpret the examples examined in the subsequent analysis.

3.1. Designations and definitions

In the Kabyle language, riddles are designated by various terms that reflect their regional diversity and functional multiplicity. The most common designations include timseɛraq (singular: timseɛraqt), timesbibbay (singular: timsbibbit), and, in some regions, timsefra (singular: tamsefrut), as well as timsalin or timsal (singular: tamsalt). These terms, while referring to the same discursive genre, carry subtle semantic differences that reflect the cultural understanding of the riddling practice.

The term timseɛraqt is etymologically related to the verb eɛreq (to mislead, misplace, confuse, disorient, divert, deflect, hijack, lead astray, hint, allude). This connection highlights the allusive nature of riddles and their reliance on indirect reference.

The source manuscript relates timsbibbit to the root bib (to bear, hold, convey, support, shoulder, sustain) and interprets this relation through the figurative burden placed on a respondent who fails to solve the riddle. Because this is an etymological and ethnolinguistic interpretation, the final version should attach it to the author’s field evidence or to a specific lexicographic source rather than present it as self-evident.

Tamsefrut, derived in the source analysis from efru (to resolve, solve, settle, or clear up), foregrounds the interpretive task of reaching a solution. The etymological relation should be supported by the lexicographic or field source used by the author.

Across the broader Amazigh-speaking regions, riddles are known by various designations: tamḥajit, tamacahuţ, tiḥiǧǧa, timfusin in Chaoui, tinfas, tinfusin, timnzriwt, tawafitin, tinqifin, tuqniwin in Rifian, tiɣuniwin, umiyn, tumiyen, tumiyt, bbalḥ in Tachelhit and tunzart/tunéart, timzuren, cimzurin, tanfust, iggi, iggiten, taggoren, maslo, masloten, tamaslut, semmektu in Tuareg regions.

These forms document lexical diversity across Amazigh-speaking regions. Their distribution and cultural salience should be established through the sources from which each regional designation is taken.

Conceptually, a Kabyle riddle is a verbal formula that presents an enigmatic description of an object, action, or concept that the listener must identify. This description typically relies on figurative language that simultaneously reveals and conceals the subject through various rhetorical strategies. A frequent structure follows a question-answer format, where the riddler poses the enigma, often prefaced with a conventional opening formula such as “Graɤ-ak-tt-id” (“I pose it to you”), and the respondent attempts to provide the solution.

3.2. Social functions and performance contexts

The source manuscript and the specialist literature associate Kabyle riddling with several functions beyond entertainment. Traditionally, riddles were performed during evening gatherings that brought together family members and, in some settings, neighbours, particularly during the winter months when agricultural activities slowed down. These gatherings around the hearth (lkanun) are described in the source context as spaces of intergenerational exchange in which cultural knowledge could be transmitted.

Functions commonly attributed to Kabyle riddling in the source context and the specialist literature include the following:

• Pedagogical function: Riddles can serve as verbal exercises that engage observation skills, analogical thinking, and problem-solving abilities, particularly among children. Their clues draw on knowledge of the natural environment, traditional crafts, social norms, and material culture.

• Social cohesion: Collective riddling creates shared experiences and reinforces cultural knowledge. The cooperative and competitive aspects of riddling sessions promote social interaction across generations.

• Linguistic development: Riddles expose participants to poetic and figurative uses of language, expanding vocabulary and developing metalinguistic awareness.

• Cultural preservation: Through their content and form, riddles preserve verbal representations of cultural values, material practices, and shared knowledge; their role in transmission should be documented through performance or reception evidence.

• Entertainment: The playful and challenging nature of riddles provides entertainment, particularly during periods of diminished agricultural activity or during social gatherings.

The performance frame described for many Kabyle riddles involves a dialogic exchange between the riddler and audience. The riddler presents the enigma, and listeners attempt to solve it, with successful solutions often rewarded by social recognition or the right to pose the next riddle. In traditional settings, riddling sessions might follow specific protocols, with certain riddles reserved for particular occasions or restricted to specific age groups.

3.3. Cultural and historical context

The practice of riddling in Kabyle communities has evolved within specific historical and cultural circumstances that have shaped both its form and content. Traditionally embedded in the cyclical rhythm of agricultural life, riddling sessions provided intellectual stimulation during winter evenings when outdoor work was limited. The content of riddles reflected the material culture, environmental knowledge, and social structures of agrarian Kabyle society.

The relationship between colonial history, post-independence social change, and riddling practices is historically important but requires explicit documentation beyond the present textual corpus. Any claim that particular language policies displaced riddling into private space should therefore be tied to a specific historical source. The source manuscript also associates later changes in performance contexts with urbanisation, changing social routines, and heritage movements; these propositions are best presented as contextual hypotheses unless supported by dedicated evidence.

Contemporary efforts to document and revitalize Amazigh cultural heritage have brought renewed attention to riddling traditions. The constitutional recognition of Tamazight as a national and official language in Algeria (since 2016) forms part of the contemporary institutional context in which Amazigh-language research and pedagogical work are developing. The extent to which traditional performance settings have diminished should be established through empirical or historical sources rather than assumed from modernisation alone.

Despite these transformations, riddles remain relevant in contemporary Kabyle society, though often in adapted forms. Educational programs, cultural festivals, and media initiatives now incorporate riddles as emblematic expressions of Amazigh cultural identity. Such adaptation can be read as evidence of continuing recontextualisation while raising questions about authenticity and the changing functions of riddling in modern contexts.

4. Rhetorical Operations in Kabyle Riddles: Forms and Functions

Having established the corpus, terminology, and contextual frame, the analysis now turns to the rhetorical operations that organise the riddles themselves. The following subsections distinguish metaphorical analogy, metonymic and part – whole cueing, personification, paradoxical predication, and circumlocution, while allowing several operations to coexist within a single item. The purpose is not to produce a rigid inventory of labels but to show how each mechanism contributes to the controlled opacity of the riddle and to the recoverability of its answer.

4.1. Metaphor: Conceptual mappings and analogical thinking

Metaphor is especially recurrent in the examples examined here, serving as the fundamental cognitive mechanism through which enigmatic descriptions are constructed. In Kabyle riddles, metaphorical constructions typically establish unexpected connections between disparate semantic domains, creating the conceptual challenge the respondent must resolve.

The metaphorical process in Kabyle riddles often involves mapping physical properties of one domain onto another, as exemplified in this riddle:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Snat tɛeqqucin deg uẓeṭta, mi medlent d abrid s aẓekka.
(I pose it to you: Two pearls on a weaving, when they close, it is the path to the grave.)
Answer: Tiṭ (Eyes).

This riddle metaphorically conceptualizes the eyes as “pearls” and the eyelashes as “a weaving.” The effectiveness of the metaphor lies in the resemblance between the lustrous, delicate nature of pearls and the eyes, as well as the structured, fine arrangement of a weaving and the eyelashes. Additionally, closing the eyes is metonymically linked to death, reinforcing the riddle’s enigmatic, poetic quality.

Another example demonstrates how metaphorical mapping can engage with celestial and terrestrial imagery:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Tamazirt, teççur d ibawen, ur ssawḍeɤ ad d-kkseɤ yiwen.
(I pose it to you: The field is full of broad beans, yet I cannot pick a single one.)
Answer: Igenwan d yitran (The sky and the stars).

Here, the riddle compares the sky to a field and the stars to broad beans, creating a striking visual analogy. The vastness of the sky resembles an open field, while the scattered brilliance of the stars mirrors the dispersed pattern of beans in a cultivated land. The impossibility of reaching the stars, just like picking beans from an untouchable field, enhances the enigmatic and metaphorical depth of the riddle.

These examples illustrate how Kabyle riddles use metaphor as a poetic and interpretive device, transforming ordinary elements into descriptions whose solution depends on recognising a structured resemblance.

Kabyle riddles frequently employ metaphors based on:

• Anthropomorphic mappings: Attribution of human characteristics to non-human entities

• Zoomorphic mappings: Attribution of animal characteristics to non-animal entities

• Structural mappings: Based on physical resemblance in shape, size, or configuration

• Functional mappings: Based on similar actions or purposes

• Sensory mappings: Based on shared sensory qualities (color, sound, texture)

The interpretive complexity of these metaphorical constructions varies considerably, from relatively transparent analogies to highly abstract conceptual mappings that require sophisticated cultural knowledge to decode.

4.2. Metonymic cues and part-whole relations

While metaphor operates through similarity, metonymy and synecdoche function through contiguity, where one element stands for another based on spatial, temporal, or conceptual proximity. In Kabyle riddles, these figures create enigmatic descriptions by highlighting a part, quality, or associated element of the object to be guessed.

An example originally classified as synecdoche is better treated cautiously as a structural metaphor with possible part-whole cueing:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Aεrqub n uffal, Zerriεa-s d uzzal.
(I pose it to you: Umbrella plant field, whose seeds are metal.)
Answer: Aqerdac (The weaving loom card).

The “field” evokes the wooden surface through structural resemblance and the “metal seeds” evoke the teeth through a second analogy. If a part-whole reading is retained, it concerns the relation between the teeth and the complete carding implement; the figurative wording itself is primarily analogical rather than a straightforward synecdoche.

Metonymy frequently appears in riddles about body parts, where a distinctive feature stands in for the whole:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Ԑuεε u, iεelleq lullu.
(I pose it to you: A piece of flesh sporting a jewel.)
Answer: Ameẓẓuɤ (The ear).

Here, the ear is approached through a bodily description and through the associated earring. The relation between ear and adornment is metonymic, while the overall formulation remains a circumlocutory description.

Another example illustrates a metonymy based on the association between an object and one of its characteristic elements:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Snat taɛwinin, umi zzint tqecḍatin.
(I pose it to you: Two springs, adorned with twigs.)
Answer: Allen (The eyes).

In this riddle, the springs (taɛwinin) provide an analogical image for the eyes rather than a strict metonymic substitute. The connection is based on the shared characteristic of fluidity, as eyes can shed tears just as springs produce water. Additionally, the phrase adorned with twigs evokes eyelashes, reinforcing the association between the two.

The relation rests on a perceived similarity between water issuing from a spring and tears issuing from the eyes; it is therefore better analysed as a metaphorical analogy, with the twigs supplying a second visual clue for the eyelashes.

Metonymic and part-whole cues are effective when they direct attention to an associated component or property without naming the complete referent. In the Kabyle examples, however, such cueing often operates alongside resemblance. The analysis therefore distinguishes a relation of contiguity from a merely peripheral descriptive detail and allows metaphor and metonymy to coexist where the wording supports both.

4.3. Personification: Attribution of human qualities

Personification – the attribution of human qualities to non-human entities – is recurrent in the examples concerning natural phenomena and inanimate objects. It creates interpretive incongruity by presenting non-human referents through human characteristics, actions, or relationships.

A classic example of personification appears in this riddle about the diss (a kind of esparto grass, adles, used in Kabylie for the production of wickerwork objects and for covering huts. It is also used, ground, to heal non-purulent wounds):

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Ibedd ɤef wecruf, Yebra-d i wrefruf.
Tiririt: adles.
(I pose it to you: At the edge of the precipice, it lets down its long hair.)
Answer: The diss.

This riddle personifies the diss as a person letting down their hair. The poetic description conveys the plant’s physical appearance as it grows in ravines and precipices, giving it the illusion of cascading hair. By attributing human action and bodily imagery to the plant, the riddle creates a recognisable visual analogy without requiring a broader claim about the relation between nature and human perception.

Another example demonstrates personification through social interaction:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id : Lqed-is anect n lbunya, Arraw-is ɛaddan miyya.
Tiririt: taṛemmant.
(I pose it to you: No bigger than a fist, but it has more than a hundred children.)
Answer: The pomegranate.

Here, the pomegranate is personified as a parent with numerous children, the “children” corresponding to the many seeds contained within the fruit. The riddle relies on a familiar kinship schema to render numerical abundance memorable. Any further interpretation in terms of fertility symbolism or social values should be supported by independent ethnographic or textual evidence.

Personification often occurs together with metaphor and paradoxical predication, producing multi-layered constructions. The combination is analytically useful because a non-human entity may first be mapped onto a person and then characterised through a social role, body part, or action. The resulting image can be culturally resonant without requiring the analyst to extrapolate a comprehensive worldview from the individual riddle.

The recurrence of personification in riddles about natural phenomena shows that bodily and social experience can serve as a productive descriptive resource. The textual evidence supports an anthropomorphic mode of representation; it does not by itself establish a general cosmology or an animistic theory of the environment.

4.4. Paradoxical predication and grammatical play

Paradoxical predication creates interpretive tension by presenting apparently contradictory or impossible scenarios, forcing the listener to resolve the logical tension through creative interpretation. In Kabyle riddles, these figures function as powerful devices for obscuring the subject while engaging the respondent in active cognitive processing.

Consider this paradoxical construction:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Illul-ed d win, yuɤal d ţţin, yemmut d win.
(I pose it to you: It was born male, it became female, it died male.)
Answer: Iniɤem (Dried fig).

The riddle presents an apparent contradiction by narrating a change in grammatical gender across differently named stages of the referent. This paradox is resolved when we recognize that the fig receives different names in Kabyle depending on its stage of maturity: aqerquc (interrupted maturation, masculine), tabexsist (ripe fig, feminine), and iniɤem (dried fig, masculine). The effect depends on the grammatical gender of the successive Kabyle nouns; it is wordplay on lexical categorisation rather than a claim about biological sex.

Paradoxical constructions also appear in riddles about natural elements:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Tesɛa ayefki ur teţţeẓẓeg, tesɛa afriwen ur teţţafeg.
(I pose it to you: It has milk but is not milked; it has wings but does not fly.)
Answer: Taneqelţ (Fig tree).

This riddle employs two connected paradoxical predications to describe the fig tree: its sap resembles milk but is not produced in the way an animal produces milk, and its leaves are metaphorically called “wings” in Kabyle, yet they do not serve the function of flight. The contradictory attributes create an enigmatic quality while accurately describing the fig tree’s unique properties.

Apparently incompatible predicates can also structure riddles about less tangible phenomena:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Iggul ur d-ineṭṭeq, yerna yeţţar-ed lmanṭeq.
(I pose it to you: He swore to keep silent, but, when questioned, he responds.)
Answer: Ahu (Echo).

This riddle employs paradoxical categorization, presenting the echo as something that is both silent and responsive. The contradiction is resolved by recognizing that an echo does not produce speech on its own but rather repeats sounds, creating the illusion of answering while remaining inherently voiceless.

Paradoxical predication can encourage metalinguistic reinterpretation by making a literal reading temporarily impossible. The solver must identify which term has a non-default sense, which grammatical category is being exploited, or which property is only apparently contradictory. This is a textual and interpretive effect; claims about broader metacognitive development would require a participant-based study.

4.5. Circumlocution and strategic indirection

Circumlocution and, where a mitigating function can be demonstrated, euphemism function as strategies of indirection, describing subjects through roundabout expressions or deliberately vague terminology. In Kabyle riddles, these figures serve both to obscure the subject and to navigate culturally sensitive topics through socially acceptable language.

Circumlocution appears in examples concerning death, bodily topics, animals, and ordinary objects. Where an indirect formulation concerns a potentially sensitive subject, a euphemistic function is possible, but the present corpus does not document the speaker’s pragmatic motivation in every case:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Axxam adeyqan, Ur nesɛi ṭṭwiqan.
(I pose it to you: A house with no windows cannot be entered.)
Answer: aẓekka (The grave).

This riddle uses circumlocution to address death and burial without directly naming the grave. The description of a “house without windows” metaphorically represents the tomb, allowing discussion of a potentially taboo subject through indirect language.

A further example shows why indirect description must not automatically be equated with euphemism:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Ilef, Yeguni ṛṛef.
(I pose it to you: A boar under the gutter.)
Answer: ayeddid (The waterskin).

This riddle represents a waterskin through a zoomorphic metaphor, using indirect language to describe an everyday object in a poetic and non-literal way. The indirect framing transforms a mundane subject into an enigmatic verbal image; it does not demonstrate a taboo-mitigating function.

Indirect description also appears in riddles about ordinary animals and objects:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Ibedd di tizi, Yessawal a zizi !
(I pose it to you: Standing on a hill, it calls out “cousin”!)
Answer: ayaziḍ (The rooster).

This riddle uses an indirect, animated description of the rooster. The wording obscures the referent while foregrounding posture and call; any stronger claim about symbolic value should be supported independently.

Taken together, these examples establish that indirection is structurally productive in the riddle genre. Some circumlocutions may also have euphemistic functions, particularly around death or bodily topics, but that pragmatic motivation should be demonstrated through performance context or speaker commentary rather than inferred from indirectness alone.

5. Semantic Fields and Conceptual Domains

Rhetorical operations become fully interpretable when they are considered in relation to the semantic worlds from which riddles draw their clues. The following subsections therefore examine three recurrent domains in the material: the natural world, material culture and traditional technologies, and the human body and social relations. The aim is to identify how figurative mechanisms are anchored in culturally recognisable objects, practices, and forms of knowledge without treating the distribution of examples as a quantitative measure of cultural importance.

5.1. The natural world and ecological knowledge

Kabyle riddles frequently draw on the natural world as both subject matter and a source of figurative language. The examples connect plants, animals, weather, and celestial phenomena to images drawn from agriculture, clothing, domestic life, and the body. This distribution is compatible with the environmental knowledge of the communities in which the riddles circulate, while the article restricts itself to the associations actually represented in the corpus.

Flora and fauna constitute primary subjects in many riddles, often described through vivid imagery and anthropomorphic metaphors:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Jebdeɤ amrar, Yenhezz wedrar.
(I pose it to you: I pulled the rope, the mountain shook.)
Answer: Taxsayt (Pumpkin).

This riddle plays on the pumpkin’s physical characteristics. The “rope” evokes its long, trailing stem, while “mountain” magnifies the mass of the fruit. The image is grounded in agricultural observation; claims about the pumpkin’s economic or dietary importance require separate documentation.

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: S ufella d adɤes, Ɣer daxel d iɤes.
(I pose it to you: From the outside, colostrum; inside, the bone.)
Answer: Tayni (Date).

This riddle contrasts the soft outer flesh of the date with the hardness of its stone. The comparison to colostrum supplies a sensory and alimentary analogy, but the broader symbolism of maternal nourishment should be treated as an interpretation requiring contextual support. The example remains relevant even if the fruit reaches Kabyle communities through exchange rather than local cultivation.

These examples show how environmental referents are described through culturally available sensory and material analogies. Broader symbolic meanings should be attributed only where supported by field commentary or published sources.

Meteorological phenomena frequently appear in Kabyle riddles, which often employ paradox and personification to reflect the lived experiences of mountain dwellers:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Abernus n Belɛajuṭ, Yeẓḍan mbla taḍuṭ.
Tiririt: Tagut; aγә mγum.
(I pose it to you: The burnous of Belɛajuṭ, woven without wool.)
Answer: The fog, the mist.

This riddle likens fog to a burnous (a traditional woollen cloak), highlighting its pale colour and its capacity to envelop the mountains like fabric. The comparison is grounded in visual observation of a mountain environment.

Graɤ-ak-tt-id : D amellal am urekti, Ma yafeg, yeţrusu, yeţţali.
Tiririt: Adfel, ameččim.
(I pose it to you: White like dough, it flutters up and down.)
Answer: The snowflake, snow.

The riddle captures the lightness and movement of snowflakes by comparing them to white dough and a fluttering motion. The source commentary also compares a snow-covered landscape to a bride in ceremonial dress; if this image is retained, its provenance should be documented rather than generalised to Kabyle culture as a whole.

These riddles render meteorological phenomena through images drawn from familiar objects, movement, and social experience. They therefore document close observation and culturally available analogies; ecological ethics or prescriptions about living in harmony with nature should not be inferred from the figurative form alone.

Celestial bodies and temporal cycles provide rich material for riddles that employ paradox and spatial metaphors:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id : Lḥara nnig medden, Ur ţţizdiɤ yiwen.
Tiririt: Igenni, tignewt.
(I pose it to you: A house above people; no one inhabits it.)
Answer: The sky, the celestial vault, the firmament.

This riddle portrays the sky as a vast dwelling above human habitation. Its effect depends on spatial metaphor and the impossibility of ordinary occupancy; spiritual or religious interpretations, if intended by speakers, should be documented separately.

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: A ţaya tcerreg aẓeṭṭa, Medleɤ allen tɛedda.
Tiririt: Tansebt.
(I pose it to you: There it is, melting the loom; I closed my eyes: it vanished.)
Answer: The shooting star.

This riddle captures the fleeting appearance of a shooting star. The source commentary associates the phenomenon with a religious explanation involving angels and Satan; in the final version, attribute that interpretation to a documented informant or published source.

Celestial imagery is salient among the examples presented here and combines perceptual observation with cultural interpretation. Such riddles can transmit names and associations related to the sky and seasonal experience, although their pedagogical effects would need to be investigated directly rather than presumed from content alone.

5.2. Material culture and traditional technologies

Elements of material culture and traditional technologies are prominent among the examples discussed here. These riddles describe tools, domestic implements, architectural elements, and craft techniques through memorable figurative relations, thereby preserving verbal representations of practices and objects.

Household implements frequently appear as solutions to riddles employing personification and metaphor:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Yeqqummec iḥezzem, Yessebleε izrem.
(I pose it to you: Kneeling and girded, it swallows a snake.)
Answer: tafeggact, taftilt n zzit (the oil lamp).

This riddle describes the traditional clay lamp through the image of a kneeling, girded figure consuming a snake, the snake corresponding to the wick. Personification and functional analogy jointly obscure the referent while preserving a recognisable feature of the lamp’s operation.

Traditional household tools are often described through metaphors drawing upon distinctive sounds and actions:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Beddeɤ nnig n tzeqqa, Sliɤ i wbeqqa.
(I pose it to you: Leaning over the room, I heard slaps.)
Answer: aγerbal (the sieve).

The sieve is presented through the sound associated with its use. The clue preserves an acoustic feature of the tool and can be read as an instance of indirect functional description rather than, by itself, evidence of intergenerational technical transmission.

Items for water storage feature in riddles employing animal imagery:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Ilef, Iɛelleq sdaw n ṛṛef.
(I pose it to you: A wild boar, hanging from the eaves.)
Answer: ayeddid (the goatskin water bag).

This riddle conceptualises the filled waterskin as a wild boar through a resemblance of shape and specifies its customary hanging position. It therefore combines zoomorphic metaphor with a locational clue to a traditional storage practice.

Architectural elements feature in riddles employing structural metaphors and personification:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id : Ṛṛebɛa dlen, Ṛṛebɛa bedden,
Mya d mya ṭṣen, Ma ţţaklit, tɛus fella-sen.
(I pose it to you: Four cover, four stand, a hundred and a hundred sleep, while the black slave keeps watch over them.)
Answer: axxam (The house).

This riddle maps the components of the traditional Kabyle house onto human postures and roles. The English rendering “black slave” reproduces a historically charged expression in the source material; if philologically accurate, it should be retained only as quoted corpus data, contextualised, and not adopted as the analyst’s own descriptive vocabulary. The image personifies the darkened hearth or fire as a sentinel.

Riddles about traditional crafts also describe technical components through figurative relationships:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Sin ẓzlen, ṭṭsen, Sin rsen bedden, Sin cennun gara-sen.
(I pose it to you: Two are stretched out and sleep, two stand upright, two, in the middle, sing together.)
Answer: azeṭta (the loom).

This riddle personifies the components of the traditional vertical loom through their positions and functions. The beam rollers are “sleeping,” the uprights are “standing,” and the reeds are “singing” as they move up and down during weaving. This personification reflects cultural conceptualizations of craft technologies while encoding practical knowledge about the loom’s structure.

Everyday objects used for personal care appear in riddles employing paradoxical descriptions:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Lliɤ deg-s, Ur kcimeɤ deg-s.
(I pose it to you: I was in it, but without entering it.)
Answer: lemri (the mirror).

This riddle captures the paradoxical experience of seeing oneself represented in a mirror without physically entering it. The solution resolves the apparent contradiction by distinguishing optical presence from bodily location.

The concentration of tools and domestic objects in these examples shows how material culture supplies a rich inventory of shapes, sounds, postures, and functions for riddle construction. In historical terms, the riddles also preserve verbal representations of technologies whose everyday familiarity may change over time. This documentary potential is distinct from a measured claim that the riddles themselves transmitted technical competence.

5.3. The human body and social relations

Riddles concerning the human body and social relations form a distinct group in the material discussed here. They often combine several rhetorical operations, using architecture, pastoral imagery, occupations, kinship, and contrast to describe familiar but intimate referents.

Anatomical riddles frequently employ metaphors and personification to describe bodily organs and functions:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id : Snat tɛaqqucin deg uẓeṭtîa,
Mi medlent, amzun d aẓekka.
Tiririt: tiṭṭucin.
(I pose it to you: Two pearls on a weaving,
when they close, it is like a tomb.)
Answer: The eyes.

This riddle metaphorically presents the eyes as pearls and the eyelashes as a woven structure. Closing the eyes adds an association with death, so the item combines visual analogy with a culturally intelligible consequence of eyelid closure.

Parts of the body are often described through metaphors drawing upon architectural imagery:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: Ifri izemmen, Yeldi, banen-d izamaren.
Tiririt: imi, tuγmas naγ uglan.
(I pose it to you: A closed cave;
opened, it reveals the lambs.)
Answer: The mouth and teeth.

Here, the mouth is metaphorically conceptualized as a cave, with the teeth personified as lambs. The metaphor captures both the physical structure of the mouth (enclosed space) and the appearance of teeth (white like lambs) through familiar pastoral imagery.

Riddles about body parts often employ occupational metaphors to describe their function:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id : Aɛacra n ṭṭelba,
S telwaḥin dima.
Tiririt: iḍuḍan d waccaren.
(I pose it to you: Ten clerks,
constantly equipped with wooden tablets [for the Quran].)
Answer: The fingers and nails.

This riddle represents the fingers as Quranic scholars and the nails as their wooden writing tablets. The comparison draws on a culturally recognisable educational image to describe the number, alignment, and pairing of fingers and nails.

Contrasting qualities provide metaphorical frameworks for describing bodily functions:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id : Sin ferḍen, Sin berḍen.
Tiririt: iḍuḍan d wanzaren.
(I pose it to you: Two clean, two have diarrhea.)
Answer: The fingers and nostrils.

This riddle employs contrasting states of cleanliness to describe the relationship between fingers and nostrils, using somewhat crude humor to encode observations about bodily functions.

Anatomical riddles make bodily organs and functions available to figurative description through culturally familiar images. They can provide a socially recognisable way of talking about the body, but the present textual corpus does not measure educational, social, or developmental effects; those functions require performance or participant data.

The source manuscript raises the possibility of riddles concerning sexual organs but notes that none were directly provided in the material discussed here. Without elicitation or performance evidence, modesty cannot be established as the reason for this absence. However, there are examples of riddles with possible sexual connotations that have been reinterpreted to refer to everyday objects:

Graɤ-ak-tt-id: D aberkan am inissi, Sseg°rayen-t medden i ymensi.
Tiririt: aqerdac.
(I pose it to you: Black like the hedgehog,
it is taken after dinner.)
Answer: The carding tool.

The density of anatomical imagery shows that the human body is a productive domain for riddle construction. Calling the corpus an “anatomical encyclopedia” is best understood as a metaphor for this lexical richness, not as a claim of systematic encyclopedic coverage.

6. Analytical Synthesis

The examples analysed in the preceding sections support a qualitative rather than frequency-based synthesis. Analogical mapping is recurrent across all three major semantic domains represented here: natural phenomena are described through agriculture, clothing, kinship, or bodily images; tools and architectural elements are represented through human posture, animals, or cultivated space; body parts are recast as pearls, springs, caves, lambs, scholars, or other culturally recognisable entities. These mappings do not simply ornament an otherwise literal proposition. They are the mechanism by which the referent is displaced from its ordinary category and made available through a different descriptive frame.

A second result is the importance of layered clues. Several riddles cannot be adequately described by a single trope. The eyes may be pearls while the eyelashes are weaving; an ear may be a piece of flesh while the earring supplies a metonymic clue; a carding tool may be a field whose metal teeth become seeds; a loom may combine posture, sleep, standing, and song. The interpretive task consists in discovering a configuration in which several apparently incongruous predicates become jointly coherent. Multilabel analysis therefore better accounts for the riddle’s internal architecture than exclusive classification.

Third, the corpus demonstrates the role of grammatical and lexical knowledge alongside imagery. The dried-fig riddle depends on the grammatical gender of different lexical designations at successive stages, not on an ontological change in the object. The fig-tree riddle depends on local or figurative extensions of “milk” and “wings”. The echo riddle depends on the distinction between initiating speech and returning it. In each case, the solution reassigns the predicates to a less obvious but linguistically licensed interpretation.

Fourth, semantic domains matter because they organise the knowledge required to solve them. Recognition of a loom, carding tool, oil lamp, waterskin, house, sieve, pumpkin, fig tree, fog, or particular plant presupposes familiarity with material and ecological contexts. The riddles therefore preserve lexical and descriptive knowledge even when they are not treated as direct evidence of a pedagogical outcome. Their documentary value lies partly in the fact that the clue-answer relation keeps objects, practices, and names within a network of memorable associations.

Finally, the analysis identifies a methodological limit that results from the re-examination. The source manuscript often moves from recurrent examples to statements about prevalence, cognitive structures, or a general Amazigh worldview. The corpus presented in the article is strong enough to establish sophisticated figurative organisation and culturally situated verbal artistry. Without a complete coded inventory and comparative design, it is not strong enough to quantify the distribution of figures or to generalise a single conceptual system across Amazigh communities. Restricting the scope of inference strengthens rather than weakens the contribution.

Table 1. Analytical operations, representative examples, and functions in Kabyle riddles

Analytical operation	Representative examples	Function in the riddle
Similarity/metaphor	pearls-eyes; field – sky; fog – burnous; cave – mouth	Reframes the referent through physical, sensory, or functional resemblance.
Contiguity/metonymic cue	ear-earring; component – whole relations in tools	Provides access through an associated element within the same frame.
Personification	diss as hair; pomegranate as parent; loom components as agents	Assigns human body, kinship, posture, or action to non-human referents.
Paradoxical predication	fig-tree milk/wings; echo answering while silent; mirror presence	Creates an apparent contradiction resolved by lexical or situational reinterpretation.
Grammatical play	successive names of the fig with different grammatical genders	Uses linguistic categorisation itself as the source of opacity.
Circumlocution/indirection	grave as windowless house; rooster described through posture and call	Avoids direct naming; euphemistic function requires separate evidence.

7. Discussion

The Kabyle material is consistent with a broad finding in riddle scholarship: the genre exploits a tension between semantic fit and categorical mismatch. The respondent is guided toward the answer by features that are real enough to be recognisable but are framed through a category that makes the object initially difficult to identify. Structural approaches to riddles explain the organisation of this mismatch, while performance approaches remind us that successful solving also depends on genre competence and the social expectation that a licensed answer exists. The present corpus adds a substantial set of examples in which those general mechanisms operate through Kabyle lexicon, grammar, material culture, and environmental knowledge.

Metaphor is important, but the revised analysis avoids treating it as a universal key. In some examples, similarity is clearly central; in others, an associated object, part, location, grammatical form, or conventional predicate provides the decisive clue. This is compatible with contemporary approaches that treat metaphor and metonymy as interacting processes rather than mutually exclusive boxes. It also explains why an apparently simple riddle can sustain several readings before the answer is known: different clues activate different relations, and the solution retrospectively selects the configuration that makes them converge.

The treatment of personification illustrates the same principle of evidential restraint. Human roles and bodily attributes offer a productive source domain for plants, fruit, tools, and architectural elements. The pomegranate becomes a parent, the diss lets down hair, loom components sleep or sing, and the household is animated through human postures. These patterns are culturally meaningful because the images available to speakers are not random. Nevertheless, anthropomorphic imagery does not by itself prove an animistic cosmology. It shows a rhetorical technique grounded in human experience; further ethnographic evidence would be required to connect that technique to a specific theory of personhood or nature.

The paradoxical examples are particularly revealing for the relation between language and solving. The dried fig is “male”, then “female”, then “male” only because successive Kabyle nouns carry different grammatical genders. The echo “answers” while remaining voiceless because it returns a prior sound rather than initiating one. The fig tree has “milk” and “wings” only when those predicates are reanalysed through sap and leaves. In these cases, solving is a metalinguistic act: the respondent must reconsider the default sense or category of the words in the clue. This observation supports the manuscript’s larger claim that riddling engages linguistic awareness, but it should not be converted into a measured claim about cognitive development without participant-based evidence.

The semantic-domain analysis likewise clarifies the relationship between cultural knowledge and figurative form. Riddles involving weaving, carding, storage, hearths, agricultural products, plants, and mountain weather are especially dependent on knowledge of local objects and practices. As material environments change, some clues may become less transparent to younger or urban respondents even if the linguistic form survives. This provides a promising direction for future research: the same riddles could be presented to different age groups or communities to test which associations remain recoverable, which require explanation, and which are being recontextualised in digital or educational settings.

Several limitations should therefore be made explicit. The exact size of the analytical corpus is not yet stated, item-level provenance must be completed, and no inter-coder reliability measure is reported for the rhetorical categories. The study does not include systematic recordings of full performance events, so turn-taking, timing, audience response, and social sanction cannot be analysed in detail. The historical discussion is not based on a dedicated diachronic dataset. Finally, the comparative references to other Amazigh-speaking regions require tighter sourcing before they can support claims of pan-Amazigh distribution. These limitations define the next steps rather than invalidating the textual analysis.

A future research programme could combine four levels of evidence: a fully coded and source-tagged corpus; audio or video documentation of performance where ethically possible; elicitation with respondents of different generations; and comparison across Kabyle and other Amazigh varieties using matched analytical categories. Such a design would allow researchers to test frequency, regional distribution, interpretive accessibility, and change over time. It would also make it possible to distinguish a figure that is productive in Kabyle riddling from one that is widespread across several Amazigh traditions.

Conclusion

Kabyle riddles are compact verbal constructions in which ordinary referents are made temporarily strange through controlled figurative re-description. The examples assembled in this study show the recurrent productivity of metaphorical analogy, metonymic cueing, part-whole relations, personification, paradoxical predication, and circumlocution. Their most characteristic feature is not the isolated presence of any one figure, but the capacity to layer several relations until a culturally licensed answer reorganises the clues into a coherent whole.

The corpus also shows why stylistic analysis must remain connected to language and cultural knowledge. Grammatical gender, lexical polysemy, the appearance of plants and weather, the structure of traditional tools, architectural arrangements, bodily imagery, and social roles all contribute to solvability. Riddles can therefore preserve traces of material and verbal knowledge while displaying considerable poetic economy. This supports a strong claim about Kabyle oral artistry without requiring a stronger and less defensible claim about a single timeless Amazigh worldview.

The revised interpretation consequently favours precision over amplification. It retains the author’s central thesis – that Kabyle riddles are sophisticated rhetorical forms rather than simple word games – while distinguishing what the textual corpus demonstrates from what would require quantitative, ethnographic, historical, or comparative evidence. Once item-level provenance, corpus size, transcription conventions, ethical documentation, and bibliography are fully secured, the study can make a valuable contribution to research on Kabyle oral literature, figurative language, and the broader poetics of riddling.