Figuig Berber (eastern Morocco) has a large number of deictic constructions. Among these, a construction with a preposed pronominal element followed by a genitival phrase is by far the most common. All deictic constructions use a basic contrast between two elements: -u and -ənn. In exophoric deixis, the former has proximal interpretation, while the latter has distal interpretation. In endophoric deixis, the situation is more complicated. For some speakers, only constructions with -ənn are permitted in this use, while other speakers use both constructions with -u and -ənn, without clear contrast. In the article, emphasis is laid on when endophoric deictic marking is used, and when it is absent. In principle, such marking shows that the referent has already been mentioned in the previous context, and can be regarded anaphoric. However, in such situations, it is still possible not to mark the noun. This is mainly the case when there is only one potential referent in a given situation, as, for example, in the case of kings, or as is often the case with nouns modified by a genitival phrase.

Berber languages outside Mauritania have a number of different morphological classes of vowel-final and semivowel-final verbs (“final weak verbs”). The situation in Zenaga of Mauritania looks very different. In this article, the Zenaga reflexes of the non- Mauritanian weak verbs are compared by studying all relevant cognates. As a result, it proves possible to establish to what extent the main weak verb classes of non- Mauritanian Berber are reflected in Zenaga, and to what extent certain irregularities can be understood from Zenaga-internal developments.