Ojibwe Dictionary Online Project

[MJ Hardman]

Just to clarify ‹ in the links the situation is described & yes,
standardization can be and has been an impediment to language use.  A lot
has to do with the 'who' of standardization.  As described in  the links, an
alphabet that was also otherwise respectful of the language was developed by
a native speaker relying on the work of a linguist ‹ and the declared
illegal by the standardization folks.  The standard stuff was fiat from the
Min Ed without consultation with either linguist nor native speakers.  Also,
variation in writing is not such a big deal.  There is one little thing in
the writing system were the two major writers of the language disagree.  Who
writes and who reacts will, in the end, decide.  Even European languages
have spelling fluctuations, especially over time, without it being anything
important.  The final orthography has to be one born of use, not fiat, and
it has to reflect the linguistic reality of the usage group.  Ideally,
standardization should be a consensus arrived at through usage, not an
authoritarian fiat coming down from above.  In such a case, it could be
useful.  Unfortunately, in my experience, that is rarely allowed.

As to the online dictionary ‹ may the wind be at your back.  We also hope to
join in such an enterprise as well, collaboratively with all speakers who
wish to contribute, for both Jaqaru and Kawki.

MJ



On 9/15/07 11:14 PM, "Don Osborn" <dzo at BISHARAT.NET> wrote:

> Hello all, 
>  
> I was working on a reply to Kevin's message this morning and now that I'm
> coming back to it note other replies from Mia, Joseph, MJ, and Haley. I will
> finish what I started and insert other comments. I will say up front though
> that I am *really* surprised at the suggestion that standardization is an
> impediment to language use (if I am understanding Mia and MJ correctly).
>  
> As a disclaimer, I'm writing as a non-linguist with more of a background on
> Africa - nevertheless there are some interesting parallels and some questions
> in common.
>  
> The way Kevin describes the situation of Ojibwe crossing boundaries is
> *exactly* what is faced for so many languages in Africa. The borders are not
> at issue, but how to harmonize if not to unify orthographies has been a
> subject of ongoing discussion for some years, with some significant steps
> taken. 
>  
> There are a lot of benefits to having a single system or compatible systems of
> writing a language werever it is spoken, beginning with being able to share
> and adapt anything written or printed, and including these days developing web
> content for use by a larger readership. Maybe a key difference here is the
> needs of language revitalization in the case of Ojibwe vs. providing an active
> and geographically spread speaker community of a language with a common system
> for writing. Nevertheless, somethng like an online dictionary (esp. if a
> "living" dictionary approach that would allow input from diverse people) for
> any language in any condition would benefit from a unified orthography.
>  
> I think Kevin is correct that standardization is a political process in that
> some entities with some authority need to arrive at some common decisions, but
> I'm not sure I'd agree that lack of a single government for all the speakers
> of a languageis a deal-stopper. It might be that some sort of cross-border
> (non-governmental) organization could play a role in coordinating discussion
> of standardization (but I know of no precedent elsewhere though.)
>  
> On the topic of  linguists' role or not in issues related to standardization:
> In the case of Africa (at least the areas I'm most familiar with - West),
> linguists have been part of the process. It's hard to see how much could have
> been achieved without them.
>  
> That said, the process has not been perfect. There was a suggestion for
> instance that some of the prescriptions concerning standardized orthographies
> have needlessly diverged from established practice. There is a risk that
> specialists will overthink the rules of orthography to the point of repeated
> refinements that defeat the purpose of having a standard that people can
> learn, get used to and use (in Mali for instance there have been some changes
> of orthography of Bambara over the years; is this the kind of thing MJ refers
> to in Peru?). But this is not the same as saying that standardization itself
> is a problem.
>  
> (I'm coming at this from another field (internatinal development) so I may be
> both off on all this and bringing up issues tangential to the purpose of the
> list, but while on the topic of linguists and areas they do or don't have
> roles in, I'd liketo suggest that in my field I note what I think is an
> unfortunate lack of applied linuists and sociolinguists. International
> development a quarter century ago began to bring social scientists more into
> discussion of programs and projects, to complement technical experts and
> economists with their perspectives. Linguists never were invited nor did they
> seek to crash the party - the result, I argue, has been neglect of language
> dimensions of development interventions in multilingual contexts, with
> implications for who participates, whose knowledge counts, etc.  That's a
> different area of concern in a different region, but I bring it up to suggest
> that maybe linguists, or some linguists, should be involved in discussions of
> unified writing systems for languages like Ojibwe.)
>  
> I apologize if I'm overstepping my bounds here, but hope some of this is of
> interest and look forward to reading more.
>  
> Don
>  
> Don Osborn
> Bisharat.net
> PanAfriL10n.org
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Kevin Brousseau
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 10:03 AM
> To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ILAT] Ojibwe Dictionary Online Project
>  
> One of the problems with a unified Anishnabe writting system is that the
> language crosses a few provincial boundaries and state boudaries. Researchers
> tend to focus on the language of one community or of a selected area...which
> is fine and important in itself but the the research is rarely done in the
> vision of a unified anishnabe language.
> 
> Also, there isn t one anishnabe govt that represents all anishnabe people. The
> most important thing in my opinion is starting a discussion  between all
> anishnabe communities in order to agree on a writing system, which does not
> necessarily have to be based on the roman alphabet or syllabics (which of
> course everyone has an opinion about and might cause more divisions in the
> process). 
> 
> This idea of a unified writting system is outside of the concern of linguists
> in my opinion - it is a political issue. Anishnabe people themselves need to
> take the initiative to form a united front (at least in terms of language
> first). Identifying who is and speaks Anishnabe is the prerequisite to acually
> forming political ties in the future.
> 
> A linguist would not insist, for example, that a group should call itself
> Anishnabe instead of their English labels (which of course are based on native
> words), such as Ojibwe, Chippewa, saultaux, Algonquin, Oji-Cree, etc... A
> unified writting system to a unified language - to a unified people.
> 
> This is what should be done before a major project begins and people say it is
> too late to change things, but this is just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Lavalley <graphfix at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Dear Mr. D. Osborn,
> 
> Glad you have some contacts in regards to dictionary project. Perhaps a
> exchange of knowledge with them will provide me with a firmer ground to base
> this Ojbiwe Dictionary project on. So far it seems so. Look forward to
> speaking or having meaningful dialogue with someone who participated in it
> structure and creation.
> 
> With great thanks, Chi-Miigwetch
> 
> Joseph Brian Lavalley - Mishomis dezhenkaz, Nme dodem
> 
> 
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:18:08 -0400
> From: dzo at BISHARAT.NET
> Subject: Re: [ILAT] Ojibwe Dictionary Online Project
> To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> 
> Dear Joseph,
> 
>  
> 
> I can't speak to the issues of the Ojibwe language, but on the broader topic
> of online "living" dictionaries will mention - in case it is of interest to
> you and others on ILAT - that there is some interesting work ongoing and being
> discussed for several African languages.
> 
>  
> 
> * The ""Kamusi" online living Swahili dictionary has been evolving for several
> years and, though currently at a moment of transition, is poised to continue
> its development.
> 
> * Other dictionaries being developed by Kasahorow for Akan (Ghana) and Ewe
> (Ghana/Togo)
> 
> * A larger project proposal is under discssion to facilitate among other
> things, pairing of various African languages
> 
>  
> 
> Most of the languages concerned in the current efforts and discussions have
> millions of speakers and sometimes considerable, if difficult to access,
> published resources. So the context is somewhat different than what I
> understand one would be dealinng with for a Native American language like
> Ojibwe. Nevertheless, perhaps there could be some useful sharing of tools and
> experience.
> 
>  
> 
> I'll cc Dr. Martin Benjamin (Kamusi) and Paa Kwesi Imbeah (kasahorow) for
> their info.
> 
>  
> 
> All the best.
> 
>  
> 
> Don Osborn
> 
> Bisharat.net
> 
> PanAfriL10n.org
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Joseph Lavalley
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:20 PM
> To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: [ILAT] Ojibwe Dictionary Online Project
> 
>  
> 
> To all interested colleagues,
> 
> Currently engaged in a online Ojibwe dictionary project and have been going it
> alone for the last year and a half. Seeking interested persons who are
> currently working on the Ojibwe language (Anishnawbemowin) and those who have
> dictionary building experience.
> 
> So far using a 1975 reprint of a 1874 Ojibwe language dictionary listed as a
> grammarian in a Bibliography of Algonquian Language as primary source to
> create this hand typed (keyboarded) digitized dictionary into a website. The
> dictionary is the one compiled by Wilson. The reprint was done by the
> Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada. The typeface is
> approx. 6pt Times. I am currently work in Arial 12pt in Word. Would like to do
> a cross comparison of other dictionaries extant from either English and French
> texts past and present to do a complete analysis and comprehensive re-working
> of Orthography, Phonetic soundings using voice snippets from local oral
> speakers to establish universal Phonology and Morphology.
> 
> To be honest and truthful to the fullest extent, I have no university standing
> at this time, although I am currently applying to university to become a
> Linguist. It is my hope that those that care about the educational
> responsibilities to the children and people of the Anishnawbe will come forth
> and help me in the vision of a unified Ojibwe oral, written and symbolic
> system.
> 
> With a dream to fulfill in ones' lifetime, there is much to be done,
> 
> Miigwetch,
> 
> Joseph Brian Lavalley - Mishomis dezhnikaz, Nme dodem.
> 
> PS. Also, interested in making contact with John D. Nichols leading Algic
> Family Language Specialist.
> 
> JBL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20070916/fe9b4d1f/attachment.htm>