neologisms

[Phil Cash Cash]

Thanks Daniel for sharing your insights.

Phil
UofA



On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Troike, Rudolph C - (rtroike) <
rtroike at email.arizona.edu> wrote:

>
> Joshua Fishman once said that the dictionary created by
> "experts" for Hebrew in advance of reviving the language
> for use in Israel, ignored the fact that people were already
> using many words of their own creation, and fully half
> of the invented words were never adopted. I heard a
> similar story from Nigeria some years ago regarding
> efforts to "modernize" one of the languages there.
>
>     Rudy
>
>     Rudy Troike
>     University of Arizona
>
>  *From:* ilat-request at list.arizona.edu [ilat-request at list.arizona.edu] on
> behalf of Daniel W. Hieber [dwhieb at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:05 AM
>
> *To:* ilat at list.arizona.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [ilat] neologisms
>
>   Helping language communities create neologisms is something I’ve had to
> do a lot in creating language-learning software. In my experience,
> acceptance really comes down to what language communities consider
> appropriately authentic, and this varies widely from one community to the
> next, or even one social group within the community to the next. I have a
> brief chapter coming out on just this topic, based on a talk I gave at
> Tulane’s conference on Sleeping & Awakening Languages of the Gulf South. An
> early draft of the paper is attached. A longer version with some more
> specific word-formation techniques is also available if anybody is
> interested.
>
>
>
> In the case of the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, because the language is
> awakening and the dictionary (rather than other fluent speakers) is the
> primary source of information about the language for learners, the
> community is definitely using all the newly-coined words. But for other
> groups I’ve worked with, it’s only the students who are using the
> language-learning software we made that are using the neologisms. And
> Tīmoti Kāretu of the Māori community, for example, often talks about the
> problem with creating new words when there are already perfectly good words
> out there being used by people.
>
>
>
> I think ‘new words’ are necessary for language revitalization in the sense
> that, as a language is awakening, it’s expanding into new social domains
> that it wasn’t used in before (or hasn’t been for a long time). So at the
> very least, language revitalization involves using existing words in new
> ways, and it’s important for revitalization teams to think about this just
> as carefully as they would think about neologisms. But as to the question
> of whether it’s really necessary to have a language committee creating new
> words for the community, I don’t think this is necessary. It just depends
> on the particular linguistic and sociopolitical situation in that
> community, and what works best for everyone involved. I try to address some
> of these issues in my chapter.
>
>
>
> Joshua Hinson of the Chickasaw tribe has also given some excellent talks
> and workshops on this subject, so I’d encourage anybody wrestling with this
> topic to reach out to him for valuable advice as well.
>
>
>
> Other good sources are:
>
> Hinton, Leanne & Jocelyn Ahlers. 1999. The issue of “authenticity” in
> California language restoration. *Anthropology & Education Quarterly*
> 30(1). 56–67.
>
> Rice, Keren. 2012. “Our language is very literal”: Figurative expression
> in Dene Sųɬiné [Athapaskan]. In Anna Idström, Elisabeth Piirainen &
> Tiber F. M. Falzett (eds.), *Endangered metaphors*, 21–76. (2).
> Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
>
>
>
> very best,
>
>
>
> Danny
>
>
>
>
>
> *Daniel W. Hieber*
>
> Graduate Student in Linguistics
>
> University of California, Santa Barbara
>
> www.danielhieber.com
>
>
>
> Omnis habet sua dona dies. ~ Martial
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ilat-request at list.arizona.edu [mailto:
> ilat-request at list.arizona.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hammond, Michael - (hammond)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 7:32 PM
> *To:* ilat at list.arizona.edu
> *Subject:* [ilat] neologisms
>
>
>
>  *Subject: **Re: [ilat] Neologisms and Indigenous Languages*
>
> *Date: *August 26, 2014 9:40:05 AM MST
>
> *To: *Adrienne Tsikewa <miss_adrienne7 at yahoo.com>
>
> *Cc: *ILAT <ilat at list.arizona.edu>
>
>
>
> Hi Adrienne
>
>
>
> I know for Welsh there is at least one group that does this as contract
> work for the government or private companies. For example, some company
> might want to have Welsh terminology, for recording studios. This group
> goes in and surveys the recording community about existing words that might
> already be used, proposes new ones where needed. I believe they do surveys
> again about whether the new ones work.
>
>
>
> Of course, it's an evolving thing, so the words may or may not catch on.
> It's what you might expect. They might propose some morphologically complex
> form for a novel item, but the English borrowing is more appealing, or vice
> versa.
>
>
>
> Is it necessary? I would think definitely so. If, for example, there were
> no Welsh words for the things in a recording studio, otherwise fluent Welsh
> speakers would turn to English in that setting...and it would be one more
> area where the language could lose ground.
>
>
>
> mike h.
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Adrienne Tsikewa wrote:
>
>
>
>    Good morning ILAT,
>
>
>
> I am interested in learning more  on how Indigenous Language communities
> not only create new words in their respective languages ( I did find an
> article by Ryan Denzer-King), but also how these communities may feel about
> these neologisms.
>
>
>
> Are the communities actually using them? How were they introduced to the
> community? Is this necessary for language maintenance/revitalization?
>
>
>
> Thanks/Elahkwa,
>
>
>
> Adrienne Tsikewa
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20140829/8cb5b1a6/attachment.htm>