[Tibeto-burman-linguistics] Changes to Myanmar Naga group names in Ethnologue

Thu Feb 2 12:38:28 UTC 2017

hi all,

1.  The relation between English *Dutch* and German *Deutsch*
(or older Dutch *Diets*, for that matter) is not an "example of confusion"
but just reflects the same etymon 'people', also seen in *teutonic*.

2. If peoples in NW India and Burma self-identify as such,
then that is (one of) their autnonym(s), even if newly applied,
and hence not necessarily wrong.

Of course one needs to disambiguate for linguistics
but I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between such matters
rather simply saying "they are wrong!"

best, Abel

On 2 February 2017 at 13:23, Randy J. LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nathan,
>
> Another question, though, might be, "What group do you call yourself with
> people outside of Northeast India?" Perhaps they would still call
> themselves Chang or Tangkhul. At a national level in Myanmar, however,
> people first answer that they are "Naga" or "Chin”.
>
>
> Just to point out again that we are talking about language names, not
> ethnic group names. My Rawang friends have no trouble calling themselves
> Kachin in certain contexts, just as they would call themselves Burmese in
> certain contexts, but would never talk about their language as Kachin or
> Burmese.
>
> All the best,
> Randy
> -----
> *Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA* （羅仁地）| Division of Linguistics and
> Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University
> HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825
> GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/
> Most recent book:
> https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-
> Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324
>
>
>
>
> On 2 Feb 2017, at 6:03 PM, Nathan & Carey Statezni <
> nathan_statezni at sil.org> wrote:
>
> In making a very cursory look at some databases, I see:
>
>    - Referring to language names in individual articles, other
>    publications - many omit Naga, Chin, Karen
>    - WALS - Naga, Chin used for only a few languages - Zeme, Mao,
>    Tangkhul; Mara, Tiddim, Siyin (but not Haka); Karen used for most included
>    groups (Sgaw, Bwe, Pwo)
>    - Glottolog - seems to follow ISO 639-3 name
>    - ISO 639-3  - 48 groups with Naga in name; 33 Chin; 16 Karen
>    - Ethnologue - 48 Naga; 30 Chin; 10 Karen
>
> I appreciate Temsu's sharing here and others sharing from their
> experiences on the India side. It sounds like determining whether a
> particular language group identifies as Naga or not Naga might be less
> clear on the India side. Is that true? The Naga and Chin linguists I know
> from Myanmar all want Naga and Chin to remain included as they are. Perhaps
> the names should be kept in Myanmar but omitted in India?
>
> Many people mentioned that in the local context, there isn't a felt need
> to include "Naga" in the name. Another question, though, might be, "What
> group do you call yourself with people outside of Northeast India?" Perhaps
> they would still call themselves Chang or Tangkhul. At a national level in
> Myanmar, however, people first answer that they are "Naga" or "Chin". Only
> those who really care ask them which Naga or Chin group they are. In a
> global database, it helps at least the uninitiated reader to find groups if
> labels like Naga and Chin, which are quite salient in Myanmar, are included.
>
> While it's true that Chin, Naga, and Karen are later constructs, as many
> noted many/most of the Naga and Chin language group names themselves are
> also recent constructs. The village name is often the most basic name.
> Names are identity tools, whether at the language level or at the larger
> grouping level. Inclusion of the larger grouping in a database helps in
> locating languages.
>
> I'm not suggesting that people have to use Naga, Chin, or Karen in their
> own publications. And I'm certainly not suggesting they be used for
> classification purposes, especially Naga. I'm just suggesting that they be
> kept in the Ethnologue names. I've personally encountered that non-linguist
> (and especially Myanmar) readers of the Ethnologue appreciate these labels
> for locating languages. As I wrote before, these are not classificational,
> but represent socio-ethnic grouping.
>
> Other thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Inclusion of Naga and Chin adds these groups to the The Chin political
> leaders would particularly object.
>
>
> It sounds like there are some consistency issues with the use of Naga in
> the name for languages of India.
>
>
> Sorry for my slow reply. Getting caught up on emails with the new baby. I
> almost named him "Keep Naga" but my wife wouldn't let me. :)
>
> Nathan
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Chris Button <chris.button at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I should probably also mention that F.K. Lehman has proposed an original
>> source in Southern Chin for the Old/Inscriptional Burmese form "khlang" of
>> "Chin". If correct, this would technically mean that "Chin" is not an
>> exonym, although the form in which it is used now (through what would then
>> be re-appropriation of sorts) does comes from Burmese.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Scott DeLancey <delancey at uoregon.edu>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:28 PM
>> *To:* Chris Button
>> *Cc:* The Tibeto-Burman Discussion List Discussion List
>> *Subject:* Re: [Tibeto-burman-linguistics] Changes to Myanmar Naga group
>> names in Ethnologue
>>
>>
>> True AFAIK that Kuki, like Chin, is originally an exonym. But it
>> certainly doesn't have that status now. Some communities quite aggressively
>> consider themselves Kuki, as evidenced by the names of their insurgent
>> independence movements (Kuki Liberation Front, Kuki Liberation Army, United
>> Kuki Liberation Front, etc.). There is an active debate within the Thadou
>> (Kuki) community about whether their language should be referred to as
>> "Thadou" or "Thadou-Kuki", with the latter favored by the more
>> autonomy-minded elements.
>>
>> On 2017-01-27 22:35, Chris Button wrote:
>>
>> "Kuki-Chin" is a pretty interesting term itself since it is tautological.
>> A crude comparison would be saying something like "Deutsch-German". The
>> fact that "Deutsch" actually corresponds to "Dutch" in English provides
>> some insight into how names can get so confused. "Chin" of course comes
>> via Written Burmese "Khyang" from Inscriptional Burmese "Khlang"; Kuki is
>> apparently Manipuri in origin (although I would love to know more about
>> this if anyone knows).
>>
>>
>> As with many groups, "Kuki-Chin" is an exonym (or rather two different
>> exonyms sometimes combined as one) with the people often preferring to call
>> themselves something entirely different. In the north, the name used is
>> "Zo" or "Zou" depending on transliteration. This seems to work relatively
>> well with some minor variations like Thado tending to pronounce the "z"
>> as a post-alveolar fricative (the "z" originally comes from yod *j-).
>> However, in the South we get transliterations like "Hyo", "Sho", "Cho",
>> "Khxo" etc. While these are relatively inconsequential (of the "Kayin
>> / Karen", "Bombay / Mumbai" nature), it can cause problems with people
>> properly identifying with a word written "Zo". If you have ever needed an
>> argument not to use an alphabetic/phonemic orthography, then this is it
>> <OutlookEmoji-.png>.
>>
>>
>> Even more confusing (although entirely as one would expect and tying into
>> Randy's comment about "Kachin" and "Jinghpaw"),  the word "Zo" does not
>> just refer to the Kuki-Chin people but is also used in many names of
>> Kuki-Chin languages and in one case is used completely unchanged. To give
>> some examples: The "Zo" language (closely related to Tedim) is spoken by
>> a limited number of "Zo" people while the rest of the "Zo" people speak all
>> the other Kuki-Chin languages; the name "Mizo" (for the language a.k.a
>> Lushai/Lusei or Hualngo) literally means "people (of) Zo" and is but a
>> variant of the term "Zomi" literally meaning "Zo people" (the former refers
>> to a specific group/language; the latter is commonly used to refer to all
>> Zo people  as in "The Zomi Baptist Convention" which has apparently
>> recently become "The Chin Baptist Convention"); Laizo (literally "Middle
>> Zo") is a distinct language from "Lai" allowing a theoretical distinction
>> between a "Laizo" and a "Lai Zo"....... I could go on. Suffice to say
>> that it is best to let people call themselves what they want, and when
>> writing about any people or language just be explicitly clear to what
>> people or language you are referring.
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Tibeto-burman-linguistics <tibeto-burman-linguistics-bou
>> nces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Scott DeLancey <
>> delancey at uoregon.edu>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:05 AM
>> *To:* Alexander Coupe
>> *Cc:* The Tibeto-Burman Discussion List Discussion List; Michael Ahland;
>> Chuck Fennig
>> *Subject:* Re: [Tibeto-burman-linguistics] Changes to Myanmar Naga group
>> names in Ethnologue
>>
>>
>> I spend a good bit of time in southeastern Manipur among speakers of
>> languages which Ethnologue labels "Monsang Naga", "Anal Naga", etc. And
>> while all the communities are indubitably Naga, and quite assertive about
>> it, I have never heard anyone refer to any of the languages that way --
>> they are simply "Monsang" etc. (They do, however, object vociferously to
>> hearing their languages called "Old Kuki", which is where they fall in
>> terms of genetic classification. We are now replacing that term with
>> "Northwest Kuki-Chin", which is still not popular but at least doesn't make
>> people visibly angry).
>>
>> Scott DeLancey
>>
>> On 2017-01-26 12:45, Alexander Coupe wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> It is certainly important to have the input of the communities involved,
>> so I asked my collaborator Dr T. Temsunungsang for his opinion on the
>> issue, as he is ethnically Ao, a Naga, a Mongsen Ao speaker, and a
>> linguist. He is currently not subscribed to the TB discussion list, so with
>> his permission I have shared his response with list members below:
>>
>> Hi Alec,
>> Interesting discussion there. For the Aos, i believe identity starts from
>> the village. So, in the past, if you ask what language an Ao speaks, most
>> probably you would get the village name. But after standardisation, it has
>> become Ao for most speakers. I think this is true for the other tribes as
>> well. Hence, the word Naga has  no role in the linguistic identity. In
>> recent times, we have started using Aoo (Ao language) to refer to the
>> language. A similar case with Poumai, using Poula (language of the
>> Poumais).
>> But as you have mentioned, the word Naga has a very strong political and
>> culture  related attachment to the people.
>> I agree with you that linguists should stop using the word Naga for
>> linguistic affiliation. It mixes up separate fields, leading to misuse and
>> abuse.
>> And perhaps Ethnologue can start this process by removing Naga from all
>> the language names!
>> Best
>> Temsü
>>
>> While I appreciate the points made in previous posts concerning the
>> potential social ramifications of using particular labels, as linguists we
>> need to distinguish clearly between using labels for social or political
>> identities, and using labels for linguistic affiliations. They do not
>> necessarily coincide, so why contribute to the confusion by continuing to
>> pretend that they do in our classifications? This logically applies to our
>> choice of labels not only at the individual language level, but also at the
>> group level.
>>
>> Alec
>>
>>
>> From: Tibeto-burman-linguistics <tibeto-burman-linguistics-bou
>> nces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Judy Pine <Judy.Pine at wwu.edu
>> >
>> Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 8:55 PM
>> To: Randy LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com>, Nathan & Carey Statezni <
>> nathan_statezni at sil.org>
>> Cc: "tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" <
>> tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>, Michael Ahland <
>> michael_ahland at sil.org>, Chuck Fennig <editor_ethnologue at sil.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Tibeto-burman-linguistics] Changes to Myanmar Naga group
>> names in Ethnologue
>>
>>
>> It is also useful to note that Karen is an ethnonym given the groups who
>> find themselves under it by Tai speaking dominant groups. Although many
>> have since adopted it for the purpose of political organization, it is not
>> their name for themselves traditionally, nor is it the name they give to
>> the various languages/dialects that fall under that umbrella (I speak here
>> having just left a Pa keun yaw (pardon my on-the-fly Romanization) village
>> that the Thai would call Karieng and we would call Karen.)
>>
>>
>> -          Judy Pine
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tibeto-burman-linguistics [mailto:tibeto-burman-linguist
>> ics-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> <tibeto-burman-linguistics-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Randy J. LaPolla
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:24 AM
>> *To:* Nathan & Carey Statezni <nathan_statezni at sil.org>
>> *Cc:* The Tibeto-Burman Discussion List Discussion List <
>> tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org>; Michael Ahland <
>> michael_ahland at sil.org>; Chuck Fennig <editor_ethnologue at sil.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Tibeto-burman-linguistics] Changes to Myanmar Naga group
>> names in Ethnologue
>>
>>
>> Hi Nathan,
>>
>> It might differ with different groups. For example, using the ethnic term
>> Kachin to refer to the language Jinghpaw, as was done in the past, is
>> problematic because there are people who are classified as Kachin but whose
>> native language is not Jinghpaw. In China speakers of many different
>> languages were lumped together under a single name (e.g. "Zang", usually
>> translated as "Tibetan", but not what the Tibetans call themselves, and
>> includes people who don't speak Tibetan, such as the majority of Qiang
>> speakers; see Poa, Dory & LaPolla, Randy J. 2007. Minority languages of
>> China. In Osahito Miyaoka and Michael E. Krauss (eds.), *The Vanishing
>> Languages of the Pacific*, 337-354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>> http://randylapolla.net/papers/Poa_and_LaPolla_2007_
>> Minority_Languages_of_China.pdf), so it is important to distinguish the
>> ethnic name from the language name in some cases.
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Randy
>>
>> PS: interestingly, some of the Qiang speaking Zang are now trying to have
>> their own name for their language and people recognised as the name of the
>> language in Chinese, because they aren't comfortable calling it Qiang (as
>> they are not classified as Qiang any more), yet can't call it Tibetan.
>>
>>
>> On 23 Jan 2017, at 9:51 AM, Nathan & Carey Statezni <
>> nathan_statezni at sil.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Alec and all,
>>
>> I appreciate very much your work on these languages, Alec, and your
>> effort to keep Ethnologue updated on the status of classification.
>>
>>
>> It would be fine with me to drop the label "Naga" from linguistic
>> classifications; it's quite confusing. I'm particularly concerned about the
>> language group perspective for changes made, but it's typically not a big
>> deal for language family and branch, etc. names to change, as long as the
>> new name doesn't seem to favor one group.
>>
>>
>> However, language names are another matter. Language names are not
>> linguistic - they're social. Ethnologue's use of Chin and Naga in language
>> names is not a classification tool but a reflection of the group's own
>> socio-ethnic grouping. It's part of their language's name and identity.
>>
>>
>> If it were decided to remove Naga from all the names, that would not thus
>> mean that the groups don't refer to themselves as Naga. We would at least
>> need a comment that this language group identifies itself as part of a
>> socio-ethnic group called the Naga. Should Chin then be removed from all
>> names as well? What about Karen? Where do we stop? What is our criterion
>> for including or not including it? Ethnologue doesn't typically include
>> branch names in the language names. However, it does include socio-ethnic
>> group names where those are salient, as is the case for these 3 groupings.
>>
>>
>> I think we would also need to hear more from these communities. In the
>> pre-internet days, very few community members had access to the Ethnologue.
>> Now, communities regularly access it and even use it in usually good ways
>> to get recognition and promote their people. On the Myanmar side at least,
>> Naga, Chin, and Karen identity is salient. People I've talked to want to
>> have Naga/Chin/Karen in their name, even for groups like Chin, Anu-Hkongso,
>> which isn't a Kuki-Chin language.
>>
>>
>> It would also be helpful to hear from Michael or others about how similar
>> issues have been handled in the Ethnologue for other parts of the world.
>>
>> My wife is due to have a baby any day now, so if I'm not able to respond
>> for awhile, that's why! :)
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Coupe <ARCoupe at ntu.edu.sg>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Nathan and colleagues,
>>
>>
>> I believe it is time to drop the label "Naga" from any linguistic
>> classification, because is will continue to mislead non-specialists into
>> assuming that these "Naga" languages of Myanmar and the so-called "Naga"
>> languages of northern, central and southern Nagaland and adjacent regions
>> of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur somehow form a robustly attested
>> branch of Sino-Tibetan. The term "Naga" has become an important political
>> tool for helping to establish an ethno-nationalistic identity for disparate
>> and marginalized minorities in the northeastern border region, but it lacks
>> credibility as a linguistic label. This is because we currently know that
>> it includes at least 2 and possibly even 3 or 4 more separate branches –
>> subgrouping is still a work in progress, and we just don't have enough
>> reliable descriptions at present to make any strong claims beyond Burling's
>> (1983) Sal branch.  I have been campaigning for a revision in naming
>> conventions for these languages in recent publications, and also consulting
>> with Ethnologue to address the currently misleading nature of "Naga"
>> nomenclature (e.g. see https://www.ethnologue.com/language/nsa/feedback).
>> Ethnologue is currently  considering adopting a number of these
>> recommendations, so following suit with similar naming conventions for the
>> languages of Myanmar would be consistent with the revisions.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Alec
>>
>>
>> *From: *Tibeto-burman-linguistics <tibeto-burman-linguistics-bou
>> nces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Nathan & Carey Statezni <
>> nathan_statezni at sil.org>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 6:09 PM
>> *To: *"tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" <
>> tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
>> *Subject: *[Tibeto-burman-linguistics] Changes to Myanmar Naga group
>> names in Ethnologue
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm proposing changes to the name in the Ethnologue for some Naga groups
>> in Myanmar, to match their own name for themselves and the spelling used in
>> their orthographies, based on discussions with these groups. Here are my
>> proposed changes (all the current names would become alternate names): Any
>> thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Makyan Naga [umn] becomes Paungnyuan Naga
>>
>> Kyan-Karyaw Naga [nqq] becomes Chen-Kayu Naga
>>
>> Leinong Naga [lzn] becomes Lainong Naga
>>
>> Kokak [nxk] becomes Kokak Naga (for consistency with the other Naga group
>> names)
>>
>>
>> By the way, all Ethnologue updates need to be in by January each year.
>> The new edition comes out on February 21 each year, International Mother
>> Language Day.
>>
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
>> and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose
>> its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
>> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-bur
>> man-linguistics
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
>> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-bur
>> man-linguistics
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
>> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-bur
>> man-linguistics
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-
> burman-linguistics
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-
> burman-linguistics
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/tibeto-burman-linguistics/attachments/20170202/246e6049/attachment.htm>