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

Thu Feb 2 12:45:09 UTC 2017

correction, "rather *than* simply saying"

and agree with Randy.

On 2 February 2017 at 13:38, Abel Zadoks <a.zadoks at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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-Edi
>> tion/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-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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/tibeto-burman-linguistics/attachments/20170202/2f81dddc/attachment.htm>