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

Thu Feb 2 14:48:41 UTC 2017

Hi all,

@Abel - yes Dutch and Deutsch come from the same root just like Zo(u) and Sho/Cho/Hyo etc..... The point is that German and Deutsch are completely unrelated words with the same referent - crudely analogous to Kuki and Chin. Returning to the Deutsch/Dutch remark, the fact that we now use the unrelated word "German" (or a possible variant of it) in English only in reference to the Deutsch but not the Dutch (even though the Dutch were to a greater or lesser extent part of "Germania") shows how such things are not logical or consistent anywhere but dependent on a variety of factors.

@Scott - Thado speakers in Chin state often refer to themselves as Thado-Kuki as well simply because the vast majority of them live on the Kuki side and so their affinity is split between their counterparts in India (as Kuki) versus their geographical location in Burma (as Chin).

@Nathan, Scott, Randy - If for example a group of people speaking a language traditionally classified as "Old Kuki" that is clearly related to other Chin languages identify themselves as "Naga" for whatever reason, then surely any entry for them should retain the term Naga as appropriate but then caveat it with a comment that this refers to a political/geographical identification rather than a linguistic one? That way anyone interested will be able to find the language in a database like ethnologue but will also be left in no doubt as to its specific affiliation.

All the best,

Chris

________________________________
From: Tibeto-burman-linguistics <tibeto-burman-linguistics-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Abel Zadoks <a.zadoks at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:45 AM
To: Randy J. LaPolla
Cc: The Tibeto-Burman Discussion List Discussion List; Michael Ahland
Subject: Re: [Tibeto-burman-linguistics] Changes to Myanmar Naga group names in Ethnologue

correction, "rather than simply saying"

and agree with Randy.

On 2 February 2017 at 13:38, Abel Zadoks <a.zadoks at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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 £¨Á_ÈÊµØ£©| 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:tibeto-burman-linguistics-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Scott DeLancey <delancey at uoregon.edu<mailto: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
Tems¨¹

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-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:tibeto-burman-linguistics-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Judy Pine <Judy.Pine at wwu.edu<mailto:Judy.Pine at wwu.edu>>
Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 8:55 PM
To: Randy LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com<mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>>, Nathan & Carey Statezni <nathan_statezni at sil.org<mailto:nathan_statezni at sil.org>>
Cc: "tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<mailto:tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>" <tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<mailto:tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>>, Michael Ahland <michael_ahland at sil.org<mailto:michael_ahland at sil.org>>, Chuck Fennig <editor_ethnologue at sil.org<mailto: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-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<mailto:nathan_statezni at sil.org>>
Cc: The Tibeto-Burman Discussion List Discussion List <tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org>>; Michael Ahland <michael_ahland at sil.org<mailto:michael_ahland at sil.org>>; Chuck Fennig <editor_ethnologue at sil.org<mailto: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<mailto: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.
[X]
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<mailto: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 ¨C 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-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:tibeto-burman-linguistics-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Nathan & Carey Statezni <nathan_statezni at sil.org<mailto:nathan_statezni at sil.org>>
Date: Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 6:09 PM
To: "tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<mailto:tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>" <tibeto-burman-linguistics at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20170202/369de566/attachment.htm>