Re: Rotokas (was: California Cheeseburger)

On Tuesday, June 22, 2004, at 10:38 , Roger Mills wrote:

> It was written:
>> On Monday, June 21, 2004, at 10:33 , Thomas R. Wier wrote:
>> From:    "Mark P. Line" <mark@...>
>> [snip]
>>>> It's one thing to be disbelieved when there's no source in play. What
>>>> astounds me is that I am so often disbelieved (usually by the same
>>>> handful
>>>> of people) even when there *is* a source and all I'm doing is
>>>> repeating
>>>> what it says.
>
> Reluctant as I am to join in this fray, I do recall that until the thread
> had developed quite a bit, no mention was made at the outset (1) where
> Rotokas was spoken nor (2) the sources.
Sorry, I may be a bit dim - 'tis said one is virtually brain-dead after 50
- but, er, isn't it a wee bit silly to enter a discussion on Rotokas
without checking those two basic facts? There are such things as
search-engines.

If any of my students hand in work which shows they've not bothered to do
even the most basic research, they get marked down heavily. I know it's
old-fashioned of me & cramps their creativity, but there it is.

>  Eventually the Firchows name(s)
> were mentioned.  I looked on Ethnologue (how many others thought to do so?
> ),
Quite so - exactly my point. If we're going to discuss something factual,
shouldn't we do so in an informed way?

> and noted that all their research, save for an initial, early article in
> "Anthropological Linguistics", has been published by SIL in Ukarumpa.
>
> I'm sorry, that might as well be The Moon.
...which is, surely, why Mark wrote on 16th June:
"Orthographic 's' is a little suspicious in any event. The only
phonological statements I've seen (by Skip Firchow) have given 6 consonant
phonemes (not including /s/), but there are 7 consonant graphemes used to
write the language (including 's', which only occurs before 'i'). I'll ask
about that, too. (I don't know if Skip is still around, but somebody at
the Ukarumpa installation will be able to help.)"

Fortunately, Ukarumpa is not quite as far as the moon and Mark did offer
to ask, i.e. get information.

[snip]
> I'm sorry Mark took offense, but the questions were legitimate, if perhaps
> too persistent.
> --If Rotokas is the native name, why does it violate its own phonotactics?
> --If it's somebody else's name for them, whose, then?
> --If there is said to be no "w" phoneme in the language, what is its
> status
> in borrowed 'wiliwili';
I agree they are legitimate questions, which is why IMHO they merited
_informed_ answers - which, of course, they never received (other than
being informed twice over that Rotokas wasn't the native name).

[snip]
> what is the contrast with /v/? Or is it felt by
> speakers to be as foreign as correctly pronounced Fr. [y]or Germ. [x~C]
> are
> in English?
Exactly so! But when Mark observed that altho English does not have the
phoneme /x/, some English speakers use [x]in the Scots word 'loch' and
names like 'Bach' (whereas most English speakers used [k]), his
observation was summarily dismissed as an irrelevant Americanism.

It's not difficult to see why he took offense, since:
(a) that use of [x] is *not* an Americanism (it's not exactly uncommon in
Britain), and
(b) it is relevant to the way foreign phonemes may be treated in
borrowings.

> If Rotokas has borrowed enough from Tok Pisin, perhaps it is in
> process of acquiring additional phonemic contrasts.  After all, English
> IIRC
> had no contrastive /v/, /z/ and others until contact with Norman French.
Yes - but, with respect, this is once again just speculation. I hardly
think the solitary evidence of the one attested borrowing, i.e. _wiliwili_,
  is comparable to the effect of Norman French on English.

Would it not have been more productive if Mark had been allowed to contact
Ukarumpa and try and get actual information how _wiliwili_ is pronounced?

> But isn't it time to end this thread?  .....Hitler.... (nothing personal,
>  just a code-word)
Sadly, it probably is. I suspect many will disagree - and I don't think
any debate about my opinion will be fruitful - but IMO the problem has
been that the debate about Rotokas has been conducted more as tho it were
a conlang rather than a natlang, thus 'creative speculation' rather than
informed fact.

BTW I discovered there's a lang called 'Pirahã' which according to some
has only 10 phonemes; tho I saw one claim that men have 11 phonemes and
women have 10! Is it possible that no-one on this list has any prior
knowledge of Pirahã? Is so little really known about the language? If the
answer to both is "yes", we can really let our speculations run riot
without causing any offense  ;)

But count me out of any such Pirahã thread, please.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760