Home > Issues
> Race Issues > Letters to Broadcasting
Standards Authority on Maori Linguistic Racism -- Letter No. 3 |
|
Empowering Men:
|
Sequence of Letters to Broadcasting
Standards Authority on Maori Linguistic Racism -- Letter No. 3
© Peter Zohrab 2012 |
|
|
16 June 2002
Michael Stace
Broadcasting Standards Authority
PO Box 9213,
Wellington
Dear
Dr. Stace,
Thank
you for sending me a copy of David Edmunds’ letter to you dated 11 June
2002, and of Whai Ngata’s email to David Edmunds dated 11 June 2002. I found no covering letter from you in the envelope,
and I am surprised that you have reopened the debate on this issue, which
I thought was now closed. However,
I must assume that you thought it fair to give TVNZ a chance to reply to
my assertion that they had partially misunderstood my complaint. By the same token, I assume that I am entitled
to reply to the points raised in the above-mentioned communications.
I
am going to have to be a bit technical here:
With all due respect, Mr. Ngata appears incompetent in Linguistics
(I do not routinely say that about Maori Linguists – for example, Dr. Pita
Sharples seems to me to be very bright and probably very competent in Linguistics,
whereas I have my doubts about the Maori Linguist who taught an MA class
in Niuean I attended at Auckland University in the 1970’s). He may well be an experienced Lexicographer
(which is not a very theoretical or sophisticated profession – whether it
be Harry Orsman or anyone else who is doing it), but he seems to have had
little grounding in Linguistics. The
word “kooti” (I prefer a double vowel to an umlaut, when the optimal solution
of a macron is not available on my system, for Maori long vowels) is not
a “transliteration” of “court”, because “transliteration” means making a
one-for-one substitution of letters in one alphabetic system to letters
in another alphabetic system – e.g. from the Roman alphabet to the Arabic
alphabet. Since both English and Maori use the Roman alphabet
(with minor modifications in both cases), no “transliteration” is possible
between these two languages. In addition,
what we have here is not a direct relationship between the written forms
of these two languages, but an instance of the traditional spelling of the
English word “court”, and the traditional spelling of the Maori word “kooti”,
which itself obviously arose as a transcription of Maori mispronunciations
of the English word “court. The syllable
structure of Maori does not allow a syllable to end in a consonant, which
is why the sound corresponding to the written letter “i” is present in the
spoken equivalent of the written word “kooti”. The letter “k” is used in the Maori word “kooti”,
for the simple reason that the Maori version of the Roman alphabet does
not contain the letter “c” that is found in the written word “court”. The “our” of the written English word “court’
has been replaced by the letter ‘o” with a macron over it (or by “oo” or by “o” with an umlaut over it) because
that is how Maori spelling represents the sound of the spoken Maori word
in question.
The
issue of whether such loan-words are being phased out by the Maori Language
Commission is interesting, but not relevant here. Institutions such as the Maori Language Commission
and the Academie Francaise can try to control their respective languages,
but usage does not always follow their dictates.
The word in question was used at the time in question, and that is
what my complaint was about. This
sort of reform is associated with nationalism, e.g. with the Nazis in Germany:
"In addition to the secret language employed by government officials,
there were the numerous issues of Sprachregelung (language regulations).
One part of them dealt with the "Germanization" of the language
by replacing foreign words (Fremdw–rter) with German ones: e.g. Lichtbild
instead of Photo, Fernsprecher instead of Telephon,
Fernsehrohr instead of Teleskop.”
(See the webpage: http://migs.concordia.ca/occpapers/n_german.html ).
I am not saying that
any Maori who proposes this sort of language reform is necessarily a Nazi
– but definitely a nationalist.
However, I do find it
offensive that Whai Ngata sees these loan-words as an “imposition by another
culture on Maori”. It is obvious that Maori culture lacked a lot
of the concepts, and therefore the words, which became necessary when Europeans
came here, so whoever started using these loanwords was contributing to
the survival of the Maori language. If
the Maori language had no means of expressing these concepts, it would have
died out altogether, because it would have been of little practical use
to the Maori people in their lives. If Maoris now wish to replace these
words, that is of course totally up to them.
The English language is famous for containing a huge proportion of
loanwords, and I have never heard anyone claim that this is some sort of
foreign imposition on English ! However,
these are not relevant issues in the context of my complaint – except that
it is necessary to prove that other people apart from Maoris are entitled
to have points of view on the relationship between the English and Maori
languages.
The Treaty of Waitangi
ruling on Te Reo Maaori did not mention the pronunciation
of loan-words, so I think that the lack of specifics at the end of Whai
Ngata’s email is intellectually dishonest. If there were relevant policies, he should have
quoted chapter and verse.
My complaint is not affected
by the substance of the two above-mentioned communications.
Sincerely,
Peter Zohrab,
Acting President,
New
Zealand Equality Education Foundation.
See also:
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
9 February 2021 |
|
|
