Robert's Rules of Haka
« previous post | next post »
Other video angles and edits are available on YouTube.
Among many mass-media stories, we could start with one from Qasim Nauman, "Why New Zealand’s Maori Lawmakers Protested With a Traditional Dance", NYT 11/15/2024:
New Zealand’s Parliament was temporarily suspended on Thursday as Māori lawmakers performed a haka, a traditional group dance, demonstrating their community’s anger and fear over a bill that aims to reinterpret the country’s founding treaty with its Indigenous people.
During a first reading of the proposal, when the speaker asked Māori lawmaker Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke how her party, Te Pāti Māori, would vote on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, she stood up, tore up what appeared to be her copy of the legislation, and started performing a haka.
She was joined in the haka by other opposition members on the floor, as well as people in the gallery overlooking the chamber.
The speaker, Gerry Brownlee, temporarily stopped the session. Ms. Maipi-Clarke, who performed the haka in Parliament after she was elected last year, was suspended over the protest, which Mr. Brownlee described as disrespectful.
According to Wikipedia,
Haka are a variety of ceremonial dances in Māori culture. A performance art, haka are often performed by a group, with vigorous movements and stamping of the feet with rhythmically shouted accompaniment. Haka have been traditionally performed by both men and women for a variety of social functions within Māori culture. They are performed to welcome distinguished guests, or to acknowledge great achievements, occasions, or funerals. […]
New Zealand sports teams' practice of performing a haka to challenge opponents before international matches has made the dance form more widely known around the world.
There are many videos of sporting hakas on YouTube and elsewhere, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BORnyN5n3CI&t=23s
The Wikipedia article also explains the etymology:
The group of people performing a haka is referred to as a kapa haka (kapa meaning group or team, and also rank or row). The Māori word haka has cognates in other Polynesian languages, for example: Samoan saʻa (saʻasaʻa), Tokelauan haka, Rarotongan ʻaka, Hawaiian haʻa, Marquesan haka, meaning 'to be short-legged' or 'dance'; all from Proto-Polynesian saka, from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian sakaŋ, meaning 'bowlegged'.
The NYT article offers this explanation for the political context of the protest:
The Treaty of Waitangi, signed by Māori chiefs and the British Crown in 1840, is considered New Zealand’s founding document. It forms the basis of the laws and policies aimed at redressing historical wrongs against the Māori by colonizers.
But a political party known as Act, the most right-wing member in the conservative coalition government, says it wants “equal rights” for all, and that special provisions for people based on their ethnic origin have been divisive for New Zealand society.
This month, Act introduced the bill, which experts say could severely damage race relations and undo decades of work aimed at redressing historical wrongs against the Māori people by colonizers. It has already stoked racial tensions in the country.
Penny Messinger said,
November 16, 2024 @ 9:34 am
I watched a video of the protest with my students in class yesterday. They asked what the words of the haka mean, and I didn't know. Can anyone direct me to a source that can translate it? Mostly what I've found from googling around focuses on the rugby chant.
Peter B. Golden said,
November 16, 2024 @ 10:21 am
Wonderful. We could use that or rather Native American dances (of protest) in our (US) Congress – same history of broken treaties, promises made and not kept.
Philip Taylor said,
November 16, 2024 @ 10:59 am
If an outsider may be permitted to comment, "Well said, Peter".
Charles in Toronto said,
November 16, 2024 @ 12:15 pm
@Penny – according to news reports it was the "Ka Mate" haka, which is translated in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Mate
I can't actually map the words I'm hearing to what is written there. Perhaps they were bouncing around between specific lines. But that's the general translation.
AntC said,
November 16, 2024 @ 6:13 pm
@Peter, @Philip, thank you and hear, hear! This is the sort of protest that makes me proud for my adopted country.
@Charles, there's a few phrases of the prefatory chant (not the one appearing in wikip), then 'Ka mate' begins at 0:10 in the video. It might help to know this is not ordinary Te Reo conversational pronunciation, but a special recitational style, with each syllable getting stress/lengthened:
Ka-ma-tē, ka-ma-tē, ka-ōr-ā, ka-ōr-ā, …
Te Pāti Māori (and some from other opposition parties of Māori descent) are particularly venting at the diminutive MP sitting at the front desk top right of the screen: David Seymour is the leader of a tiny party ('ACT' originally 'Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) in the coalition government, that have insisted on introducing this bill, despite opposition from even its coalition majority party, 'National'.
The Speaker is from National. If he seems particularly officious and unimaginative, he's a former woodwork teacher.
Chester Draws said,
November 17, 2024 @ 1:25 am
If Act is "tiny", then no more so than the Maori Party is tiny.
For those that think the Maori Party might represent the majority of Maori opinion, you'd be wrong. It represents a very real strand of Maoridom, but got about 20% of their votes. Their modus operandi is very much performative and confrontational — which is pretty much what a haka is.
On language issues, any translation of the ka mate haka is pretty much worthless without its back story. The Wikipedia page is OK on it.
It's composer Te Rauparaha, was a totally ruthless warlord btw, not some fluffy proto-liberal of romantic impressions of "natives".
D.O. said,
November 17, 2024 @ 10:25 am
From sporting clips it seems that the other teams also developed a ritual of receiving haka. With arm interlocked on shoulders and blank expressions.
AntC said,
November 17, 2024 @ 8:58 pm
For myl's benefit, the equivalent of 'Robert's Rules' in Westminster-style Parliaments is 'Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice', original title: 'A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament' 1844. Drawn on heavily for NZ Parliamentary practice — for example, as referenced from here.
Te Rauparaha, was a totally ruthless warlord
I appreciate this is Language Log, not Duplicitous Colonialist Exploitation Log, but Te Rauparaha was an early signatory to the very Treaty of Waitangi all the current song and dance is about; then experienced that the Brits observed it chiefly in the breach. See what wikip euphemistically calls the 'Wairau Affray'.
" tensions over disputed land purchases" [wikip on the 'New Zealand Wars'] raises the knotty problem in the English vs Te Reo versions of the Treaty as to whether [legal] Persons own land or the people [Tāngata] belong to the land [Whenua — which translates both as 'land', Proto-Austronesian *banua, cp Malay benua; and 'placenta' as in where your afterbirth was buried/wherein you are grounded].
Nat J said,
November 18, 2024 @ 2:38 am
I can only speculate what relevance this is meant to have to any of the above discussion.
In any case, it's a potent, inspiring protest.
AntC said,
November 18, 2024 @ 3:10 am
"The video, …, has been picked up widely by international media. … had been viewed about 700 million times so far."
Peter Grubtal said,
November 18, 2024 @ 4:16 am
@Nat J
about the same relevance as some of AntC's comments, I'd say. And perhaps more relevant than his snobby remark about the woodwork teacher.
More relevant because it puts in context the original spirit of the Haka. Modern romanticising of the ceremony is all good fun, but it can't be a substitute for objective debate.
Andrew Usher said,
November 18, 2024 @ 8:29 am
There seems to be no linguistic content here, so I'll comment on the original matter only to say that this was completely out of order and I find it hard to believe it should not have been punished more severely both during and after the act. Violating the most elementary, essential principles of parliamentary conduct in a pre-meditated way, by members of said body, should be a serious matter.
As for the main ethnic issue, I can only agree with Chester but feel the argument needs expansion. Though I am only familiar enough with the US, as far as I know the other countries with similar 'indigenous people' issues, namely Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, are not greatly different and the main reason that people would today be complaining about unfair special treatment in their favor is the same. And there is such cause today even though there wasn't originally; things have changed, and whatever injustices may have been done to their ancestors in the past – are in the past.
When we established reservations for their benefit, enabling them to continue to live separately, it was generally though that they could not or would not assimilate, at least for a long time, and that if they did their protections (as they were thought of) could be ended. And it seems for quite some time this was maintained. But now we have many cases where Indians, as they are called for this purpose, enjoy all the benefits of our civilisation, but retain their special privileges. And I can't believe there aren't a lot of people uncomfortable with this, though today most probably would not be willing to say anything publicly. Note that this is literally un-American, in that one of the few things consistently agreed on in the history of America is that that sort of hereditary privilege shouldn't exist here.
If in NZ people are starting to speak about it publicly and be taken seriously, it's likely because of the much greater prominence the Maori have there, making the matter harder to ignore.
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
November 18, 2024 @ 8:45 am
Andrew Usher said:
Seconded. Motion to adjourn?
Philip Taylor said,
November 18, 2024 @ 10:12 am
While there can be no doubt that the one thing that unites contributors, moderators, readers and commenters here is a shared interest in language and linguistics, there can surely be little doubt that there are some matters that are (a) sufficiently important, and (b) of probable interest to many here, that debate thereof should not be arbitrarily curtailed. So in the absence of the bench ruling on your motion to adjourn, Benjamin, I would like to respond to Andrew Usher's immediately preceding comment.
Andrew — when you write "When we established reservations for their benefit" (where "their" refers to native Americans), do you really believe that that was why the reservations were created ? If the white man genuinely wanted to do something for the benefit of the native Americans, why did he not give them back all the land that he had stolen and then seek their permission to establish a few small reservations for himself and his fellow immigrants ? And when you write "one of the few things consistently agreed on in the history of America is that that sort of hereditary privilege shouldn't exist here", by whom was this agreed ? Was the agreement of the native Americans sought, or was it agreed solely by the white man ?
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
November 18, 2024 @ 10:54 am
Philip Taylor said:
(a) does not imply (b). If any liberals in the crowd want to "debate" any conservatives in the crowd, or v.v., you have, almost literally, THE ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET WITHIN WHICH TO DO THIS. Go on Bookface or Twatter or what have you. Philip, are you saying that we're not _allowed_ to have a forum where _only_ linguistic matters are treated? That _every_ blog has to be _every other_ blog? That those of us who seek to limit our internet exposure to one or two websites not yet thrown into the dumpster fire aren't allowed to do that?
I hereby nail this post to the door of LL and loudly proclaim: Sola lingua! Sola grammatica!
One of the jobs of a municipal solicitor is to ensure that public meetings convened by various government bodies such as townships, boroughs, school districts, etc., are conducted in accordance with their agreed-upon parliamentary procedures — usually Robert's Rules of Order — and that the agendas for any such meetings do not include items beyond the jurisdiction of those government entities granted them by the Township Code, the Borough Code, the School Code, and so forth. Against these are balanced such laws as the Sunshine Act and the First Amendment's grant of government the permission to restrict the speech of citizens in terms of "time, place, and manner" where there is a "rational basis" to do so.
If you fail to do this, what you get is a four-hour agendaless free-for-all meeting of citizens and Council members alternately standing up and hollering at each other to no discernable purpose. (Ask me how I know).
The internet works in much the same way.
Philip Taylor said,
November 18, 2024 @ 11:10 am
"(a) does not imply (b)" — agreed. That is why I said there are some things that are (a) that are also (b) : ∃, not ∀.
"are you saying that we're not _allowed_ to have a forum where _only_ linguistic matters are treated" ? — No. I am saying that there are some things that are so important that discussion of them should be allowed to transcend standing orders.
The defence rests, and will of course abide by the decision of the Bench.
Peter Grubtal said,
November 18, 2024 @ 11:46 am
It's clear: the next time there's a proposal in the NZ parliament which doesn't suit the ACT (or any other non-Maori party) they should get out there on the floor and do the hokey-cokey.
Milan said,
November 18, 2024 @ 2:41 pm
@Chester Draw
> On language issues, any translation of the ka mate haka is pretty much worthless without its back story. The Wikipedia page is OK on it.
> It's composer Te Rauparaha, was a totally ruthless warlord btw, not some fluffy proto-liberal of romantic impressions of "natives".
So it's use in Rugby is not that much unlike, say, the French national team which before every match declaim their wish for "blood impure [to] to water our furrows".
Milan said,
November 18, 2024 @ 3:33 pm
(And, one can add that the War Chant of the Army of the Rhine, better known these days as "the one from Marseille", has been used to a rather similar purpose in the Assemblée nationale about a year and a half ago, during debates about raising the pension age.)
AntC said,
November 18, 2024 @ 4:17 pm
@Andrew "Though I am only familiar enough with the US, as far as I know the other countries with similar 'indigenous people' issues, namely Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, are not greatly different"
You appear not to have a clue what you're talking about. Each country's situation is different. How appallingly colonialist to lump them all together (re-victimise people) like that! To make the point linguistically: Te Reo Māori is still very widely spoken including being officially recognised in NZ's Parliament, is very well documented, and is traceable back across the Pacific to Proto-Austronesian. Eoropean colonialism has more or less wiped out without trace many indigenous languages in other places you mention.
Philip Anderson said,
November 18, 2024 @ 5:18 pm
Since the haka was used here to communicate and express her response in a non-linguistic but specifically Maori way, I think it does come within the scope of Language Log. So too does the continuing opposition from speakers of a majority language to indigenous peoples, their languages and cultures. Yes, most of the worst examples of forced assimilation are in the past for Western democracies, albeit within living memory, but without respect for other peoples we haven’t reached equality.
Nat J said,
November 18, 2024 @ 6:24 pm
Language Log isn't a parliament or any kind of democracy. Probably best to think of it as an oligarchy. Profs Liberman and Mair are free to institute and enforce whatever standards suit them. Apart from their standards, if the comments verge into topics I'd rather avoid, or that I find uninteresting, I find it trivially simple to ignore them.
That said, I think I'd benefit from reviewing the official comments policy linked at the top of the page. I'll leave everyone else to judge whether they'd like to do the same.
I do see that one of the principles is "Be Relevant". It suits me for now to interpret that generously, and so:
The popular conception of the haka is that it derives from a practice of bloody, murderous intertribal warfare. So the idea that it derives from a "fluffy proto-liberal" "modern romanticizing" of its origins seems misconceived.
But the wikipedia entry on haka avers "Although popularly associated with the traditional battle preparations of male warriors, conceptions that haka are typically war dances, are considered erroneous by Māori scholars".
In any case, reference to the character of the composer of the chant, if intended to illuminate its current significance, smacks of the genetic fallacy.
AntC said,
November 18, 2024 @ 7:48 pm
Constitutional reform in another Parliament, no indigenes necessary, it seems.
Then ripping only the paper bill seems relatively quite civilised.
American civilisation — now that _would be_ a good idea [to mis-quote Gandhi].
Haamu said,
November 18, 2024 @ 8:26 pm
It seems that the scope of this blog is explicitly not "_only_ linguistic matters."
Per the Comments Policy (thanks for the reminder, @Nat J):
Ergo, it is never valid to critique an Original Post as being non-"linguistic." As for comments, they can be on-topic as long as they relate to "the content of the post," so they inherit similar latitude, albeit in a more limited form: in replying to another commenter, try to pertain somehow to the original post, but you don't have to be "linguistic" if the OP is raising non-linguistic topics.
Rabbit holes can be avoided by remembering that relevance latitude is inherited from the OP, not from the comment you're replying to.
(I pause for a moment to reflect on how this comment is a violation of all of the above. Mea culpa.)
That said, I have enjoyed and learned from many of the rabbit holes on this blog. I would simply add a fifth guideline to the policy: "Be interesting."
Finally, those who would insist that only "linguistics" is relevant here have a duty to define what linguistics is. I once had someone tell me "cognitive linguistics is not linguistics," so I feel like it's a gray area.
Andrew Usher said,
November 18, 2024 @ 10:12 pm
AntC:
> You appear not to have a clue what you're talking about. Each country's situation is different.
Different, but still similar enough.
Your assertion that I don't know anything is just unreasonable bias. Yes, I do know that Maori is widely spoken, that's one reason for "the much greater prominence the Maori have there"; some native American languages are still spoken too, though likely to die out eventually from natural language attrition. And yes, there have been deliberate attempts to suppress them, no doubt with some success. Given that the death of minority languages is a world-wide phenomenon, attributing it to European colonialism specifically is ridiculous.
An example of a similarity relevant here is the efforts in all four of the names countries to change geographical names to more native ones, and I suspect the current health of the native language in question is not a primary motivation there. It is rather an attempt to assert power, and if the replacement names are hard for English-speakers to spell or pronounce, so much the better for that.
Philip Taylor:
> when you write "When we established reservations for their benefit" (where "their" refers to native Americans), do you really believe that that was why the reservations were created ?
Yes, generally, but I admit it could be unclear. The recognition of the reservations themselves was granting the Indians more rights, but the widespread forcing of natives to move onto reservations, often through long distances, was of course not.
It must be remembered that we were the conquerors, and the treatment of conquered peoples by conquerors can never be optimal from the former's point of view. That we did anything at all, at our cost, to help them should be considered more remarkable.
Perhaps you should try to imagine that the ancestors of Englishmen were at one point conquerors too, whenever they came to Britain, and in fact nearly every people has such a history – it's only that those were so long ago as not to be recorded in such detail.
For most of our history it would not have made sense to regard belonging to an Indian tribe as a privilege, so it would never come up. Only in latter times has it become so, and obviously the possessor of hereditary privilege is not likely to voluntarily give it up, no matter its history.
Haamu:
> it is never valid to critique an Original Post as being non-"linguistic."
For the record, I didn't – I only noted it was to justify my reply being likewise.
k_over_hbarc at yahoo dot com
~flow said,
November 19, 2024 @ 12:10 am
> When we established reservations for their benefit, enabling them
The overbearing white paternalist is betrayed by their language
~flow said,
November 19, 2024 @ 12:11 am
> and if the replacement names are hard for English-speakers to spell or pronounce, so much the better for that
Beware they're coming for you /s
Haamu said,
November 19, 2024 @ 2:21 am
For the record, I didn't say you did. I was quoting a different commenter.
That seems like a really cynical take. There doesn't seem to be much power at stake in these matters. It's more about according dignity and respect — or even merely about making sense. In my neck of the woods a lake was restored to its original native name after 200 years of bearing the name of a pro-slavery politician who never saw it.
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
November 19, 2024 @ 7:03 am
*dances some mélange of tarantella & hora while yelling in Ladino in honor of his ancestors*
There, now that I’ve protested, can anyone here send me a link to a blog where I can find posts & discussions about language and linguistics?
/unsubscribe
Philip Taylor said,
November 19, 2024 @ 2:15 pm
By all means, Benjamin — https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/. Of course, it occasionally includes posts and discussions on topics only tangentially related to language and linguistics, but I personally regard that as a positive sign as it suggests that not all of its members are anally retentive.
Gobbledyglot said,
November 20, 2024 @ 8:43 am
@Andrew Usher
>An example of a similarity relevant here is the efforts in all four of the names countries to change geographical names to more native ones, and I suspect the current health of the native language in question is not a primary motivation there. It is rather an attempt to assert power, and if the replacement names are hard for English-speakers to spell or pronounce, so much the better for that.
Non-Maori New Zealanders have been accustomed to Maori geographical names since they first settled there. There's no great difficulty with pronunciation: many Maori names are simply Anglicized by non-Maori, but regardless of how much or little people defer to authentic pronunciation, they've grown up with these names. It's not just geographical features and place names, but plant and animal species, cultural and historical terms, which have been in use throughout the 20th century. And I'd say the average person is rather proud of them, as they give New Zealand and its culture a distinct character of its own.
Andrew Usher said,
November 20, 2024 @ 8:46 am
Well, this, a reply to Haamu's last, will contain a general discussion of names, which I think should count as language-related. And, no matter how obvious it should be, it seems to bear frequent repetition that if you don't like a post/thread, just ignore it – that's how the Internet is supposed to work!
Anyway, here's the problem:
> There doesn't seem to be much power at stake in these matters. It's more about according dignity and respect — or even merely about making sense. In my neck of the woods a lake was restored to its original native name after 200 years of bearing the name of a pro-slavery politician who never saw it.
That truly doesn't make sense. Let aside whether one can speak of any 'original' name for a natural feature of the Earth; just understand the fact that something can have different names in different languages. We would never even think of telling them what to call it in their language, or even when speaking English, so why should they get official sanction when they tell us what we should call it in English?
Acknowledging that both names are equally valid would be respect, and true respect can't be compelled anyway. Though people might honestly believe things like this, it doesn't change the fact that it _is_ an exercise of power. Further, calling the English name a 'renaming' is wrong, in the conventional sense of that word; in all or almost all cases white men were not trying to replace the native name, but to give a name in English to something that didn't have one before, or replace an earlier English name. Nor is it 'restoring' the native name to officially change it; the thing never had that name in English, so it can't be restored, only imposed.
What is a name, anyway? To us it's mainly an arbitrary label to distinguish something from others. We call something by the same name we learned it by, not because of any judgement on the name, but simply because that's what people understand and the value of names is in their continuity, their not changing. In European cultures, the same is true of personal names. We don't ordinarily try to change the names we were born with, not because we like them, not out of any 'respect', and not because of the original meaning of the name (which we usually don't care about even when we know) – but because (a necessary and sufficient condition) there's no reason to change, and there is reason to preserve continuity. If you wonder – yes, I am consistent in opposing the practice of women's changing their surnames on marriage, for this and other reasons – and no, I don't think personal name changes are inherently or always bad.
American place-names have different origins. Many are derived from native names ultimately – but they are in anglicised form, so we don't have trouble with their spelling and pronunciation any more than with other English words, and exactly which names are native is not always obvious – and they are often not applied strictly as they were in their original, they many get more specific, or transferred to a different place, for example. And native names coming through French or Spanish got mangled at least as much, in the cases I know, and of course the step from French or Spanish into English is accompanied usually by further anglicisation that no one sane objects to. Some names come from the prosaic reasons of some physical feature or some person or thing associated with the place. Many, especially of towns, were chosen more-or-less arbitrarily, deriving from another place name or a famous person. The latter is one reason there are many things names for people that never saw or knew of them; it doesn't imply a deliberate attempt to commemorate the person. But in all cases, the primary reason was generally just to give some useful name that it could be known by in English.
So these names may be found an interesting thing to study, by amateurs or professionals, as they are in Europe. And as in Europe, that's normally all they should be, and the origin of names should not itself give any reason to change them now. We don't think about that when using the names; even when it's clear the name contains that of a person, it is just a name when we use it. Desiring to change a firmly established name because of the person behind it seems grossly misguided at best.
In addition, names are part of the English language, and as with other parts of the language, the government should have no power to decree what is right. Of course there must be official names for recording purposes, but that normally is not a process of 'renaming' but of recognising the names that already exist. If there are multiple choices (in English!) the one least ambiguous or most consistent with other names should be preferred. And naturally for administrative entities as cities and towns the official name really should match that used by the entity. But the idea of inventing a new name never used (as opposed to mentioned) in English before seems preposterous and not a proper subject for government, and I don't think any sensible agency could ever come up with that on its own (barring names containing offensive words or otherwise problematic to use today) so it must illustrate political pressure, itself inappropriate for that.
As I stated, the reason for mentioning it was to show a clear commonality between the four named countries, and I do think that such renamings are motivated by the same thing, and supported by the same kind of people, in all of them.
Philip Taylor said,
November 20, 2024 @ 10:18 am
"in all or almost all cases white men were not trying to replace the native name, but to give a name in English to something that didn't have one before" — provided that "one" expands to "a name in English" and not to just "a name", I find the statement unexceptionable. But was it necessary to "give a name in English" to the object or concept in question ? After all, we (native English speakers, that is) have never found it necessary to "give […] give a name in English" to the phrase bon appétit ! (or toguten Appetit !, or to Zeitgeist, or to Schadenfreude, or …), so if the thing or concept in question already had a name in the local language, why not simply adopt it (assuming, that is, that there was sufficient overlap between the phonology of the local language and the phonology of English for some reasonable approximation to the local pronunciation to be made).
AntC said,
November 20, 2024 @ 3:18 pm
in all or almost all cases white men were not trying to replace the native name, but to give a name in English to something that didn't have one before,
To echo @Gobbledyglot's pride in New Zealanders using Māori names, every mountain, hill, river, stream, lake, swamp, valley, stand of forest, every species of tree, of bird, of insect, of (the few) mammals, … had a Māori name before the Europeans arrived. Geographical names are often some mnemonic for a historical event or local persona. There is nothing that "didn't have one before". Why wouldn't there be when your way of life depends on the land?
Toitū Te Whenua/Land Information NZ's policy for their gazetting of place names is to give equal billing to the European (if any) and Te Reo (always is) names.
I hesitate to generalise to other countries, but the only reason I can see there wouldn't be a name is because of genocide by Europeans. On LLog, for example we've lamented that the Cañari language/its speakers were wiped out with only a few words recorded, and those all in dubious circumstances. As another example, for Tasmania we know rather well why there's so few places known today by indigenous names, and it's nothing to do with @AU's preposterous supposition.
To claim there is/was no name is to deny history. _If_ there's a commonality between the countries mentioned, it's in the extermination of indigenes, their culture, their languages, not the absence of names.
AntC said,
November 20, 2024 @ 3:30 pm
One of the largest protests NZ Parliament has ever seen.
Philip Taylor said,
November 20, 2024 @ 3:59 pm
Ant, you may well have commented before reading my own comment, but you might like to look back and see that I queried whether the key concept was "a name" or "a name in English". If (as I believe) Andrew was referring to "a name in English", then I think that your own comments may be based on a misunderstanding.
AntC said,
November 20, 2024 @ 6:06 pm
@PT If (as I believe) Andrew was referring to "a name in English", …
Thank you. I did read your comment before posting; I don't see grounds for interpreting @AU's comments so generously. Why wouldn't "a name in English" be perfectly well provided for by the indigenous name (probably somewhat Anglicised pronunciation, per your bon appétit, etc)?
… because we've killed/relocated to a reserve thousands of miles away anyone who would know the local toponyms, seems to me the most obvious explanation.
My own city (Ōtautahi) does have an Anglican name and is indeed recognised as the most Anglican city in the country, but plenty of the suburbs/satellite towns have only a name in Te Reo: Mairehau, Wharenui, Papanui, Waimairi, Heihei, Aranui, Rapaki, Kaiapoi, Rangiora, … An English speaker would need only a brief introduction to the orthography to cope with those.
Philip Anderson said,
November 20, 2024 @ 6:26 pm
To the countries named I would add Wales, where many places have names in both Welsh and English.
There are a few English names that were given to places with no name, mainly towns established by colonists (although most Roman towns in Wales and England were given essentially Brittonic names). For instance Newport, which later acquired a Welsh name Casnewydd (new cas[tle] so a partial calque, maybe reflecting a different perspective).
But most places, as elsewhere, did have a native name, even if was ignored for some reason. E.g. the corrie Cwm Cneifion (cwm of the shearings), which is called the Nameless Cwm in English on official maps; did they not ask the locals or did they just think “I can’t pronounce it, so it doesn’t have a proper name, let me make one up”? Which may be what Andrew Usher meant.
He is right that naming is power, and English speakers have long exercised that power by replacing or distorting names they don’t like. But when native speakers ask for equal treatment, this power becomes a problem. In general people use the English name in English and the Welsh name in Welsh (but bilingual road signs are called “dangerous” by some, although common abroad); however, when two Welsh national parks, Eryri and Bannau Brycheiniog, recently dropped the English versions of their official names (Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons respectively), this led to the predictiable objections. Other bodies have Welsh-only names, and most journalists now just add the old names in parentheses; eventually I suspect they will retreat to quiz questions, like Rhodesia.
Many places do have different or variant names in different languages, often as the result of regular linguistic changes, and I like that in foreign languages; it’s more problematic when two languages share a country.
Philip Anderson said,
November 20, 2024 @ 6:41 pm
@AntC
“An English speaker would need only a brief introduction to the orthography to cope with those.”
The same goes for Welsh names, Welsh being written phonetically, but most people seem to struggle with the concept that words or names aren’t pronounced as in English (while not having a problem with Gloucester, Beaulieu or Berkshire).
Although I find the Brazilian habit of pronouncing English words or names according to Portuguese rules amusing: Ruth becomes /hoochy/ for instance.
AntC said,
November 20, 2024 @ 10:03 pm
(This 'what's in a name' is pertinent to myl's o.p., BTW: the new administration is in process of changing the branding for all (non-Māori related) Departments to feature English first. I predict zero contribution to the government's drive for efficiency and effectiveness.)
Good to hear of "Eryri and Bannau Brycheiniog" — favourite stomping grounds of my former self.
I well remember a business trip to Ynys Môn (in the 1980's), my presentation unfortunately had to be in English; all discussion in Cymraeg.
most people seem to struggle with the concept that words or names aren’t pronounced as in English
How do the poor offcomers cope with 'Pen-y-Ghent', 'Sell Ghyll', or Helvellyn, Blencathra? — all firmly in England, also favourites. (I harbour a suspicion that if they can't make the effort to get their tongues round those, they're not going to get their feet into hiking boots.)
I guess in NZ our Rugby team has always featured a significant proportion of players with non-English names: currently includes Rieko Ioani, TJ Perenara. Ardie Savea (well, actually Samoan). No hope for claiming to be a fan if you can't yell those across a crowded pub. Tîm rygbi'r undeb cenedlaethol Cymru carrying names like Edwards, Williams, John is setting the bar too low.
Andrew Usher said,
November 21, 2024 @ 1:00 am
Yes, a 'name in English', as I said. Generally the standards for what counts as 'in English' should be similar to those for any other words. As for why the native name would not be used, the most likely reason, as has been pointed out, is that the native name simply wasn't known to the namers: most settlers had no competence in the native language and no inclination to interact with them if they were still in the area. There are also cases where there was no native name, especially for towns, but also because different cultures can disagree about what requires a specific name. Finally, some native names would be confusing in English. No doubt phonology plays a part, too: names easy to pronounce for English speakers being more likely to be adopted than those that aren't. But in most cases (there were certainly exceptions), the decision was probably not a matter of deliberately wanting to replace the native name with an English one, or not.
There is no problem with, and I have no problem with, the use of originally-native names when they have naturally become normal use in English. Indeed, many place-names have a history of being passed between languages, which is what makes their study linguistically useful. But regardless of the origin, how or why it came to be the choice, a name long-established in English should be preserved simply because it is long-established; it's become part of the language and our heritage. Changing its use is disruptive, and regardless of what the promoters believe, does serve only to exert power of a kind that should not exist.
As for dual-naming, it's of course acceptable for governments to keep official names in addition to the English one; necessary if the other language has official status, possibly desirable if it's merely widely spoken. Bilingual signs are sometimes justified. But using the two names together in otherwise English contexts is, as has been admitted here and actually in practice, merely a step toward getting rid of the English name altogether and thus no more defensible.
The phrases cited by Philip Taylor differ completely from names in that they derive their entire use from their lexical meaning (in the original language); further, all have English equivalents or paraphrases and no one would suggest that their use, by itself, would be any insult to the original language or its speakers.
Philip Taylor said,
November 21, 2024 @ 4:08 am
Andrew — "The phrases cited by Philip Taylor […] all have English equivalents or paraphrases". Could you please tell me what you believe those equivalents or paraphrases are ? I could form circumlocutions (if forced, as for example when explaining the meaning of the phrase to someone whose first language is neither English nor the language in question) but I honestly do not believe that there are genuine equivalents or even paraphrases in English.
Andrew Usher said,
November 22, 2024 @ 8:26 am
I can try. For bon appetit, as that is a special phatic expression, the English equivalent is enjoy or enjoy your meal (and maybe other variants). The other two are more complicated, and there may not be a single substitution that would always work; still, it can hardly be doubted that people can employ those concepts without using the German word (Zeitgeist in particular is probably absent from the vocabulary of most people, including me).
I wonder what your distinction here is between 'paraphrase' and 'circumlocution'. I don't think I make one; yes, the actual Greek equivalent to circum- is peri-, not para-, but I have them totally blurred together in this case, as I perceive no difference in meaning.
But, as often, and frustratingly, I deal with a reply to a minor side issue rather than the main point that proper names behave unlike any other words. Almost everyone knows what 'screwdriver' means, no one knows what 'London' means, yet the latter _word_ is more essential to the thing described.
Philip Anderson said,
November 22, 2024 @ 12:58 pm
“the native name simply wasn't known to the namers: most settlers had no competence in the native language and no inclination to interact with them if they were still in the area.”
Isn’t this just a classic description of colonialism, whereby the new arrivals have no interest in the native peoples beyond absorbing, expelling or exterminating them? You could, and probably will, say that this happened, it’s in the past, we can’t rewrite history (what else do historians DO, except rewrite history?), but we can acknowledge the injustice and pay the respect due to the culture now that wasn’t paid then; if you don’t, then who is to say that you won’t do tomorrow what your predecessors did yesterday?
“a name long-established in English should be preserved simply because it is long-established”. Do you also agree that long established names in other languages should be preserved? And it’s not sufficient to say that it’s only up to speakers of other languages, when those languages have been so weakened by the actions, deliberate or otherwise, of English speakers. Yes, many languages die naturally, but others are murdered.
Jonathan Smith said,
November 22, 2024 @ 5:10 pm
re: "settlers didn't know native names," this generally isn't even true — e.g. "Denali" (note *an* not *the* indigenous name) is still and was since the beginning said/written in English by new arrivals and locals alike. Calling what are really un-renamings "disruptive" means "disruptive to *me*" (OK really just slightly psychically uncomfortable, like the Mexicans speaking their Espanyol in the 7-11.)
same non-serious thinking when it comes to separating "the past," where might made right and perhaps unfortunate (for some) things occurred, and "now," the golden age when our institutions guarantee Justice for All. Whatever is "past" can't be litigated by present institutions you see, as that would be "disruptive" (Supreme Court's word also) to the um "status quo" — thus comical bitching and moaning about how the whites get such a raw deal around here when it comes to anything affirmative action or DEI-tainted.
that said, it is true is that the sincere interest in building just societies associated with wimen/pinkos/queers/libtards does seem to be an historical anomaly, the more normal human attitude wherever one goes being "we let you sit wherever you want on the bus OK, WTF more do you want?" In NZ's case the newcomers were dealing with a culturally/linguistically cohesive indigenous group that managed not to totally collapse demographically and then spit fire to get some of what they wanted and deserved… which was of course totally outrageous and illegal of them; why didn't they work via the vaunted institutions.
Andrew Usher said,
November 23, 2024 @ 8:52 am
The last post makes no coherent point that I haven't already discussed and has an inappropriate tone, so I'll pass it by and respond to the one before. Philip Anderson said:
> … it’s in the past, we can’t rewrite history (what else do historians DO, except rewrite history?),
Different meanings, the historian's writing of history attempts (or should) to reflect past events, the why and how, as accurately as possible, without imposing judgement; this topic very much involves judgement …
> … but we can acknowledge the injustice and pay the respect due to the culture now that wasn’t paid then;
We can, certainly, in the historical sense of admitting, as is certainly true, that in some cases our treatment of them was less than exemplary and needlessly cruel, as was their treatment of us. But one must remember that more than ethics was involved – at some places and time we saw ourselves as at war with the Indians, not without ground, and that is not conducive to fair treatment. Yes, you can go back and say that our previous actions caused that, and so on … I'm not going through the whole history here, but it was historically inevitable that this land would be conquered by Europeans.
But 'pay respect'? I do not think of cultures (really peoples, here) is something one owes respect to, at least if one is not a member of it and is not seeking to be. Here 'respect' is only a euphemism for power; almost anything could be demanded of us in its name (and much has been).
> “a name long-established in English should be preserved simply because it is long-established”. Do you also agree that long established names in other languages should be preserved?
I can't speak for any other language, but I see no reason to deny this, and none that we ever have tried to destroy names in other languages, apart from actions against those languages themselves. As you correctly note, our actions 'deliberate or not' have resulted in the death of many native languages; but the names can still be preserved, if the people consider them important enough, even after the language as a whole dies. There is also no way to draw a line between natural and unnatural language death: almost all involve contact with others and adoption of their language for various reasons.
In any case that can't possibly justify imposing the other name in English.
AntC said,
November 27, 2024 @ 3:29 pm
Māori Haka in NZ Parliament goes METAL! (this is a mashup of an earlier Haka that seemed to be officially permitted, with the one discussed here)