“Words, words, words” - Shakespeare,
“Hamlet”, Act 2, Scene 2
While the
meaningful glance certainly has its place, for the much greater part of our
communication, we use words, spoken and, until modern times much less often,
written – in a word: “language”.
A
communicating group from a tribe to an empire will develop a language
understood by all, which will change slowly over the years as the needs for
expression and habits of speech change within the group. As one group becomes dominant over others, so
will its language.
Thus Latin,
the language of Rome, came to be spoken over an area from the borders of
Scotland to the deserts of the Dead Sea, facilitated by the great system of
roads built by the Romans to control their empire.
But let the
empire break down, communication cease, and the processes of change within a
language do their work. Within a few
centuries, Latin in the speech of ordinary people had split up into perhaps two
dozen distinct languages with varying degrees of intelligibility between
them. In France alone at the time of
Napoleon, about seven distinct Romanesque languages with numerous dialects were
spoken, not counting the Celtic tongue of Brittany. Of these perhaps Occitan and that of the
Languedoc, of the ‘oc’ not ‘oui’ for ‘yes’, were the most distinctive, with
Catalan over the Pyrenees intermediate between it and imperial Spanish.
It was only
the establishment of strong central government, of modern communications and
the restored Académie Française which created standard modern French based on
that of Paris while similar processes in Italy led to the Florentine language
becoming the basis of modern Italian.
One dramatic
example is Melanesia whose people over more than ten thousand years spread over
New Guinea and more than 2000 islands to its east, the latest probably Fiji
about three thousand years ago. The
mountains and jungles of New Guinea, the seas between the islands and the
universal practice of cannibalism served to split the people into many isolated
groups and language followed its inevitable course.
By the time
Europeans arrived there were reckoned to be 600 languages in New Guinea, more
than a hundred in Vanuatu and seventy-odd in the Solomon islands, mostly
mutually unintelligible.
The spread
of people into Polynesia began somewhat later and the divergence of language
consequently has been less though a glance at the instructions in Tongan,
Samoan, New Zealand and Cook Islands Maori, Tokelauan and Niuean in “how to vote”
pamphlets issued at our elections shows that the differences are quite
considerable.
Because the
best current evidence[i]
indicates that our Polynesian immigrants came from the Cook Islands area about
seven hundred years ago, that is where the divergence appears to be least. “Ikoraki”, the name of a prominent Rarotongan
peak and “Hikurangi” that of an East Coast mountain, show a typical change in
the language of New Zealand Maoris.
And so, how
did things develop in New Zealand? First
we know that the rugged topography and heavy native bush of New Zealand meant
that the settlements of at most somewhat over 120,000[ii]
in pre-European times were often widely separated. Given the tribal organization, endemic
warfare and cannibalism between the tribes, normal social contact between them
will have been even less than geographic barriers dictated though news was said
to travel fast. The conditions were
tailor-made for language divergence.
So what
actually happened? First we note that in
pre-European times language was solely oral and there is simply no way of
knowing how it actually sounded.
Interested Europeans recorded in writing the speech they heard and it
would be a weak argument today to claim that they were wrong. One of the very first was Georg Forster,
naturalist on Cook’s first voyage. In
the brief encounter with the Katimamoe remnant of Dusky Sound before they were,
all but one young woman, killed and eaten by a Kai Tahu war party, Forster
recorded a couple of dozen of their words, mostly names for birds.[iii] However, even though something of the
language of Queen Charlotte Sound was understood by Cook, to others in the
“Endeavour” more adept at language who had spent some time in Tahiti, that of
Dusky Sound was virtually unintelligible to them.
Even in less
isolated areas of Southland, Europeans who understood northern dialects well
enough could not understand the language of resident Kai Tahu.[iv]
Now first, be it noted, the sounds in any
two languages are never quite the same.
Hence we detect a “foreign accent” in the English of a non-native
speaker and even within countries. A
Yorkshireman, a Scot and a Northern Irishman speaking English sound
recognizably different from a BBC announcer.
Having grown up in Bluff, I have been identified by my speech as a
Southlander.
Second, we should note that in New
Zealand, missionaries and others writing down what they heard could differ
amongst themselves when they heard different speakers and depending on their
own language experience. There was no
“correct” spelling. Thus when JL Nicholas in 1817 wrote “rungateeda” and
missionaries chose “rangatira” one would have been as good as the other.
Quite a number of the early missionaries
were from the English social class which dropped its “h’s” thus Maoris learning
English would naturally imitate them.
Hone (or John) Heke was said to be one of them.
Third, be it noted, written Maori was a
construct of Europeans, not Maoris. So
no Maori either then or today has any better authority to proclaim the spelling
of any Maori word than anybody else.
By the year 1840, northern missionaries
had developed a reasonably consistent spelling of the speech of northern Maoris
amongst whom they worked.[v] When the highly experienced and competent
Henry and Edward Williams[vi]
translated Hobson’s final English draft of 4th February that was the spelling they used. It is instructive to look at their text of
the actual treaty document which, it appears, remarkably few people who claim
to be experts actually do.
They even went as far as to transliterate
Hobson’s name and rank as “Wiremu Hopihana he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi” -
overdoing it indeed in my view! Their
word for “land” which appears several times is “wenua”; not a “whenua” nor a
“wh” anywhere in sight![vii]
Even more instructive is their
transliteration of “February” to “Pepueri”, the month when the treaty was
signed and dated of course.
Now why should this be? There is no sensible reason why the Williams
should have avoided using an “f” in their text, nor “wh” for any sound
approximating that in English “when” and “why” in Ngapuhi speech. The reason must be simply that they did not
exist.
An “f” does exist in some island
languages. Fanaofo is one of the Tokelau Islands. “Fale” or “fare” is the word
for a house, rendered “whare” in Maori but sounded as “warre” in the Wanganui
heartlands. While “f” may have persisted in some Maori dialects, it was clearly
dropping out of use. One reason, as Jean
Jackson pointed out,[viii]
was that women with tattooed lips could not pronounce it.
So “wh”?
Well, maybe. In the Taranaki
dialect, a “w” could be followed by a glottal stop as in some island languages,[ix]
rendered in writing with an apostrophe (e.g. Ma’a Nonu), so the name of the
cult boss of Parihaka would be rendered best by “Te W’iti”. Meka Whaitiri is an MP; Jimmy Waitiri was my
Bluff classmate. Is one right – the
other wrong?
As for the Wellington locality: not
“Kaiwharawhara” but “Kai-wara-wara, Kaiwara, and Kaiwarra (the most used) all
appear in the records.”[x] It was “Wakatu” not “Whakatu” for Nelson[xi],
“Wangaree” for “Whangarei” and “Wangaroa” to Hone Heke in a letter to Henry
Williams, on 1st December 1847 – the list goes on and on.
But a “wh” pronounced “f” as observed so
conscientiously by most radio and television announcers today? It becomes increasingly obvious that this is
nothing but a latter-day invention of pseudo-scholars.
Nothing has stopped the Geographic Board
scattering “wh” in all sorts of placenames.
Koiterangi, scene of Stanley Graham’s notorious 1941 rampage, they have
renamed Kowhitirangi. Rangiaohia, scene
of the monstrous lie of an 1864 church-burning, is now Rangiaowhia. Can it be seriously suggested that in writing
the names of these places settlers omitted an “f” sound?
While there is perhaps a case for standard
spelling of the mixture now decreed to be “Te Reo”, there is no valid case for
it in placenames but evidently that is paramount in the minds of Geographic
Board bureaucrats. In their arrogant
decision that Wanganui should become Whanganui, they contemptuously ignored the
wishes of 80% of the residents who voted on it that its name should remain
unchanged. So it is now “Fonganui” on
the airwaves.
There are harbours and inlets in the
coastline of New Zealand, named simply by Maoris as “long harbour” in the local
dialect. Some are Wangaloa, Akaroa,
[Little] Akaloa, and Whangaroa, while Lyttelton harbour was Whakaraupo –
showing dialectical variants which have not yet fallen victims to Geographic
Board dictat. Westhaven Inlet has not
been so fortunate, being now decreed to be Whanganui Inlet.
So. elsewhere, less interference and more
respect for what the settlers actually heard - the dialect of the local Maoris
- should, I suggest, override bureaucratic uniformity. While the “ng” sound developed in the north,
it only rarely replaced “k” south of the Rakitata River, with weak final
syllables often clipped off. The Otago
Heads village as I heard it was the “kaik”, not “kainga”; an elderly Karitane
woman of Maori descent spoke of “kaio” trees, not “ngaio”.
Tree ferns were “bungies”, not
“punga”. When we boys carried out mock
battles with flax sticks, they were “keladdies” not “korati”, though when I
asked a Maori elder at Rapaki in Lyttelton Harbour for his choice he could not
understand either!
Again, we have more accurately “Wakatip”,
not “Wakatipoo” and a dominant peak near Nelson, scene of several murders by
the Burgess gang, was “Mokotap” to the locals, brown and white alike, but now
decreed to be “Maungatapu”. “Aoraki”
mercifully overtook “Aorangi”, being applied in their ignorance by the
Geographic Board pundits to Mount Cook but never its Maori name. As A.P. Harper found out and quite
specifically reported,[xii]
there were no Maori names for the remote peaks where they did not go and “Aoraki”
was the name of the fluffy white clouds which frequently cover them.
Two more different spoken languages than English and Maori it would be hard to
find. English has many more sounds -
voiced consonants - “b,d,j,z,zh”; diphthongs – or compound vowels and even
triphthongs - “our” as in “flour”. Many
words end in consonants and multi-syllable words are accented. Maori has none of these features. And so, for people whose first language is
English, their pronunciation of Maori words will inevitably depart from any
“pure” form. I heard once a Hokitika man
with the good Maori name of Maui pronounce it “M-a-u-i” - actually a very
pleasant sequence but nothing like most people would say it – another barrier
Te Reo has to face. But it works both
ways! An elderly Wanganui River women
talked to me of “Ranana” - “London” to you and me.
Again, the language of Stone Age people
had no words for the many complexities of modern civilization. Indeed this lack was already starkly evident
in 1840 when Maoris had no words for “sovereignty” and “possession” - so the
missionary-coined words “kawanatanga” and “rangatiratanga” were used in the
Treaty of Waitangi – providing endless opportunities for people with devious
intentions to twist it. With no word for
“library” in a culture which had no books, Christchurch City Council, obliged
to put “Maori” labels on everything, chose “kete wananga”, derived, I suppose
from “wisdom basket” - cute, eh? Other
libraries – other words.
Transliteration is another technique -
“tiriti” for a start. With all public buildings required to have “Maori” titles
we find artificialities like “kaporeihana”, “kanihera” and “pirihimana”. The nearby supermarket is decorated with
signs saying things like “pikitete”, “waina” and “kawhe”[xiii] Accepting, as is decreed, that “wh” must be
pronounced “f”, as an exercise try working out what these words are supposed to
mean. Does anybody seriously believe
that they will be used in normal conversation?
Some recent enthusiasts are reported to have added many thousands of
words to the Maori vocabulary, presumably using this process – surely an
exercise in futility?
One Apanui Ngahiwi of the Maori Language
Commission wrote: “In fact, it is a taonga protected by article two of the
Treaty of Waitangi because that is exactly what the Maori Language Act 2016
(section 8 (g)) says it is. The act
creates a partnership between Maori and the Crown for the revitalisation of te
reo Maori. It recognises te reo Maori as the foundation of Maori culture and
identity and that the lives of iwi and Maori are enhanced by knowledge and use
of the language.”[xiv]
Now, there is no such thing in the Treaty
as a “partnership” while in 1840,
“taonga” meant simply material property.
That Maori speech needs such gross distortions of the truth shows what
dire straits it is in.
We should be wise enough to learn from the
experience of others – the Irish for example.
Following independence from Britain, the Irish Government made strenuous
efforts with considerable expense to extend the use of Gaelic and it became
compulsory in schools but almost nobody uses it and the Gaeltacht, the
supposedly Gaelic-speaking region, is shrinking fast. In 1953 I heard people freely speaking Scots
Gaelic in Ullapool but in four visits to Ireland, I heard it spoken only once –
by schoolgirls rehearsing their homework.
Even in the remote Aran Islands, supposedly a Gaelic stronghold, its use
is declining. With the young listening to
English-speaking radio and TV stations, that becomes their preferred language.
We may feel some sadness at the decline of
the historic Gaelic language but the hard fact is that the prime purpose of
language is communication and people will inevitably use the most useful
language for it. We may feel the same
about that increasingly artificial language Te Reo, but Gaelic and Te Reo will
inevitably become ornamental languages like Latin – OK for a few school mottoes
and the like and little else.
English is the international language.[xv] I have taught English to Tibetans, Poles,
Czechs and Ni-Vanuatu – all eager to learn it.
As I write (17th March 2017), a granddaughter of mine is en route to Columbia to
teach English at a Spanish-speaking school.[xvi] North of the Arctic Circle, Norwegian
schoolboys come to meet the coastal steamers to practice their English on the
tourists aboard.[xvii] Tune in to BBC TV or Aljazeera and you will
find people speaking in English – a Mexican, a Pole and a Gambian in one
bulletin I noted. The coat of arms of
Uganda bears the words “For God and my Country”.[xviii]
From India to Namibia it is understood
almost everywhere and the Chinese, no fools, are becoming very proficient in
it. We can be thankful that English is
the normal native tongue of the New Zealand-born. Parents who “immerse” their children in Te
Reo instead play a cruel trick on them to advance their own agenda. Excellence in English should be a prime
objective of our schools and that is the place to spend taxpayers’ money.
[i] While there is compelling evidence of
earlier settlers in New Zealand, their origin is a matter of debate and their
language submerged and forgotten in pre-European times.
[ii] For a careful estimate of 127,000, see John
Robinson, “When two cultures meet”, Tross, 2012, ISBN 1 872970 31 1
[iii] Forster’s list and much other fascinating
detail is given in “Dusky Bay”, A.
Charles Begg and Neil C. Begg, Whitcombe and Tombs, 1966
[iv] Maoris from south of the Waitaki River were
generally emphatic in their preference for “Kai Tahu” over ”Ngai Tahu”, the
more common form in the north. Note too
that “Waitangi” is the northern form of “Waitaki”.
[v] Missionary Wohlers on Ruapuke Island in
Foveaux Strait chose to use the northern written forms of Maori words even
though they did not represent accurately the southern speech. Scots’ choice of standard written English
even though their own speech was decidedly different is an exact parallel. Earlier, Scots spelling had been highly
variant as shown vividly by the 1888 dairy of a Scots kinsman of mine.
[vi] Edward being considered “facile princeps” or
“easily best” by Hugh Carleton, Henry’s biographer
[vii] We may compare “tangata whenua” with Moriori
“tchakat henu”
[viii] In a telephone conversation with me
[ix] “Taranaki War 1860-2012 Our Legacy – Our
Challenge”, an exhibition in the Nelson Provincial Museum in 2012-3. (Note the date ‘2012’! What was the Taranaki Provincial Museum which
constructed the exhibition alleging with that?
One Kelvin Day who was responsible wrote to me on 20th
December 2012 saying: “there is no such
thing as one true history”. Well, well.
Isn’t “true history” is an account of what actually happened!)
[x] Ian Wards, “The Shadow of the Land”,
Department of Internal Affairs, 1968, p. 218 f/n
[xi] ibid., p.219
[xii] A.P. Harper, “Pioneer Work in the Alps of New
Zealand”, 1896, pp 10ff.
[xiii] A few of the examples around Nelson
[xiv] Ngahiwi Apanui, Letter, “Dominion Post”, 18th
February 2017
[xv] Many Maoris of the colonial period thus saw
the importance of their children becoming fluent in English. See for example the 1876 petition of Wi Te
Hakiro and 336 others that “[T]here should not be a word of Maori allowed to be
spoken in the [native] school”. Much is
made by some today of the corporal punishment of children caught speaking
Maori, ignoring the fact that in those unenlightened days it was applied for
all breaches of school rules.
[xvi] With a B.Sc in mathematics from Melbourne and
six months as a school exchange student in Madrid, she is a bright young woman
though I do wonder how well her Castilian Spanish will go down in darkest South
America. As she lands there in
Cartagena, where in 1585 Thomas Moone, Drake’s favourite captain and a remote
relation, received a mortal wound, I have warned her to be careful!
[xvii] Myself amongst them
[xviii] The country in which, incidentally, my
Father’s brother lies buried.
9 comments:
A fantastic article - Thank you Bruce Moon.
common sense at last.
Well spoken, Bruce Moon. A man of letters, & guts who dares to speak the truth. We Southlanders tend see through the fog and catch sight of the navigation light at the end of the channel. Dog Island, as I remember!
I have long since said that a stone age people, with no no written language is not in a position to correct our spelling of Maori words. Crikey they didn't even have a wheelbarrow, let alone a gig or a dray (or horse). By the way, our supermarket in Picton has so-called Maori names for all the aisle signs.
Thank You Bruce Moon your article was excellent i am going to forward this to a few people who need a heads up of the truth of this te reo farce that is currently
Please can you explain or advise in another article, on this aotearoa rubbish infecting the national lexicon today?
Thanks Bruce
What the hell is Aotearoa???
I have been commenting for many years now that all NZers would be better off if all were to be fluent in Te Reo. Even excellent in both in Te Reo and English. Maybe the learning of Te Reo would improve the standard of English!
The reason for this is that no one would be able to make remarks in Te Reo and get away with it.
Also it would bring into the open the true history of the pakeha relationship with Maori.
And it could only improve relations between 'Maori" and Pakeha - and other nationals as well.
Bring on full immersion of Te Reo for New Zealand.
PS I am a full blooded pakeha.
A very able teacher colleague now spends her time in the state system teaching English to children for whom it is their second language. A large number of pupils are now those who have been subject to total immersion in Te Reo. It is difficult to imagine a more wasteful employment of resources and ability, including that of the children.
A well written and thought out article. Thank you Bruce Moon for a common sense point of view.
Post a Comment