I continue to be intrigued by the recommendation from the National Geographic Board to change the spelling of Wanganui to Whanganui.
What is most intriguing is that the same iwi that changed the pronunciation of its river's name hundreds of years ago wants to spell it just like the rest of the country do.
What a lot of people don't realise is that the same iwi that want the spelling change will continue to insist on calling the city Wanganui. This effectively creates an in-crowd, in that you only have the right to pronounce Whanganui according to historical New Zealand custom if you belong to that local iwi. What will result will be Maori-Pakeha conflict over who has the right to use the historical pronunciation, with local iwi claiming the moral high ground.
It would seem that Michael Laws has every right to label this a racist decision.
That the spelling of place-names doesn't always reflect that name's linguistic heritage is evident in the name of the suburb in which I live, Kelburn. Kelburn was originally spelt with an e on the end, Kelburne, in honour of Viscount Kelburne, the son of a former Governor-General of New Zealand, David Boyle, Lord Glasgow. However the e was soon dropped, to avoid confusion with the suburb of Kilbirnie.
Whatever the reason the spelling of the place name changes, the volume of use that placename has had must surely be a important factor in these sorts of decisions. If a descendant of Lord Glasgow began to lobby for correcting the spelling of Kelburne, we would probably very quickly tell him to chill out.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
have to disagree with you here Alan.
Arguing that in English tradition letters are 'lost' (and gained actually) through an evolution of linguistic recording (ie written script) and therefore in another language (in this case Maori) the same might, can and should happen is irregular logic.
Since Maori has been (rightly) accorded official language status there has been a correction of the misspelling and mispronuniciation of Maori in public life. Surely we can have no argument with that.
How Maori is pronounced is indeed a matter of local dialect and accent - but that should not impact on the correct spelling of the recorded script. So that people from Gore pronounce the 'r' with a hard sound whereas the general populace of NZ don't does not mean we should either spell it with two r's or none. The correct spelling of it stands regardless of how it is pronounced.
The issue is that the 'in crowd' of the past excluded the very people who spoke the language and incorrectly recorded in script the name of the place that was being spoken. The local iwi indeed pronounce the 'h' behind the 'w' (similar to the sound in 'where' rather than the sound in 'were') rather than the 'wh' (as in 'ph') as many of the other iwi.
The consistency of the recorded script of Te Reo is preserved in many other instances of local varience of pronunciation, eg Ngai Tahu themselves most often say Kai Tahu but the spelling remains consistent to make it intelligable as a language.
I find Law's 'racist' accustation hard to take - and thus your repetition of it. As people under Christ, we take covenantal authority with great seriousness. Waitangi founded this nation binding the ancestors of all who signed it, and everyone who has arrived since under the authority of NZ governments. We, like it or not, are bound to one another. Pointing fingers and issues accusations of racism when it suits us is a fools game and leads to destructive racial tensions.
Is it worth discussing? sure it is! But let us not cut the legs off discussion by retreating into rhetoric.
It works both ways though doesn't it?
Some are retreating to calling the people of Wanganui who feel they now have a history and culture to preserve as only motivated by racism for wanting to keep the name the same as what the history books have recorded for the last 150 years.
Arguing that things change and customs evolve from that is logical, contrary to your proposition.
On one hand you point out that the pronunciation "evolved" for this local iwi and we are simply correcting the name back to that point in evolution.
So that iwi has been accorded a right to apply THEIR custom and evolution to their understanding of Maori language, and yet you ignore the ongoing custom and evolution of the name Wanganui over 150 years in the same breath?
Surely, that is a case of accepting one over the other when it suits?
Who knows, maybe the local pronunciation differences occurred from a similar mistake in oral history?
Post a Comment