On whether 'Doboro' was a fourth Kuliak language

Q2 Arts and Humanities Studies in African Linguistics Pub Date : 2015-04-01 DOI:10.32473/sal.v44i2.107259
Terrill B. Schrock
{"title":"On whether 'Doboro' was a fourth Kuliak language","authors":"Terrill B. Schrock","doi":"10.32473/sal.v44i2.107259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wayland’s (1931) description of a northeastern Ugandan people called the ‘Wanderobo’ includes thirty-eight ‘Dorobo’ words, many of which resemble words in Ik, the last thriving member of the Kuliak (Rub) subgroup. Because of this resemblance, it has been speculated that ‘Dorobo’ might have been a fourth, now extinct Kuliak language (e.g. Heine 1976). Unfortunately, this notion has persisted in the literature up to recent times. This paper examines the information found in Wayland 1931 from several perspectives to argue that ‘Dorobo’ was at most a dialect of Ik, not a separate language. From an anthropological perspective, the ‘Wanderobo’ that Wayland described match in many ways the Ik of today. From a sociolinguistic perspective, the Ik living today in the area visited by Wayland are often mixed with members of other neighboring tribes, such as the Dodoth or Toposa (Eastern Nilotic). Thus it is likely that the Ik were mixed up with them in the 1930s as well. Furthermore, the linguistic data may be unreliable: Wayland was not a linguist, and his transcriptions were adversely affected by having been acquired through interpreters speaking only broken Swahili. These three strands of evidence coincide to render the 1931 document insufficient evidence on which to establish a ‘Dorobo’ language.","PeriodicalId":35170,"journal":{"name":"Studies in African Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in African Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32473/sal.v44i2.107259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Wayland’s (1931) description of a northeastern Ugandan people called the ‘Wanderobo’ includes thirty-eight ‘Dorobo’ words, many of which resemble words in Ik, the last thriving member of the Kuliak (Rub) subgroup. Because of this resemblance, it has been speculated that ‘Dorobo’ might have been a fourth, now extinct Kuliak language (e.g. Heine 1976). Unfortunately, this notion has persisted in the literature up to recent times. This paper examines the information found in Wayland 1931 from several perspectives to argue that ‘Dorobo’ was at most a dialect of Ik, not a separate language. From an anthropological perspective, the ‘Wanderobo’ that Wayland described match in many ways the Ik of today. From a sociolinguistic perspective, the Ik living today in the area visited by Wayland are often mixed with members of other neighboring tribes, such as the Dodoth or Toposa (Eastern Nilotic). Thus it is likely that the Ik were mixed up with them in the 1930s as well. Furthermore, the linguistic data may be unreliable: Wayland was not a linguist, and his transcriptions were adversely affected by having been acquired through interpreters speaking only broken Swahili. These three strands of evidence coincide to render the 1931 document insufficient evidence on which to establish a ‘Dorobo’ language.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于“Doboro”是否是第四种库利亚克语
Wayland(1931)对乌干达东北部一个被称为“Wanderobo”的人的描述包括38个“Dorobo”单词,其中许多类似于Ik中的单词,Ik是Kuliak (Rub)亚群中最后一个繁荣的成员。由于这种相似性,人们推测“Dorobo”可能是第四种现已灭绝的Kuliak语言(例如Heine 1976)。不幸的是,这种观念直到最近还在文献中存在。本文从几个角度考察了在Wayland 1931中发现的信息,认为“Dorobo”最多是Ik的一种方言,而不是一种独立的语言。从人类学的角度来看,韦兰所描述的“流浪者”在许多方面与今天的Ik相吻合。从社会语言学的角度来看,今天生活在韦兰访问过的地区的Ik人经常与其他邻近部落的成员混合在一起,例如dododo或Toposa(东尼罗河)。因此,在20世纪30年代,Ik人很可能也与他们混在一起。此外,语言数据可能是不可靠的:韦兰不是语言学家,他的转录受到不利影响,因为他是通过只说蹩脚的斯瓦希里语的口译员获得的。这三种证据相一致,使得1931年的文件没有足够的证据来建立“多罗波”语言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in African Linguistics
Studies in African Linguistics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
The combinatorial patterns of twá 'to cut' in Asante-Twi (Akan): Against expectations – the rise of adverbs in Swahili phasal polarity Kiswahili-English on Public Signage: A Morpheme- By -Morpheme Approach The V and CV augment and exhaustivity in Kinyakyusa Deverbal nominalization in Runyankore
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1