Reading a document in Poula is tough. Unlike reading an English text, a Poula text compels a reader to re-read the lines several times in order to understand it. There are two crucial reasons for this. First, tones are not marked on graphemes. Inconsistent use of graphemes for a few consonants and vowels is the second reason. In this article I provide a few constructive criticisms--anticipating the views will be useful.
Materials in Poula (including the Poula Bible) differ due to amateurish koineization (mixing of dialects), which could confuse a new learner even more. The first orthography of Poula was devised by the Bible Society of India (BSI) using the Latin script. In fact, the first translation project of Poula Bible was initiated in 1982 by the Bible Society of India. In the project, the BSI worked closely with the PNBA committee (Poumai Naga Baptist Association, an association founded in 1978). In 1992 the New Testament in Poula was published, where Rev. R. Tennyson was the kingpin who worked closely with BSI. Subsequently, the Old Testament was published in 2009, where Mr. D. Elias Poukai collaborated with the BSI. The outputs of the translation project are a huge achievement for the community, though the outputs still need improvements. The Poula Bible seems to exhibit two varieties--if you compare the New Testament with the Old Testament. Recently, the Poumai Literature society (initially known as Poumai Literature Committee), under the leadership of Miss P.S. Khoru, attempted to update the Poula orthography. However, not much improvement is seen. They failed to adopt one crucial rule: a grapheme must represent only one phoneme in every context. Another notable success was the recognition of Poula as one of the first language subjects for the Board of Secondary Education Manipur in 2013. Without delay, the Poumai Literature society took the task to develop Poula textbooks with little resources. After five years of research and writing, the Poumai Literature society submitted the final draft of the textbooks in the late 2018 to the Board of Secondary Education Manipur for approval. Subsequently, the government of Manipur approved the textbooks for class IX and X to start teaching from 2019 academic session. On the 18th February 2019, the Poumai Literature society published four textbooks for class IX and X. This is a huge accomplishment for the community. The community needs to appreciate this achievement. I urge the community to reward the team for their selfless effort. Poula writing system still needs standardisation. Not specifying the tone on every vowel grapheme is a crucial problem (a grapheme is the smallest unit of a writing system of a language). In addition, there are inconsistent use of vowel and consonant graphemes for the corresponding phoneme (a phoneme is a perceptually distinct unit of sound in a language that distinguish one word from another). For appropriateness, I illustrate only a few irregularities here. Poula experts use the grapheme ‘ü’ or ‘ii’ for the phoneme /ə/ . However, there is inconsistency in the use of the grapheme ‘ü’ for the phoneme /ə/. For example take the page 3, section 2 (a) of the book “Poula Sourevah Zhatao-I” (class IX textbook), the word “Tsükhaisüo nou’’. Phonetically, the word “Tsükhaisüo nou’’ is pronounced as [tsəkʰaisəo nəu]. This example shows that the grapheme ‘ü’ [ə] could represent the phoneme /o/, see the word “nou’’ [nəu]. Similarly, the phoneme /ə/ presents the grapheme “e” in the word “pei” [pəi] ‘head’; however, the grapheme “e” represents the phoneme /e/ in a word like “ne” [ne] ‘you’. The grapheme “ss” in words like “ssühai” and “ssüvei” on page 9 (second paragraph last line) of the book “Poula Sourevah Zhatao-I” (class IX textbook) is an odd representation when compared with other environments. Such inconsistencies must be avoided in a standardised orthography. In addition, the use of double vowels (such as ‘aa’ and ‘ee’) for words like “sheeju” pronounced as [ɕiʑy] ‘clean’ (in the word “Sheeyu Baibel”, see online Poula Bible’s website); probably this use is to mark a tone. However, the use of double vowel letters is not at all consistent, and is not followed for all the vowel letters. Sequences like “ii”, “oo” and “uu’’ are not used in the current orthography--though every syllable in Poula carries a specific tone. It appears that the grapheme “h” is used at coda positions occasionally to represent a tone. Probably, this idea is taken from a language like Tangkhul (or Kuki-Chin languages) where tones are restricted in nature. In restricted tone languages, using a grapheme like “h” is useful because in most cases the specific tone is understood from the context. Poula is different. Like Angami (and Mandarin chinese), Poula demonstrates an unrestricted tone system with five lexical tones. For this, every syllable must be marked with one of the five tones for readers. Even in the latest publications, tone marking, diphthongs representation and consonants representation are not consistent. To develop an orthography of a language, the phonology of the language must be first understood (sound rule of the language). In a language like Poula, a grapheme must represent only one phoneme in every context. The Latin script is a writing system used to write many modern-day languages. In the use of this script, new graphemes are added or omitted. For instance, the “w” consonant (a voiced labial-velar approximant /w/) did not exist in Latin. English also adopted the Latin alphabet (like Poula orthography). So there was no grapheme for the /w/ sound in Old English. The scribes used the symbol ‘uu’ to represent the /w/ sound and latter the ‘uu’ symbol was written a ‘‘w’’ (double ‘u’). The alternation is solely based on the phonology of the language. Importantly, the rules of using the Latin graphemes are never identical for all languages--though they use the same script. Latin script is just a script (say like the Meitei mayek). To use Latin script for a language like Poula, the script needs additional fonts, particularly for tones. In meetings, Poula experts naively use ‘English orthography’ as a point of reference to resolve debates over spelling variations (or pronunciation). This method will only result more inconsistency in the system. Because, Poula and English are two extremely different languages: English is an Indo-European language and Poula is a Trans-Himalayan language (aka Tibeto-Burman). The rules of using graphemes in Poula must be based on the phonology (sound rules in the language) of Poula. There are two possible solutions to make reading Poula text easy. In both the possible solutions, the orthography must be invented using the phonemic inventory of Poula (Phonology)--where a grapheme must represent only one phoneme in every context. First, we can still use the Latin script to standardised the Poula orthography. However, the prescriptive grammarians will need to use additional fonts to mark the tones. Diacritics may be used for tone marking. Most importantly, the invention of the orthography should not be based on how the Latin scripts are used in English orthography. Using of Latin scripts could be more user friendly if the orthography is standardised. Second, we can develop a new script for Poula--which can be done easily. There are pros and cons for this solution. Learning to read Poula in new graphemes could be hard initially for adults--although it could be introduced at school conveniently. Eventually, the old literature in Poula will need to be converted into the new orthography, which could be costly. A benefit for having a script of its own is, the script will become one of the prime identities of the tribe. The script of a language plays a vital role in social identity. Whichever script we choose, Poula could still gain scholarship even at Indian universities in due course of time--if a standardised writing system is implemented. This is because we have a huge number of speakers. For this, of course, the speakers need to write and produce enough literature in Poula--not in English. The standardised writing system should be able to write any word of the dialects spoken in Poumai Naga villages--including Oinam (Ngimai), Ngamju and Khongdei (dumai). Lack of promotion and lack of standardised orthography have led to regular errors about Poumai Naga in print media---including even the tribe’s name ‘Poumai Naga’. Sadly, native village names are still not recognised by the government, but the official names of Poumai Naga villages (eg. Koide ‘Naadumai or Naamai’, Phuba ‘Khyoubuh or Phyamai’ and Purul ‘hiimai’) are labelled in non-native terms; most likely these names were given using manipuri language as Poula had no orthography. In addition, using an unstandardised orthography restricts keen individuals who want to pen the rich oral traditions in Poula. Hence, there is no progress in Poula literature. It will be a waste of resources to publish a significant Poula literature--before a standardised writing system is invented. Who will want to read an unintelligible book? Dr. Sahiinii L Veikho (Published on Herald Today on the 17th December 2019) |
ViewsArchives
May 2021
Categories
All
|