Martin Buber's Bagel

 Those who know me well know that I have long had a fascination with clusivity, a highly useful grammatical feature. The two types of clusivity are inclusive and exclusive; which only appear in the first person and the non-singular grammatical numbers - or so I thought until recently. The first person inclusive means "I and you (but not other people)," whereas the first person exclusive means "I and someone else (but not you)." Thus, a Hawaiian translation of the title of Martin Buber's theological treatise I and Thou would be Kaua (first person inclusive dual) rather than Maua (first person exclusive dual). The logic of clusivity suggests a rigid limitation to the plural and whatever other non-singular forms a language may contain; clusivity by its nature is "I and X".

Language, however, is not logical; if it were, Zamenhof would not have needed to invent Esperanto. Clusivity distinctions is the standard for Polynesian languages, but formerly I had thought it well-behaved. Samoan is an ergative Polynesian language, a standard-bearer among linguists for its phonological transparency. Samoan has several form for each pronoun, but only a few concern us. The exclusive dual has forms ma and maua, while the inclusive dual has forms ta and taua (these forms are cognate with Hawaiian maua and kaua). The -ua component of taua and maua is related transparently to the common Polynesian word lua "two," so if one wanted to create a singular inclusive, the form ta would be an appropriate choice, but what would it mean? In Samoan, the first person singular inclusive is used when the subject ("I") has an emotional involvement in the verb.

Now let us apply this distinction to Martin Buber and a delicious lox bagel. If someone else saw Buber eating a bagel and heard Buber say "We (inclusive) are eating a bagel," the other person might think that Buber was sharing his bagel with God. If God can do all things, surely he can share lunch with one of his favorite theologian! If, however, Buber was aware that he alone was consuming the bagel, the dual pronoun acquires a different meaning. The bagel would be in the third person ("he/she/it"), and therefore cannot be the "X" of "I and X." The pronoun does not mask a reflexive; Buber is not eating himself! The first person inclusive singular indicates emotional involvement in the verb. Perhaps he was very hungry from thinking profound thoughts prior to devouring the bagel; perhaps this is the best (or worst) bagel he has ever eaten.

This seems bizarre, but there may be hints to its origin in other Austronesian languages such as Malay. When I was examining a basic Malay phrase book, I found an interesting phenomenon; a sentence which I would have translated as "I see you" was rendered as "We (inclusive) see" - kita, which contains -ta. The object of the sentence, in other words, had been incorporated into the subject. The verb "to see," however, is a transitive verb and therefore requires an object that is seen. The other sentence of this type which caught my attention was "We (inclusive) love," which meant "I love you." From this sentence it appears that the inclusive forms indicate emotional content if they accompany a transitive verb. This is odd but comprehensible from an Anglophone perspective. Apparently, the singular use of the inclusive has stripped away the plurality of the concept and left only the emotional core, a Star Sapphire of pronouns.

Post Rojak

It seems apropos that I completed Lesson 23  of the online Malay course before a potluck. The twenty-third section seems a bit late to introduce such an important part of Malay culture, but the vocabulary is rich. At the nadir of my Bahasa Malaysia knowldedge, all I could say was "Saya hendak beli ikan" ("I would like to buy a fish"). The example sentence introduce the words for husband and wife - suami and isteri, respectively. These words look more Indian than Austronesian to my linguistic eye, although no doubt other words for such a basic relationship exist. The word for cheese, keju, is manifestly Portuguese, and the author of the lesson provides a warning against the consumption of pork in the company of Muslims. Rojak, a medley of individual foods, recieves mention, as does its linguistic equivalent, Bahasa Rojak, the bastard child of linguistic crossroads. The insertion of linguistic terminology relates to something further down the page. The list of fruits (buah-buahan) is extensive - many fruits seem to have no parallel name in English. Among these fruits is durian, the delicious and fragrant fruit. Imagine the smell of growing up in an durian orchard! The section on meal names discriminates between dinner (makan malam) and supper (makan lewat malam), something which Americans often fail to do.

For a linguistic desert, my old love clusivity recieves a clear explanation. Kami is inclusive we (I plus you) and kita is exclusive we (I, but not you). The lack of this distinction in the Indo-European languages is rarer than its presence, but I have read somewhere that the two forms of 'we/us' in Proto-Indo-European is relic of clusivity. You might call the forms relic-clusives! In Bahasa Rojak, however, the inclusive form kami is replaced by the specifically Bahasa Rojak form kitorang, from kita orang, 'we people'. If my hunch is correct, this is a reflection of the use of inclusive forms to reinforce ethnocentric bonds, since my Quechua-speaking ordained acquaintance used a similar example to illustrate clusivity in his mother tongue.

Turkey Day Tumpang

I was relaxing from Thanksgiving setup by finishing the current lesson in the online Bahasa Malaysia course - I'd wanted to practice some hieroglyphics, but I'd already put away my notes on where I last ended in Chapter XXXII of the Book of the Dead. The subject of Lesson 21 was 'di mana' ('where?'), and, more generally, locative expressions. The Bahasa Malaysia words for left and right ('kiri' and 'kanan', respectively) must be a nightmare for folks like me, who often confuse left and right! But the most relevant word for the holidays is 'tumpang', which can be used in three ways: 1) in phrases such as "boleh saya tumpang tanya?" "do you mind if I ask you a question?" 2) "to stay at a relative's or friend's place for the night" 3) "to get a lift in a car", possibly from a friend or relative. This polysemy speaks volumes about Malay and Malaysian culture, and serves as a friendly warning about one-to-one translation!

A Persistent Gadfly, or a Linguistic Socrates

I do not know why this bothers me so, but ever since I read about this linguistic feature, the mystery of its origin has haunted me. I understand the rest of the sandhi rules for the Bahasa Melayu verbal prefix meng-, but the rule regarding the voiceless plosives (p, t, c, k) baffles me. I could be content with knowing the rule by which it functions in contemporary language, but anyone familiar with ceaseless linguistic curiosity would find that unlikely. I am probably the only person to regard a German grammar review as appropriate airplane and airport reading when I am not going to Germany nor am I preparing for a graduate oral exam. So I still want to know the origin.

When the verbal prefix meng- is placed before the initial consonant of a BM root, certain changes take place. If the initial consonant is nasal (m, n, ng), the velar nasal of the verbal prefix disappears in favor the nasal initial consonant. This does not surprise me, since assimilation of the -ng- is the path of least resistance, and the marked preference in BM for CV syllables would encourage degemination of the sequence of two nasals. If the initial consonant is a voiced plosive (b, d, g), the velar nasal of the verbal prefix first assimilates to the place of articulation, then bonds with the plosive to form a prenasalized voiced plosive. This process also does not surprise me. If the initial consonant is a voiceless plosive (p, t, k), however, the plosive disappears after the expected assimilation to the place of articulation; this is a behavior I would have thought more apt to the voiced plosives. Since prenasalized voiceless plosives (the expected intermediate step) are permissible within roots such as nampak, perhaps the difference has something to with the morpheme boundary of meng- and the relevant root; but so far I cannot construct the sequence of phonological adjustments.

Berchakap di-kelantan

(I apologize for any errors - feel free to correct me)
Hari satu saya berjalan kapal terbang ka-Kentucky di-negeri USA tempat saya berchakap di-sini bahasa Latin chuma sahaja dengan banyak pengajar dari kampong2. Rupa-nya hari di-sini benar panas. Dudok saya sekalian di-rumah tempat dudok musim sekolah orang murid. Orang perempuan kelantan berchakap benar chantek!

An Attempt At Malay Composition

Saya dudok di-rumah yang besar di-tepi mata ayer yang besar lagi tawar(1) nama-nya Tahoe. Dia di-antara gunong Sierra Nevada. Rumah di-atas kebun senang (2) tempat saya lari ka-sana ka-mana masa saya budak. Dahulu lari, sekarang ta’ senang. Kerja di-negeri nama-nya Tahoe City. Sa-malam keluar dengan bapa ka-pekan ka-kedai tempat beli makan minum (3) beli buah pisang roti sa-keping sa-peti susu. Sudah pulang rumah, simpan.
(1) “lake”- “big freshwater spring” is the closest I could do
(2) “vacation resort”
(3) “grocery store” – ‘pasar’ seemed too broad.

Aphaeresis and (Co-)Efficients

As Mr. Hawkins and the lovely Misses Tew and Ung are aware, I have been attempting to learn some Malay. The initial chapters presented no serious difficulties beyond those which any language book for beginners contain, but two features of the language struck me once I had reached Chapter V. The first, and lesser, of these features is the occasional, and occasionally rather extreme, aphaeresis of words beginning with a schwa or h and a schwa when the previous word ends in a vowel. Elision is the disappearance of a vowel before a following word which begins with a vowel; aphaeresis is the opposite effect. The reduction of hendak to ‘nak and helai to lai after a final vowel is understandable, since the schwa is never the stressed syllable in a two-syllable Malay word, and I presume that the occasional example of (pseudo-)aphaeresis before a final consonant is the result of linguistic analogy. The alternate forms present a minor difficulty to the learners who has not digested the full vocabulary and its linguistic isotopes, but the very preface of my book warns that Malay is not a book language at heart.

If I may digress for a moment to engage in linguistic geekery, the production of ’nak rather than *’ndak from the aphaeresis of hendak should not surprise; the pre-nasalized voiced plosive nd seems to require in Malay an epenthetic schwa in order to be pronounced; thus the elimination of that schwa requires a reduction of the pre-nasalized voiced plosive to either a (voiced) nasal, n, or a voiced plosive, d. Languages, such as Welsh, which face this question, appear to favor the nasal.

The other feature of Malay which struck me was the use of classifiers, which the author of my little blue-and-yellow book chooses to call coefficients. I am familiar with the concept, since Chinese possesses ‘classifiers’ and (Ancient) Middle Egyptian uses a similar system. Chinese places a classifier, which limits the possible meanings of the following monosyllabic or disyllabic word, between the numeral and the head word. Thus, the words for ‘deer’ and ‘road’, which are homonyms, are distinguished in speech by their respective classifiers. Middle Egyptian uses classifiers in the opposite way; since hieroglyphic writing only provides the consonants and omits the semantic content of the vowels, the homonyms are a visual kind (I would greatly appreciate it if anybody could provide me with the appropriate word for this phenomenon) and the scribes distinguished the senses by adding a visible but silent classifier. My experience with these languages aided me in understanding the concept of classifiers or co-efficients in Malay, but this conceptual knowledge is less useful than I would like in the practical application, especially since no dictionary of a language which uses classifiers seems to indicate the appropriate one(s) in their entries. This may be a practice akin to languages which use stress not marking this in their dictionary entries. An additional difficulty which I am experiencing in learning Malay is determining when to use a classifier and when to refrain. I trust that practice will give me a better sense of the presence or absence of this feature, although any practical advice would be received with gratitude.

A Little Malay Composition

Sahaya beli chawan kopi di-kedai Vicki terlebeh dahulu dari pada sahaya masok pejabat sahaya dengan adek laki-laki sahaya. Robb dengan Trisha suka minum kopi-kah?

Ada kapada adek laki-laki sahaya dua ekor anjing. Ada anjing jantun tinggi yang besar. Dia lari ka-sana ka-mari di-antara pokok kayu hutan gunong Sierra Nevada. Ada anak anjing betina yang hitam.

Malay Exercises 8-9

Ex. 8
1. Rendah tembok puteh itu The white wall is low.
2. Meja panjang itu rendah The long table is low.
3. Bilek itu kechil The room is small
4. Rumah ini tinggi The house is high
5. Bakul hijau itu kosong The green basket is empty
6. Manis buah merah itu The red fruit is sweet
7. Panjang-lah tali itu The rope is long
8. Buku hitam itu besar The black book is big.
9. Daun kechil itu hijau The small leaves are green.
10. Kosong mangkok ini The cup is empty.
11. Bakul yang besar lagi elok A large fine basket
12. Bakul besar itu elok The large basket is fine

Ex. 9
1. The tall house is large Besar rumah tinggi itu.
2. Green fruit is sour. Masam buah hijau
3. Small green leaves Daun hijau lagi kechil
4. The black book is small. Buku hitam itu kechil.
5. A large clean courtyard Halaman yang besar lagi berseh
6. The blue flowers are pretty. Bunga biru itu chantek
7. The long string is white. Tali panjang itu puteh.
8. The white cup is small Mangkok puteh itu kechil
9. The houses were small and low. Rumah itu kechil lagi rendah.
10. Small low houses rumah kechil yang rendah
11. A long thin hand Tangan panjang yang lengan
12. This cord is blue. Biru-lah tali ini

Malay Exercises 4-7

Ex. 4
1. Tulang panjang long bones
2. Kerusi tinggi a high chair
3. Mangkok puteh a white bowl
4. Bilek kotor a dirty room
5. Halaman besar a big courtyard
6. Piring berseh a clean platter
7. Sekolah kechil (“kechik“) a small school
8. Hidong panjang a long nose
9. Suara lembut a soft voice
10. Rambut hitam black hair
11. Bibir merah red lips
12. Buah masam sour fruit
13. Bumbong tinggi a high roof
14. Tembok rendah a low wall
15. Daun hijau green leaves
16. Bunga biru a blue flower
17. Gambar elok a beautiful picture
18. Leher panjang a long neck
19. Muka chantek a pretty face
20. Dahi tinggi a high brow
21. Tangan kotor dirty hands
22. Papan hitam a black board
23. Mangkok kechil a small bowl
24. Kuku pendek a short nail
25. Bakul penoh a full basket
26. Kayu hitam black wood
27. Pinggan puteh a full plate - a white plate
28. Janggut panjang a long beard
29. Lantai hijau a green floor
30. Chawan merah a red tea-cup
31. Buku ini this is a book
32. Rumah kosong an empty house
33. Meja ini this table
34. Kulit itu that hide
35. Papan itu that hand - plank

Ex. 5
1. A white plank papan puteh
2. Empty bowls mangkok kosong
3. White hands papan puteh - tangan
4. Clean nails kuku berseh
5. A short cord tali pendek
6. Big baskets bakul besar
7. Hard wood kayu keras
8. A small picture gambar kechil
9. Large leaves daun besar
10. A clean school sekolah berseh
11. Large books buku besar
12. Blue plates pinggan hijau - biru
13. A short beard janggut pendek
14. Green fruit buah hijau
15. Clean floors. lantai berseh
16. High walls tembok tinggi
17. Long roofs bumbong panjang
18. White planks papan puteh
19. A high house rumah tinggi
20. A large rock batu besar
21. Sweet fruit buah manis
22. Pretty flowers bunga chantek
23. A thin arm lengan kurus
24. Low benches bangku rendah
25. Fat cheeks pipi gemok
26. Small rooms bilek kechil
27. Empty baskets bakul penoh - kosong
28. Dirty floors lantai kotor
29. A small mouth mulut kechil
30. A red bowl mangkok merah
31. This face muka ini
32. Those faces muka itu
33. That head kepala itu
34. These tables meja itu
35. Those eyes mata itu
Ex. 6
1. Bangku tinggi high benches
2. Rendah tembok itu That wall is high
3. Kotor-lah bilek ini The room is dirty
4. Sekolah besar a large school, the school is large
5. Rumah kechil a small house, the house is small
6. Berseh rumah itu The house is clean
7. Panjang-lah tali ini The cord is long, this is a long cord
8. Bunga chantek pretty flowers, the flowers are pretty
9. Mulut besar a big mouth, the mouth is big
10. Kotor pinggan itu the plate is dirty
11. Masam buah ini the fruit is sourt
12. Bumbong rendah low roof, the roof is low

Ex. 7
1. White flowers bunga puteh
2. The fruit is sour masam-lah buah itu
3. The roof is high bumbong tinggi
4. Fine houses rumah elok
5. The picture was large besar gambar itu
6. Dirty hands kotor tangan itu
7. The book is blue biru buku itu
8. A clean floor lantai berseh
9. The basket was empty kosong-lah bakul itu
10. A long arm lengan panjang
11. The chair is low rendah-lah bangku-itu
12. Red fruit buah merah