Talk:Māori language

History

I changed this statement: that Māori arrived "most likely from the Society Islands" since my understanding is that there is no evidence favouring the Society Islands over the Cooks (among other contenders), for instance. Have added a source from Te Ara encyclopedia to that effect (see section The current perspective of the Te Ara article) Kahuroa (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Good to see that my minor (non-expert's) improvement and comment spurred a more substantial improvement. The wiki principle does work! Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Evolution into a written language .

I went to this page hopeing to find some information about the transformation of Maori from a spoken-only language . The history of the evolution/manipulation of Maori into a written language seems to have been relegated to a lowly importance . —Preceding unsigned comment added by SM527RR (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Southern Māori

Grutness, re your edits. Do you have a source for the characteristics of Southern Māori, especially for radical changes like the extra vowel schwa - which isn't an instance of apocope, by the way. Lenition probably more like it. How do we distinguish this from the wholesale substitution of English pronunciation and phonotactics, as in a language death situation? Schwa being extremely common in English, but absent from Māori. Any examples apart from placenames? No mention here of schwa. And the final o in Killmog seems identical to English too? Any vowels not found in English? Kahuroa (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Taken some of this out as unsourced. It would be of great interest to linguists if correct - it totally contradicts the phonology section on vowels and phonotactics. So there should be heaps of sources, you'd think, for a Polynesian dialect with English phonology. Plus re r/l, plenty of North Is evidence for same, eg Tolaga Bay. Kahuroa (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Grutness, and having looked up its own article I dont think apocope is what's happening, but I have read an essay by George Griffith, published as part of his book "Spurious Māori Placenames of Southern New Zealand", which broadly agrees with the content you have removed; particularly the dropping of the final vowel, as per historic pronounciations of place names such as Waimatuku or Wakatipu. I will have to rescue the book from its current borrower some time and do some work on place names (when I have lots and lots of spare time, which isn't likely to happen for a long time, unfortunately). Daveosaurus (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What's is really needed is a decent linguistic source. The "dropping" (so-called) of final vowels is not restricted to the South Island and wasn't what I was particularly worried about, it's the apparent wholesale adoption of English phonotactics etc which looks like an instance of something else entirely. Linguistics is a specialised field and it's strange that in my four years of Polynesian Linguistics at AU they never mentioned this wholesale adoption of English phonotactics. Of the stuff you have put in there's probably nothing that is uniquely southern. So this section is in need of an overhaul. Kahuroa (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've finally retrieved the book in question. The relevant part is chapter 5 ("A Southern perspective"): an eleven page essay on the differences between southern Māori and the "standardised" form of the language, and how the differences were characterised by academic sources throughout the last century and a half; appended to which is eight pages of examples sorted into categories (e.g. "alteration of aspirate", "elision of final vowel", "B for P", etc.) Grutness, let me know if you want to borrow this book and I can drop it off the next time I am in Dunedin (if I remember). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Goodall & Griffiths. Good to see a source but I think this one has problems. Seems like a slim local history written by non-linguists - not what is needed for an article like this. Consonant wise there is nothing described that is unique to southern Maori, but non-linguists wouldn't realise that. It also requires an improbable vowel system, and is full of holes in its uncanny likeness to English. But it's good to see where this has come from. I remember reading descriptions of the dialect done by expert linguists. I will try and hunt them down but it take quite some time I'd say. Kahuroa (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Waitangi Tribunal warning on state of language

• NZ Herald:Tribunal warns te reo Maori near crisis point
• Media statement from the Waitangi Tribunal on the te reo Māori chapter of Wai 262 Kahuroa (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Maori words common in Nz English

See separate section as above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.33.244 (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is covered by another article (first link in the See Also section) Kahuroa (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Repression of Māori language

The repression of the Māori language is a notable topic and should be added to the article. Anecdotes abound about Māori children being discipled in the 1960s (for example) for speaking te reo. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The other side of the coin, which should be mentioned for balance, is that some/many Māori-speaking parents did not speak the language to their children, because of a widespread belief at the time that English was where the job opportunities lay. I think the disciplining and this belief started well before the 1960s. Kahuroa (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the need for balance. I gave the 1960s as an example - I am unsure as to how early it started and how late it stopped. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not trained in linguistics, but have published work of an etymological nature that focuses on this language. The repression thesis may be more measurable and, therefore, easier to gain information on from peer-reviewed secondary sources. Although there is a question about why intergenerational transmission slowed, there is little literature beyond the repression thesis. The failure of the colonists to assimilate linguistically suggests a transmission bias, but I have not found literature to either support or negate this claim. It may be simpler to start with the NPOV which is the supported by published information. -- Te Karere (talk)Katarina_"Ψ" 11:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"No diphthongs" vs "(C)V(V)"

The section on vowels says

As in many other Polynesian languages, there are no true diphthongs in Māori (when two vowels are adjacent, each belongs to a different syllable),

Yet shortly after, the section Syllables says:

Syllables in Māori have one of the following forms: V, VV, CV, CVV.

which states pretty clearly that two adjacent vowels can indeed belong to a single syllable.

Can anyone rectify this so that the two sections are consistent?

I'm assuming the issue is that adjacent vowels in Maori are fully pronounced, rather than reduced to a "glide". Prof Wrong (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

English as an Official/National Language

I have removed the reference to English being an official language. The definition provided for an official language excludes the assignment of the label to English in New Zealand. As provided under the section 21 of the 1867 Native Schools Act 1867, I believe English has been an official language in that "no school [was to] recieve any grant unless it [was] shown ... that the English language and the ordinary subjects of primary English education [were] taught". Further, English is the language of the nation-state in New Zealand and is recognised as an official language by many government departments. However, I am unable to find specific legal recognition beyond 1867. --Te Karere (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And in doing so, you altered the text of the paragraph, while preserving the source link to a press release from the New Zealand government that states that New Zealand has *three* official languages.[1] (quote) How will this Bill affect the status of English and Mâori as New Zealand’s official languages? There are two official languages in New Zealand: English and Mâori. The NZSL Bill will not affect the status of these languages. Mâori Deaf report that official recognition of NZSL will increase the likelihood of their being able to use NZSL at hui, marae events, and tangi, and therefore increase their access to Mâori language and culture, including whakapapa. (unquote) That is an official source stating that English is an official language, yet the sentence - as you left it - only mentions Maori and sign language, so that is misleading to readers. Can you cite an official statement from the New Zealand government that states that English is not an official language? Otherwise, this is merely a personal evaluation, but Wikipedia is not intended for individual observations and considerations (WP:OR), the purpose of Wikipedia is to transmit verifiable information. So basically, you have a press statement from the New Zealand government stating that New Zealand has three official languages. Unless verifiable authoritative sources can be presented to the contrary, then English belongs on the list as well, as indicated in the source cited. 89.150.160.26 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that your argument is with Wikipedia's current definition of official language. I do not doubt that English has been an official language of New Zealand per the definition provided for an official language in Wikipedia (that is, "a language that is given a special legal status in a country, state, or other jurisdiction"). As I have indicated, English received legal recognition in 1867, however this Act was repealed in 1891. You may be able to source evidence that English currently has a "special legal status" similar to that provided to the Māori and New Zealand Sign languages. I would agree that the source you offer is 'official' in that it is a media statement made by a government representative. However, media statements in New Zealand, such as those released through beehive.govt.nz, do not constitute law and are, therefore, not evidence of a "special legal status". I am not making an individual observation and consideration as you suggest. Instead, I seek evidence that supports the claim that English has a "special legal status" in New Zealand. I await your response.--Te Karere (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Leading with linguistic perspective

Why does this page lead with a linguistic perspective of the language? The New Zealand English page does not have an infobox, let alone a language family section. The closet approximation is one sentence identifying other forms of English that have been influential. Although I believe the linguistic perspective should be retained, I do not believe that linguistics operates more neutrally than any other discipline. I welcome comments.--Te Karere (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand English is about the national variant of the English language, and so is not comparable to this article. The English language page is directly comparable, and uses the same infobox. It also explains in the first sentence which language family it belongs to.-gadfium 20:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. How about the neutrality issue? When discussing languages, a positivist approach to linguistics is present across Wikipedia. Although it is an important position, it is not a neutral one. Using positivism's strengths, linguistics has the capacity to represent language as an atemporal, delocated object of study, however, it is not necessary for linguists to do so in order to work in the field. Unfortunately, this solitary linguistic methodology seems to have been adopted uncritically by many editors.
When discussing the English language, Italian, French, Spanish, German, and English Wikipedia all present language familiy information in an infobox. They also share pretty much the same opening statement leading with a linguistic perspective. Polish Wikipedia presents the language family in an infobox, but has a different opening statement.
When discussing the Māori language, the different Wikipedia present language familiy information in an infobox, however, they all have different opening statements. The Italian and French approach seems most like the English version. The Spanish version has a single sentence introduction. The opening paragraph of the German Māori language page has a more statistical flavour. The Polish version does not seem to mention any linguistic aspects at all in the opening paragraph. There may be other Wikipedia which use a more critical (or at least less positivist) linguistic approach, but I am limited by my inability to read multiple scripts. --Te Karere (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)