Talk:Te Waipounamu

Untitled

How was the evolution of the Māori name from wāhi to wai documented? Or is it really just an oft-repeated supposition rather than a fact as presented here? Wai pounamu is not illogical anyway as a name, since greenstone is often found in rivers (wai) or streams (wai) Kahuroa 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. But it was also found in a particular area which was a place (wahi). Evison wrote : -- "The most valued of all stones were greenstone, or jade, known collectively as pounamu. Of these, the tough hard nephrite from Awarua on the West Coast was superior to any other material for adzes. For ornaments, the translucent bowenite from Fiordland was much admired. Even more renowned was the pale, mottled 'inanga' nephrite from a remote site in the mountainous Dart Valley. Such was the fame of this particular 'wahi pounamu' (greenstone place) that Te Wahi Pounamu became the Maori name for the South Island, colloquially modified to Te Wai Pounamu." Evison refers to Beck, 1984, which I haven't read. Moriori 07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but every location can be called a wāhi, so that is kind of a circular argument, and every wai must exist in a wāhi. Sounds like it might be that these two versions of the name were in use at the same time. There would be no way in an unwritten language to trace whether wai pounamu derived from wāhi pounamu, it would only be conjecture. But if they were both in use, and the two different versions were written down, then that is a different matter. The answer will come Kahuroa 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "...every wai must exist in a wāhi". But some wahi do not have wai ):-. Beside the point tho. Yes, a definitive position would be admirable, if that is possible. What do you suggest? Moriori 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might trace back to some writer in the 19th century who suggested that it evolved that way - that's the feeling I have in the back of my head, that I have read it somewhere like that in one of those old writers. (I just guess I have a thing about not making concrete what might have only been someone's guess). My feeling is not to worry about it, and the answer will come in the course of other researching/reading. I don't mind which way it turns out - its quite likely it could have evolved just that way, and I am a North Islander after all (with distant connections to Invercargill and Nelson but) and you guys are the experts Kahuroa 10:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard Jim Williams, the Ngāi Tahu specialist in Te Tumu, the Department of Māori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies at Otago University, refer to it as Te Wā'i Pounamu, with a glottal stop in place of the h. He quotes Ray Harlow, a prominent New Zealand linguist, as stating that the southern K dialect of Māori had particular affinities to the dialects of Taranaki (which also has the glottal stop), Northland and the Cook Islands. Koro Neil (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Te Waipounamu

Shouldn't this article be renamed to Te Waipounamu? This spelling is what the NZ Geographic Board has recommended and what the government decided on. See the refs in the article. --Pakaraki (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to South Island

Much of the content can be condensed and merged into South Island. Normally Wikipedia articles discuss alternative and official spellings of nouns in the same article, so it is not clear why there are two articles to describe the same island. As there is already overlap between the two articles, I don't expect much to be added on South Island. +mt 02:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support @Mwtoews:. The names can be merged together into the paragraph. The space is expansive to get the idea through but succinct enough to not hog space. Pyrusca (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Te Waipounamu has been the name of that island for many centuries, so why not merge the Johnny-come-lately South Island article to Te Waipounamu? Moriori (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! As it's been over a month, I'll close this discussion and make a merge. If I've missed anything while merging, please feel free to jump in and make any corrections. +mt 00:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]