and language respectively]. Natives do not particularly
like themselves to be called ‘Maos’ and their
language to be called ‘Maos’. As a result, imela
[la meaning ‘language’ and ime
meaning ‘Memeo] for the language and imemüi
for the tribe [müi meaning ‘man; person;
people’] are gaining currency, although the prospects
of either of them totally replacing the word Mao
seem rather bleak. |
Mao
is a Naga language of the Tibeto-Burman family.
It is closely related to Angami, as many features
of phonology [both have bilabial affricates, have
identical tactics in consonant clusters etc.]
and syntax [number not an obligatory grammatical
category, reflexive pronouns take an auxiliary
pronoun before taking case markers etc.] attest.
Since it also displays some linguistic features
of the Kuki languages, it can be classed "with
equal propriety", says Grierson [1903,3,2
:451], "as belonging to the Western subgroup
[where Angami belongs - my addition] of the Naga
group as to the Naga-Kuki group". Going a
step further, one could say that Mao Naga belongs
more in the Naga group of Tibeto-Burman languages
than in the Kuki group : For instance, Mao Naga
is not a pronominalized language unlike Kuki languages
which are typically truly pronominalized languages
[eg. Paite, Hmar]
|
|
1.2.1
|
Mao came to be a written
language in the early part of this century, in the late 20’s -
it’s written in the Roman script. The bible was translated into
Mao by the Christian missionaries in 1927. Mao is still a
relatively obscure language. Not much work has been done either
on the language or in it. The brief and sketchy parts on Mao in Grierson [1903]; Marrison [1967], Daiho [1964], Onia [1978],
M.Ahiho [1964] and N.Saleo’s not too weighty contributions [Saleo
1983] and Saleo [1985]] constitute about all that has been done
on the language. N.Ashuli and K.Ashuli have contributed to the
literature on Maos as a people, the booklet by the former being
awarded a prize by the Manipur State Kala Academy. Grierson
[ibid:452] tells us Major McCulloch [1859] and G.H. Damant
[1860] present short accounts of the tribe in longer articles. |
Most of the writing on the structure of the
language is typically unscientific and unsystematic. Daiho
[1964] is an illustration in point, a brief illustrative
critique of which follows :
|
1]
|
 ii is
translated as ‘the’, which is incorrect [lesson 2 p.2]. Lesson 2
is supposed to exemplify the use of
ii
but nowhere in the lesson does it occur; only -i
does. ii translated into
English would mean a ‘that which is visible and islocated between the speaker
and the listener’ or b. ‘that which is not visible but which
both the interlocutors have atleast seen and typically know
further about’. |
2]
|
Lesson 3 says ai, ane mean ‘I’
neno is ‘you’ etc. It is clearly necessary
to state the conditions when ai, not
ano, and ano, not ai,
occur. It is NOT natural for a Mao to say ano
soe "I am", neno soe "you
are" etc, as the lesson has one believe.
|
3]
|
The tendency
to fit Mao into the English grammatical mould
is seen in sentences such as lena imai
kale ‘he is a man’; Lena nitomai
kahe ‘she is a girl’ etc. It is natural Mao
to say lona imüi-ko-e ‘he is a man’ etc.
lena omüi kalie is in contrast with lona
omüi kalie kaxi moe ‘he is one man, not
two’ spoken, for instance, to a learning child
or to a blind person.
|
4]
|
ayi and niyi the Shongshong equivalents of
the Punanamai azhü and nizhü do not mean ‘my’ and ‘your’ but
‘mine’ and ‘yours’ respectively [lesson 5, p.4].
|
5]
|
kosüna
‘third’, pongona ‘fifth’ etc. [lesson
12, p. 1] are not appropriate forms. The corresponding
appropriate forms are kosü kocuna ‘third’
and pongo kocuna ‘fifth’.
|
6]
|
As stated
in the grammar [see 3.3.3], the inclusive plurality
marker khru is unilaterally dependent on individuators.
That is, khru can occur ONLY when it
is followed by either -hi or -i
or -sü [or the, agentive suffix -müi]
|
|
|
|
{hi} |
|
| oműi
khru- |
{sű
} |
‘the men’ |
|
{ i}
|
|
|
| |
{hi} |
|
| osi-khru- |
{i} |
‘the dogs’ |
| |
{sű} |
|
|
But, surprisingly, Daiho has forms like omaikhro
‘men’ osikhro ‘dogs’ etc., which are
unarguably ungrammatical [lesson 13 p.10]. |
7]
|
That the author lacks a [technical] sense of grammar is
evident in lesson 15 [p.12] which has the following sentences
[with his translation] :
|
|
|
|
