Root of 3

After writing about the joy of language, I thought I would take some time and examine different languages. So beginning at the front of the English alphabet, I chose Arabic. I know there are other "A" languages, but I find this language intriguing.

General Arabic Grammar

Nouns in Literary Arabic have three grammatical cases (nominative, accusative, and genitive [also used when the noun is governed by a preposition]); three numbers (singular, dual and plural); two genders (masculine and feminine); and three "states" (indefinite, definite, and construct). The cases of singular nouns (other than those that end in long ā) are indicated by suffixed short vowels (/-u/ for nominative, /-a/ for accusative, /-i/ for genitive). The feminine singular is often marked by /-at/, which is reduced to /-ah/ or /-a/ before a pause. Plural is indicated either through endings (the sound plural) or internal modification (the broken plural). Definite nouns include all proper nouns, all nouns in "construct state" and all nouns which are prefixed by the definite article /al-/. Indefinite singular nouns (other than those that end in long ā) add a final /-n/ to the case-marking vowels, giving /-un/, /-an/ or /-in/ (which is also referred to as nunation or tanwīn).

Verbs in Literary Arabic are marked for person (first, second, or third), gender, and number. They are conjugated in two major paradigms (termed perfective and imperfective, or past and non-past); two voices (active and passive); and five moods in the imperfective (indicative, imperative, subjunctive, jussive and energetic). There are also two participles (active and passive) and a verbal noun, but no infinitive. As indicated by the differing terms for the two tense systems, there is some disagreement over whether the distinction between the two systems should be most accurately characterized as tense, aspect or a combination of the two. The perfective aspect is constructed using fused suffixes that combine person, number and gender in a single morpheme, while the imperfective aspect is constructed using a combination of prefixes (primarily encoding person) and suffixes (primarily encoding gender and number). The moods other than imperative are primarily marked by suffixes (/u/ for indicative, /a/ for subjunctive, no ending for jussive, /an/ for energetic). The imperative has the endings of the jussive but lacks any prefixes. The passive is marked through internal vowel changes. Plural forms for the verb are only used when the subject is not mentioned, or is preceding it, and the feminine singular is used for all non-human plurals.

Adjectives in Literary Arabic are marked for case, number, gender and state, as for nouns. However, the plural of all non-human nouns is always combined with a singular feminine adjective, which takes the /-ah/ or /-at/ suffix.

Pronouns in Literary Arabic are marked for person, number and gender. There are two varieties, independent pronouns and enclitics. Enclitic pronouns are attached to the end of a verb, noun or preposition and indicate verbal and prepositional objects or possession of nouns. The first-person singular pronoun has a different enclitic form used for verbs (/-ni/) and for nouns or prepositions (/-ī/ after consonants, /-ya/ after vowels).

Nouns, verbs, pronouns and adjectives agree with each other in all respects. However, non-human plural nouns are grammatically considered to be feminine singular. Furthermore, a verb in a verb-initial sentence is marked as singular regardless of its semantic number when the subject of the verb is explicitly mentioned as a noun. Numerals between three and ten show "chiasmic" agreement, in that grammatically masculine numerals have feminine marking and vice-versa.
(source: Arabic Language Grammar)

Focusing in on the Nitty Gritty aka Triliterals

The roots of Arabic are similar to other Semitic languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. The roots are characterized by a sequence of consonants or "radicals" (hence also the term consonantal root). Such abstract consonantal roots are used in the derivation of actual words by adding the vowels and non-root consonants (or "transfixes") which go with a particular morphological category around the root consonants, in an appropriate way, generally following specific patterns. It is a peculiarity of Semitic linguistics that a large majority of these consonantal roots are triliterals (although there are number of quadriliterals, and in some languages also biliterals). (source: Wikipedia)

The majority of Arabic words are based on 3 consonants. In addition, words are composed of three elements: prefix, stem and suffix. Red below indicates the root consonents and green indicates a prefix and/or suffix used to determine a particular morphology.

For example: K-T-B (to write): k-t-b conveys the idea of writing. Addition of other letters before, between and after the root letters produces many associated words: not only "write" but also "book", "office", "library", and "author".

KaTaBa كتب	"He wrote"
KaTaBnā كتبن	"We wrote"   na = first plural perfect "we".
ya K Tu Bu يكتب	"He writes, will write"  ya = third masculine singular  u = imperfect.
na K Tu Bu نكتب	"We write, will write"  na = first plural u = imperfect.
Kā Ti B كاتب	"Writer"  a = masculine singular active participle.
'a K Ta Ba أكتب	"He dictated"   'a = third masculine singular perfect
ista K Ta Ba استكتب	"He asked (someone) to write (something), had a copy made"  ista = third masculine singular perfect.
ma K Ta B مكتب	"Office"

More Notes on Arabic Grammar
The normal word order of a sentence is verb/subject/object. The function of nouns in a sentence can also be distinguished by case-endings (marks above the last letter of a word) but these are usually found only in the Qur'an or school textbooks.

Feminine nouns add the suffix …aat to form the plural but masculine nouns generally have a "broken" plural which involves changing vowels in the middle of the word: kitaab ("book"); kutub ("books").

Arabic has very few irregular verbs and does not use "is" or "are" at all in the present tense: "the king good" means "the king is good". Subtle alterations in the basic meaning of a verb are made by adding to the root. These changes follow regular rules, giving ten possible "verb forms" (though in practice only three or four exist for most verbs. The root k-s-r produces:

form I kasara, "he broke"

form II kassara, "he smashed to bits"

form VII inkasara, "it was broken up"
(source:Arabic)

Basically, for Arabic language learning, knowing the root helps to facilitate learning the vocabulary. If you know the roots, you should be able to derive meanings based on the placement of prefixes/suffixes. 

Want more roots? Check out this site. It lists a whole bunch of roots.

ما سلام

Lingua Franca

I am passionate about languages. Languages are the window to the culture of the people who speak them. You can learn a lot about the soul of the nation through their language.

It was the grandfather of Charles Berlitz, Maximilian who developed the way we learn languages today. The “Direct Method” of learning uses the target language as the medium without using the student’s own language. Charles later developed the audio-lingual method for learning through listening and speaking.

The method presents a piece of text consisting of vocabulary and grammatical structures in a ever-developing manner. Following the text is a list of vocabulary and grammatical instructions based on the text. There are also exercises designed to let the learner be intimately acquainted with the text.

Western language learners are familiar with wrestling with gender-based nouns related to vocabulary. However, this is not a universal convention of language. Cree language uses animate and inanimate instead.


Cree is also known as Cree-Montagnais or Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi. It is related to the Algonquian language and is spoken by approximately 117,000 people across Canada.

In Cree, instead of gender the referee is to the possessing, or, not possessing, life. Nouns are Animate or Inanimate. Some objects not having life are treated as Animate and the verb form for the animate is used.

Source: A Cree Grammar
For example:

A word or group of words used as the name of a class of people, places, or things, or of a particular person, place, or thing.

Nouns in Cree are categorised into two categories, animate (na) and inanimate nouns (ni). Animate nouns include people, animals, most plants/trees and other items.
Animate nouns (na) are nouns that fall under the gender of animacy.
Man = napéw
Woman = iskwéw
A saulteaux person = nakawihiniw
Duck = sísíp
Dog = atim
Moose = moswa
Blueberry bush = sípíhkominátik
Poplar tree = mitos
Labrador tea bush = maskíkopakwáhtik

Stone/rock = asiniy
Pipe = ospwakan
Sock = askikan
There are certain items that will be in the animate category while other items of the same, fall in the inanimate category. Consider the following examples:
Some berries that are inanimate while other berries are animate:
Saskatoon berry = misáskwatómin (ni)
Goose berry = sápómin (ni)
Apple = caspimin/wásaskwécós (ni)
Strawberry = otihimin (ni)
Raspberry [s] = ayoskan [ak] (na)
Grape [s] = sóminis [ak] (na)

Source: Our Language ~ Plains Cree

Why? Why the change? Why the discrepancies?

(This article is written in regards to Ojibwe, but the rulings are also transposable to Cree)

“In an analysis of Cheyenne animate terms, a language related to Anishinaabemowin, Strauss and Brightman 1982 claimed that objects within the Algonquian worldview that are considered to have "power" are grammatically animate. Things have power by virtue of either being alive or being viewed as especially "sacred things." Yet there are many objects that Ojibwe people treat as animate, such as snowshoes and pants, which do not seem exceptionally sacred in their cultural evaluation.

The anthropologist Regna Darnell has claimed too that "power" is the primary reason for including items in the animate class of nouns in Cree, though the reason that something has power can be associative. Darnell claims that hides of animals are animate because in some way the hide retains the power of the animal, but meat and bones don't. Darnell claims that pants are animate because anything associated with procreation will be animate, and because pants have close contact with reproductive organs. In the Cree that Darnell was studying many body organs associated with procreation are animate, though most body parts are inanimate.” Source: Nouns – Gender (Animacy)

But the rules are not hard and fast. There has to be subtleties lost on the non-Native speaker of Cree. When you crawl into the language and start to feel your way around, perhaps you will have the opportunity to see that cultural artifact that defines the differences.

kîhtwâm ka-wâpamitin

The Kingdom of Saudi Alberta

First make sure you read the title correctly. I wrote Alberta not Arabia.

While traveling awhile ago I heard the phrase Saudi Alberta for the first time. I found it amusing. But then that ole anthropologist in me started mulling it over and considering why the title would work.

Here for the first time anywhere (I'm sure), is how the two Kingdoms are similar.

1. Conservative religious government.
2. Othering those not originally from there. (looking at people as foreign to one's own culture).
3. Anxiety about people "stealing" the wealth.
4. Large families.
5. Oil wealth and then some.
6. Sense of entitlement.
7. Taking care of neighbours in a monetary way. (Although would you have ever believed we would be supporting Ontario?).
8. Sexual repression. (There's the story of a guy who had a sex change and had to leave the oil field business for his/her own safety. Then there's that whole gay rights thing that keeps popping up.

I'm sure there's more. And I'm sure there's a whole schwack of reasons why we're different. (Snow, not being the least of them). But there you have it. It is a bit tongue-in-cheek and may be an abuse of anthropology, but its worth the time and effort.

Tschüss!

Marginalization

We live in a society that actively tries to remove individuals and groups from the margins. Yet, there are still people who are marginalized. More specifically, there are people who choose to be marginalized.

In my research, I've come across these people, and have puzzled over why they would opt for such a choice. But it is interesting -- in watching a car wreck sort of way.

Professor Emiritus John W. Berry proposed an attitudinal model for immigrants, and others, that asks two questions. The answers to the questions set the respondent in one of four quarters that represented their attitude to their new society.

Called the AIMS Model, an acronym from the responses determined by the answers, it is described as:

Question 1: Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and characteristics?

Question 2: Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with
other groups?

If the answer to the first question is “no” and “yes” to the second, then the outcome is assimilation. This is the relinquishing of one’s own cultural identity and allowing themselves to be absorbed into the greater society. This is the basis of the “melting pot” point of view.



When the first question is answered “yes”, and the second question is answered “yes”, the possibility of integration exists. Integration occurs when the person agrees to accept their own culture and that of the host society.



The answer of “no” to both questions means marginalization. The abandoning of one’s own culture and the denial of the greater society’s culture places the individual or group on the margins in an extremely stressful, alienating situation. However, as has been argued by Kuo and Tsai (1986), with a strong social-network, it is possible to exist on the margins. When the greater society chooses this for the individual it is tantamount to ethnocide (Berry, 1989).


If the answer is “yes” to the first question, but “no” to the second one, then separation or segregation occurs. “Depending upon whether the dominant or nondominant group controls the situation, this option may take the form of either segregation or separation. When the dominant group imposes the pattern, classic segregation to keep people “in their place” appears. On the other hand, when a group has the power and desire to lead an existence outside full participation in the large society, the separatist option occurs”.

My concern here is the definition of marginalization and more succinctly, those who choose to marginalize themselves.

The question is "Why?". Why do people exclude themselves from meaningful participation in society?

I have researched a particular group of people who have chosen marginalization over any other form of intercourse with the rest of society. Sadly, I find their social organization very cult-like, which would explain their marginalization. They exist in pockets all around the world and are connected primarily through the Internet, and particular centres where they gather for social and cultural meetings. This is a very strong network and very supportive. As Kuo and Tsai mention above, it is this connectivity that helps them to remain strong.(I'm not going to identify this group.)

What I know about these people are that they are taught to reach out to the general population but are actually very awkward at it. They tend to alienate people through their interactions. On one hand they are proclaimed to be the best public face of people, yet on the other hand their need to be separate / distinct from everyone else creates a discomfited environment. They want to connect to the world on their terms, but lack the ability to empathize with those they engage.

Marginalization causes a number of psychological, social, cultural and other issues. While we have been learning as a society to not marginalize groups, i.e. Blacks, Jews, Women, Disabled, we have to learn why there are people who choose to marginalize themselves. There's that question again, "Why?".

Here are some of my considerations:

1. There is a sense of empowerment amongst individuals who desire to rise up out of the mire of humanity. Marginalists have a sense of empowerment that by cutting themselves off from the rest of humanity they can focus on becoming its best example.

2. Preservation of an ideal/idea.This is similar to reason one. There is a central or core idea(l) that needs to be safeguarded. By isolating themselves, they can avoid polluting this idea(l).

3. Ongoing learning/developing within a world view. Again, this is the preservation of a way of learning or developing while avoiding outside interference.

4. Fear. Basic fear of the unknown or poorly understood.

5. Cult. It's the beginning of or continuation of a cult. Cults in the Western worldview are examined from a Judeo-Christian point of view. In an attempt to not "marginalized" non-Judeo-Christian religious devotees, even their cults are accepted. This practice needs to be rëxamined.

6. Social immaturity. Members of a society that allows dissent and expression, underestimate that right/freedom. They don't know how to use the society around them to explain their world view. Within their own society they do not know how to get their point across too.

7. Misguided sense of superiority/empowerment. Individually and collectively people feel that they are superior to the rest of society and free from any social code that would restrain them. They believe that they are the higher evolved members of their own society and therefore cannot connect emotionally, physically or spiritually to its members.

Anyway, mull these over. Do you have anything to add? I'd be happy to hear it.

au revoir.
______________________
References:

Berry, J.W., U. Kim, S. Power, M. Young and M. Bujaki, 1989. “Acculturation
attitudes in plural societies” in Applied Psychology and International
Review. Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 185-206.

Kuo, Wen H. and Yung-Mei Tsai. 1986. “Social Networking, Hardiness and
Immigrant’s Mental Health” in Journal of health and Social Behaviour.
Vol.27, No. 2 (Jun. 1986), 133-149.

Mmmm. So much for being a regular writer...

Who'd a thunk it would be so difficult to post a blog regularly? mmm. Well, my apolgies and I'm off to look up another topic.

Another Critique of Anthropology

I've just finished reading The Humbled Anthropologist: Tales from the Pacificedited by Philip R. DeVita. The nineteenth chapter is titled: "An Anthropologist as Travel Writer' by Robert Tonkinson. He said something near the beginning of his essay about the realities of Anthropology that made me think of a dilemma in the anthropological world at the beginning of the Iraq/Afghanistan war.

He wrote:

"... anthropologists, the askers of a million questions, have been condemned in some countries as being CIA agents. (Who else would be so nosy?) In others, the close identification of anthropology with the colonial period has rendered its practitioners suspect. And in some cased, the mistaken belief that we study only "primitive" peoples leads to rejection, in favor of those who designate their work "sociological". (p.159)

On war,

"Globalization has long since replaced wars of liberation. Long gone is any moral clarity that earlier anthropologists might have had, or thought they had, to guide them through their ethical dilemmas. There was even a time when anthropologists could volunteer to participate in a “just” war rather than refusing to sanction an “unjust” one. That luxury, most likely, no longer exists in practice." The whole article is here.

The American Anthropological Association (AAA) cites that it is up to the individual Anthropologists to decide what is ethical for themselves. Their last amendment to their Code of Ethics recognized this: "1998:
AAA members adopted a new Code of Ethics drafted by the Commission to Review the AAA Statements on Ethics, chaired by James Peacock. This code states, “because anthropologists can find themselves in complex situations and subject to more than one code of ethics, the AAA Code of Ethics provides a framework, not an ironclad formula, for making decisions.”"

The discussion came about because of PRISP (Pat Robert's Intelligence Scholars Program). It's described here

Inside Higher Education.com has been following the stories from the AAA. On November 29, 2007 they wrote: "A special panel of the American Anthropological Association — after spending more than a year studying the question of whether its ethical standards should bar ties to the military and intelligence agencies — issued a report Wednesday that recommended tighter scrutiny of such work, but explicitly affirmed the possibility that it could be conducted ethically in some cases.

“We do not oppose anthropologists engaging with the military, intelligence, defense of other institutions or organizations,” the report says. “Neither, however, do we advocate that anthropologists actively seek employment or funding from national security programs. We see circumstances in which engagement can be preferable to detachment or opposition, but we recognize that certain kinds of engagement would violate the AAA Code of Ethics and thus must be called to the community’s collective attention, critiqued and repudiated.”
source: http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2007/11/29/anthro

The next day there was a follow-up article discussing the ethics of anthropologists involved in military and intelligence projects.

In December of 2007, Time magazine published an article about the recruitment of Anthropologists and other social scientists for their Human Terrain project in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So where do I stand? I agree that some good could come from working with the military and intelligence agencies. And as you raise/arch your eyebrow at me let me tell you that a good anthropologist can do a hell of a lot better than those trouble-making, culture wrecking missionaries!

The Land of Naked People

I just finished reading the book The Land of Naked People by Madhusree Mukerjee. The book describes her research into the Andaman Islanders. They are described as the last Stone Age people.

Wikipedia article on the Andaman Islands

While reading her account and the historical pieces she's added, I couldn't believe that the colonial practices of the past were alive and well today. The book was published in 2003 and at the time of her visit to the islands, 1997, the same practices of forced relocation, introduction of intoxicants and alcohol, settlements of foreigners, rape of the forests and livelihood of the islanders, racist mockery, forced conversions, etc. were still being practiced. The people were decimated by the colonial administration who didn't really care about the welfare of their charges as much as they did their jobs.

She returned in 2003 just before publishing her book to follow up and try to get to the last island, the Sentinel Island. She saw the people left alone and unmolested. She couldn't get to the island because some of the Tribesmen scared her boat off with nocked arrows. She was happy that they had still remained as they were.

The most isolated community in the world is the Sentinelese which inhabits North Sentinel Island. The first ever friendly contact was made shortly in 1991 and only very few contacts have been made ever since. Accidentally drifted fishermen from other islands in the Andamans have been killed in recent years and a helicopter was send to investigate after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which also struck the Andamans - the helicopter was attacked by naked tribal warriors with bows and arrows and left the island before landing – fortunately this event proved that this magnificent culture survived the tsunami. The Sentinelese tribal people, which has been called the last Stone Age tribe in the world, live in temporary huts and both men and women are naked. They lack the skills to make fire and a word to describe a number greater than two. The estimated population is only 100.


A Sentinelese man aims his bow and arrow at an Indian Coast Guard helicopter as it flies over his island on Dec. 28, surveying for tsunami damage.
© Indian Coast Guard/AP
Image Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com

The book is a testament to the hunter-gatherer culture. Their lives are so intricately wound in their environment, that when unbalanced by the colonial intrusion, they began to die off and become barren. As their lush tropical island was denuded of trees and the beach hauled away truck-loads at a time, they too began to decline. The more the colonial government intervened to "civilize" them, the more they began to fade.

The book was enlightening as much as it was troubling. I appreciate her honesty and forthrightness. Dr. Mukerjee didn't gloss over anything.

She wrote the book in 2003. The following year in 2004 the Tsunami struck that part of the world. While many thousands of people perished, the tribes of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands survived. Here's one report.

There is good news, at least from the anthropological front: "It will now be our avowed policy to minimise unnecessary and inappropriate contact between the primitive tribes and settlers [from Indian mainland],"

To learn more about the Andaman people, visit the official website.