北千島アイヌ語

Ainu language lesson # 2

iye tu kampi 
lesson # 2
hunna an?

unarpe: Hunna an?
   Tresi: Tresi ku=ne ruwe ne.
unarpe: Tresi e=ne ruwe ne?
   Tresi: Ruwe un.
unarpe: Ahup wa sini yan.
   Tresi: E.
Unarpe: E=iwanke ya?
    Tresi: Ku=iwanke wa.

new words and expressions:
hunna - who?
hunna an? - who is [there]?
ne - to be - copula
ruwe ne - literary "there is a trace" - auxiliary verb expressing highest degree of confidence, it is supposed that speaker was a participant of describing events or have seen everything by himself; 'ruwe ne' is often left  without any translation at all.
ruwe? - interrogative form of 'ruwe ne'
un - a form of affirmative answer
ruwe un - 'yes' (a variat of affirmative answer)
ahup - to enter (plural form)
wa - and: ahup wa sini - enter and take a rest/having entered take a rest
e - 'yes' (affirmative answer to an order or a question)
iwanke - literary 'to be used', 'to be fine', 'to be OK'
wa - sentence final particle, it has no meaning, it is attached just in order to soften a sentence, in order to make it less abrasive.

translation:
aunt: who is there?
Tresi: this is Tresi.
aunt: are you really Tresi?
Tresi: yes it is.
aunt: enter and take a rest.
Tresi: OK.
aunt: how are you?
Tresi: I am fine.

commentaries

1. copula
in Ainu language copula is 'ne', but it's just the stem,  and if we are going to express 'I am', 'you are' and so on we have to attach personal markers: ku= 1sgsb, e=2sgsb: ku=ne "I am", e=ne "you are".
it is very important to note that personal markers should not be separated from the stem, i.e. it's impossible to say: *Ku Tresi ne only Tresi ku=ne.
also it is possible to omit anything except verb if meaning can be understood from the context.
if 'ruwe ne' auxiliary is placed in the end of a phrase sentence becomes a bit more completed.

2. way of asking a question
when you ask a question you can attach word 'ruwe' in the end of sentence. meaning doesn't change much in this case. for example:
Tresi e=ne ruwe?
Tresi e=ne ya?
Tresi e=ne?

3. ways to say "yes"
assertative answer to a recommendation/order is expressed by word 'e', for example:
- ahup was sini yan
- e
it's important to note that this 'e' should be a long-drawn-out while in another cases longtitude of a sound has no meaning upon Ainu language.
(assertative answers to w/h questions will be discussed below)
if question is ended with 'ruwe' assertative answer also should be ended with 'ruwe'.
if question ends with particle 'ya' then assertative answer is just repetition of what is said in question without particle 'ya':
- Tresi e=ne ya?
- Tresi ku=ne.
the same form of assertative answer can be used if question is ended with 'ruwe'.
respectful/formal variant of assertative answer is 'ho', it is used when we address to a honored person.

4. sentence final particle 'wa'
being placed in the end of a sentence particle 'wa' soften the intonation of the phrase. for example, if it is said just 'ku=iwanke' it is normal and competent Ainu phrase but is sounds a bit abrasive. if particle 'wa' is added in the end of the phrase intonation becomes less abrasive.

5. greetings
there are no such expressions as japanese 'konnichi wa' - 'good afternoon' pon Ainu language.
in old days, when one person came to visit another one, they didn't submit a voice from street and designated the arrival by a tussiculation and a percussion on something, expecting while people indoors will notice. then the people who were indoors, asked who has come and were tidied up indoors and already then left towards to the visitor. when the visitor got permit to enter and entered, new greetings began.
Now expression 'e=iwanke ya?' ~ how are you? used as a greeting in all situations.
Also there is expression 'he' corresponding to '... haven't seen you for ages' for example:
utar he! ~ friends, I haven't seen you for ages!
Tresi he - Tresi, I haven't seen you for ages!

Ainu language lesson # 1

'e-'a-sir kampi 

lesson № 1
 
i-yay-ray-ke-re

text

totto: topenpe an na. e yan.
unarpe: iyayraikere.
totto: keraan?
unarpe: sonno keraan.
totto: usey e=ku rusuy ya?
unarpe: ku=ku rusuy na
totto: o.
unarpe: hioy'oy.

 new words
totto - mother
unarpe - aunt
topen-pe - cakes/candies
an - to be/to exist/to present
na - emphatic assertive particle
e - to eat (t.v.)
yan - particle used when polite imperative is formed
iyayraykere - thanx
keraan - to be tasty (stative verb)
sonno - really/truely
usey - hot water/boiling water (here is used to denote tea/coffe)
rusuy - want
ya - question marker particle
ku= personal affix of 1sg.sb.
o - here you are
hioy'oy - thanx (unformal)

translation
mother: this is candies, eat please.
aunt: thanx.
mother: is it tasty?
aunt: it's very tasty.
mother: wish you drink tea/coffee?
aunt: I wish.
mother: here you are.
aunt: thanx.

 commentaries
1. iyayraykere - is the most widely used word to express gratitute. iyayraykere can be used by both men and women while hioy'oy is used mostly by women. hioy'oy is also used when they address to children.

2. imperative expressions
when they address to one person imperative form is just verb stem, for example: e - eat,
when they address to more than one person particle yan should be placed after the verb stem: e yan; and the same expression is used as respectful order addressed to one person.

3. interrogative sentences
there are different ways to ask common (yes/no) question. the easiest way is slight rise of intonation in the end of a sentence. then it is possible to form interrogative sentence using interrogative particle 'ya' which is placed in the very end of the sentence. when particle 'ya' is used slight intonation rising in the end of sentence also takes place.

4. personal affixes/personal markers
in Ainu verb should be obligatory expressed person and number of subject and object by different personal affixes. right now you are to remember the following two personal markers:
ku= 1sg.sb.
e= 2sg.sb
then
for instance:
'I drink' is ku=ku,
'you drink' is e=ku
(for convenience of allocation of personal affixes in text they separate from words to which are attached, by the mean of a sign "=")

5. emphatic sentence final particle 'na'
The particle na when is placed in the end of a sentence has the meaning of inducing a interlocutor to make something, it has the meaning of turn to some actions for example, if it is told: topen-pe an - that it simply ascertaining of the fact: 'here are cakes' and when it is told topen-pe an na is means 'here are cakes, eat!'.

History of Languages of Japan

19.07.2012

Today I would like to speak of languages of Japan

Here are maps which represent the history of spread of different languages of Japan:

well

First language spoken pon Japanese islands was Ainu (here I use term Ainu just as a convenient short term to denote Ainu stock in general; as well are “Korean” and “Austronesian”).

why they decided that language of Jomon was of Ainu stock? As I said in previous talks there are firm proves of the fact that Jomon people were direct ancestors of Ainu:

anthropological similarities of contemporary Ainu/Okinawan and Jomon people, Jomon people existed in almost the same territory where Ainu exist now, many toponyms of definitely Ainu origin (words consisted of Ainu roots and which can be clear interpreted through Ainu language) were found there where never lived so called “historical Ainu”.

When we find many localities where site of Jomon epoch exist bearing names traceable to Ainu roots, we can only assume that persons using the same language as the Ainu were formerly established in such places.

http://tresi-nonno.blogspot.com/2011/12/ainu-jomon-relationship-prooves-by-neil.html

Ainu language is considered as an isolated by contemporary linguistics. Ainu language differ radically from neighboor languages: Japanese, Korean, Nivkh, Itelmen, Chinese, Tungusic languages and Austronesian languages.

Almost all of Ainu language genetic relationship hypotheses were made with no care of structure differences of compared languages but just on the base of coincident similarities of some random lexemes so it is possible to state that research of Ainu language in connection to its genetic relationship is in the very beginning.

There are some hypotheses trace Ainu to some stock of South-East Asia. One of the most interesting is that of Alexander Vovin. Despite of lack attention paid to the structures of compared languages and some serious mistakes of general kind his attempt is very interesting and profound and is worth paid attention to.

By the comparison lexis of contemporary Ainu dialects he made a reconstruction of so called Proto-Ainu. Actually it’s not Proto but Upper-Jomon/Late Jomon language. It was supposedly spoken in late Jomon (about 1000 – 500BC) Well, so he made a reconstruction of phonology of that language and then compare it with phonological systems of different SEA stocks: Hmong-Mien, Proto-Austronesian (Austronesian stock: Polynesian, Micronesian and so on) and Proto-Austroasiatic stock (Mon-Khmer). And came to the conclusion that phonology system of Proto-Ainu is very close to that of Proto-Mon-Khmer, i.e. he stated that Ainu and Khmer are distant relatives.

The main critical note is that Vovin pays no attention to structural aspects. Ainu language may be a distant relative of a certain language of a certain SEA languages but should be shown more serious prooves of it, not only phonological and lexical similarities. Should be shown structural similarities such as similarity of type of linear model of word form, similarity of structure of verb paradigm. cause language is not a heap of lexemes but is first of all a system of structures. So considering any linguistic question we are to pay most attention to the structure but not to lexis or phonology.

Each language is first of all a structure but not just a heap of lexemes.
Because of it we have to pay most attention to structures in any linguistic question but especially while we deal with questions of genetic relationship.
What parameters should be the matter of research is a separated question but the fact that structures/grammar is much more important than lexis is the basement.
After the detecting of structural similarities we should of course find material similarities of exponents.
These two points i.e. structural similarities and material similarities of exponents seem to be necessary and enough to make a conclusion about genetic relationship.
Comparison of lexicon can't be proof of genetic relationship of languages. Still Swadesh himself warned against it. Moreover the term of  "basic lexicon" is very questionable 'cause the whole of lexicon is culturally determined as it was shown by Hoyer.

When I tried to make some reconstruction by myself I made some similar conclusion on Upper Jomon Ainu as Vovin did and I also I concluded that Upper Jomon Ainu differed much from the contemporary one. I think that structure of ancient Ainu was quite similar to that of SEA languages: morpheme is equal to a syllable, auxiliaries could be placed on nuclear position as well.

Here I would like to show an example of how it possibly could sounds alike:

Nga Res han

I am Tresi        

Ta han pe nga set han

This is is my house

(actually these examples a just a kinda conlang made after the facts of reconstruction:  it was made just to show how it could be while real reconstruction is in process)

But under the influence of Korean/Old Japanese ancient Ainu got morphology.  I guess that Condition of permanent stress and war cause the necessity of more economy use of speech. i.e.: make sentence shorter and express more information in the same piece of speech, express it more exactly, express all important facts in verb stem, thus appeared morphology and so in modern Ainu we have:

Tres ku=ne

I am Tresi

And

Tampe ku=cise ne

This is my house

As it is seen in maps

Japanese is a relative of Korean (more exactly a descendant of Old Korean)

They have very similar structure of sentence

SOV

And very similar structure of word-form

(p)+( r ) + R + ( s )

Prefixation ain’t developed well in Japanese as well as in Korean and most meanings are expressed by suffixation

When we speak of comparison of language we are to pay most attention to verbal structure cause verb is spine of any language and in verbal structures the most interesting and significant are way of expression of tenses modality and so on. And in the case of Korean and Japanese we see the following:

Indefinite forms:

Suru – hada – to do

Kuru “to come” – kada – “to go”

Sumu – salda – to live

Past tense:

Sita - Hetta/haetta – did/made

Kita – katta – came/went
(left form is Japanese and right is Korean)

Mul – midu -water

maɯl – mura – village

mwe – yama – mount

nun mul – na-mida - tear
(left is Korean and right is Japanese)

Numerals of Old Japanese (left) and Goguryeo (right)

Mi             mit          3

Itu             utu          5

Nana         nanɯm   7

Towo         tok        10

some critical notes on Vovin book

fragments of Alexander Vovin book can be seen here  http://books.google.ru/books?id=8w1_cCWIpEoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Reconstruction+of+Proto-Ainu&source=bl&ots=UUXkGvea5H&sig=UIlHf84S_HCLR1ogKT0AUzSZoYg&hl=ru&ei=rO0ZTYvMNYmdOpPniOMI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ

and here can be seen an abstract: http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450...eports/ainu.htm

 first some notes of anthropological character:

Alexander Vovin, who reconstructed the phonology and the vocabulary of Proto-Ainu, has the view that Ainu language came from Southeast Asia. After completing his comparative studies on Proto-Ainu and Southeast Asian languages, Vovin states that the most distinctive characteristics of Ainu from neighbor languages, such as Korean or Gilyak, are those of the initial consonant cluster and the rich vowel systems. Through the reconstruction of Proto-Ainu, Vovin found that Proto-Ainu had a richer vowel system than modern Ainu, and that several initial consonant clusters (pr-, tr-, hr-,ty- and hd) had been lost in modern Ainu (Vovin 1993, 176). These characteristics of a rich vowel system and consonant clusters are not common to North-Asia.
   
    Vovin's reconstruction of Proto-Ainu vowel systems (Vovin 1993, 42)
   
    Another important evidence Vovin indicates are the Proto-Ainuís distinctive features of front /a/ and back /A/; these can not be found anywhere in North-Asia. Another point is both Proto-Ainu and modern Ainu have initial /r/ features that do not exist in north-Asia languages (Vovin 1993, 156). However, all these characteristics we have seen above are common in Southeast Asia.

the main critical note is that Vovin pays no attention to structural aspects. Ainu language may be a distant relative of a certain language of a certain SEA languages but should be shown more serious prooves of it, not only phonological and lexical similarities. should be shown structural similarities such as similarity of type of linear model of word form, similarity of structure of verb paradigm. cause language is not a heap of lexemes but is first of all a system of structures. so considering any linguistic question we are to pay most attention to the structure but not to lexics or phonology.

Vovin also used cultural similarities to support his hypothesis of the relation between Ainu and Southeast Asia and saying;
Besides the cult of the bear, which is definitely of Siberian origin

such a rite as bear feast appears amny times completely independently among different cultures which practise hunting as main economic activity, this rite can't be of Siberian or some else origin, it is invented many times in different places by different people and it can't be proof of contacts. the thought that bear feast can be a proof of origin is a very tipical thought of dull-witted diffusionists.

the Ainu also had the cult of the snake, which definitely preceded the former. The cult of the snake is not seen in Siberia, but it is widespread in Southeast Asia.

I have never met any 'cult of snake' in Ainu culture. according to common Ainu conceptions snake is an evil being so there could't be any cult of it. I think that it's just a mistake of an early explorers of Ainu culture (may be Leo Sternberg), but this mistake migrates from one text to another of those "anthropologists" who have really dim imagination of Ainu culture.

The same is the case with the cult of the sword, which also has a definite Southern origin.

if "cult of swords" really existed in Ainu culture it was developed in a quite late epoch ~ in the middle of the first millenium AD when metal industries was brought to the land of Ainu; so it is absolutely not clear how this "swords cult" can be connected with a hypothetical Ainu urheimat in South-East Asia which they have left many thousand years ago when it was not known not only manufacture of swords, but also manufacture of metals.

Neighboring Manchu-Tungus people and the Nivkh use the compound bow, while the Ainu used the simple bow that again is typical for Southeast Asia.

This statement also should be checked.
bow also is one those things which were invented many times independently in different cultures. Ainu obviously invented their bow after they left their urheimat. so any attempts of exposing of any realtionship between the shape of Ainu bow and some these of SEA definetely have no sense.

None of the Ainu neighbors used the loin-cloth as the only garment during the summer

And this is simply wrong.
the Nivkh and the Itelmen use loin-cloth.

and none of them used poison arrow. All these features exist only in the far more southern regions (Vovin 1993, 162).

One more diffusionism obscure. vegetable poison is well know to Aleut who live much more northward. vegetable poison was invented many timed in different cultures and use of it obviously can't be proof of Southern origin.

Instead of real anthroplogical prooves Vovin uses some old diffusionism delusions, while real prooves of SEA origin of Ainu are the following:
1) most of Ainu have Y-haplogroup D 2 which is widely spread in SEA and SA and is not known in NEA.
2) the fact that most ancient Jomon sites are in southern islands of Japanese archipelago so that Ainu moved from the South.

Then it should be noted that actually Vovin has taken an attempt to reconstruction not Proto-Ainu but a quite late Upper-Jomon language (about 500 - 1000 B.C.)
Proto-Ainu is Ainu language of pre-Jomon epoch (about 15000 BC and more) and it's can't be reconstructed in principle.

Then how can be in Proto-Ainu lexicon such a late borrowings from Japanese as noko - 'saw', and ita - 'lumber' and kani - 'steel', 'metal'? It seems that Jomon people knew metal industry and manufactured lumbers. LOL with capital letter L!

 Then why word kamuy is in Proto-Ainu lexicon if Vovin states that it's a borrowing from Old Japanese?

Also there is some objection on Vovin's reconstruction of Proto-Ainu phonology. Vovin writes:

He's thought is the following:
1) in all dialects 'w' corresponds to 'w' and only in Krasheninnikov and Klaproth materials 'w' of other dialects corresponds to 'g'/'gu';
2) then having noted that 'w' quite rare occurs in initial position Vovin makes a conclusion that in Ancient Ainu sound 'w' didn't exist.
3) then after data of Krasheninnikov and Klaproth he comes to a conclusion that in Ancient Ainu existed a claster 'hw' or 'gu' and that sound 'w' has developed from this claster, but as far as he made a presupposition that in Ancient Ainu 'w' didn't exist then there should be an another sound in that cluster
4) and finally this sound has been found: analysing the opposition of  w - s: iwan, ihguoen - tu-p-e-san, sine-p-e-san Vovin states the existence of hd cluster and states that after 'h' 'd' has become 'w' while in intervocal position has become 's'.

My objections here are the following:
1) can we rely on materials of Krasheninnikov and Klaproth? are they reliable enough basement for reconstruction of phonology system. I think no.
2) 'w' is pretty often in initial position, but there it is mostly written as 'u'. really 'w' should be bound with 'u'. they are variants of one phonema.
3) cluster hd is much more unnatural and difficult than 'w'. I hardly can image that Ancient Ainu had it instead of 'w'.
4) I suspect that roots 'san' and 'wan' in iwan, tu-p-e-san, sine-p-e-san are related. they seems to be different. I think that there are no roots wan - 'ten' in tu-p-e-san, sine-p-e-san, I think that here we have root san < sa-an - 'to descend', 'to go down'.

the contemporary condition of ainu language

report on contemporary condition of Ainu langauge and culture by Pepe Mantani:  http://gengo-chan.com/viewtopic.php?id=269  must read 'cause it makes you face the reality.

here I publish just a fragment of the report:

Dangerous Conclusions


Of course 600 people is much better than 15 people of Ethnologue or 5 people of Murasaki. But if we look at percentage we understand that the situation is very pitiful. For example in such ethnicities as Basque or Eskimo speakers are about 60 - 80% of total number. Only such percentage can warrant the maintain and normal existance of language while 3% mean the death of language.
This is not only death of language but also death of culture.
What is culture in our times? What is culture in modern world? What does it mean "culture"? What we mean when we say the word "culture"?
Nowadays when globalization increases when anthropological differences between cultures disappear fast, when almost all cultures use the same technology what can be the basis for identification a person as a member of certain ethnic group?  What can be the root the backbone of a certain cultural tradition?
In the case of Ainu we must not look at the anthropological types because of after centuries of intermarriage with Japanese Ainu mostly lost their original type. We must not look at those who perform so called "traditional Ainu rites" or wear Ainu wearing: most of "traditional Ainu rights" really were invented by Japanese in order to attract tourists (for example famous marimo rite or carving of bear figures).
Culture is not things, is not weraing. Culture is a way of thinking, way of behaiviour. And as far as way of thinking and way of behaviour are very well reflected by language so language is the main root of any culture.
According to Whorf if people use a certain language they adopt certain concepts, certain way of world view, certain way of thinking through this language. Language is the key and the backbone of any cultural traditions.
Because of it in the case of Ainu, I think, it is possible to state the following: really those who identify themselves as Ainu, wear Ainu wearing but cannot speak Ainu must not be treated as Ainu, only those who identify themselves as Ainu and can speak Ainu should be treated as Ainu.
So I think that the real number of Ainu is equal to the number of Ainu speakers.
And then: what is the role of Utari or Foundation for Reservation and Promotion of Ainu Culture? I think that now it can be clearly seen by everybody: the main aim of such organizations is to control Ainu culture. These organizations really are just the continuation of Japanese colonializm. The fact that they grant money to some Ainu just approves our conclusion: all colonial power always distinguish a group in any of colonized ethnicity and grant this group in order to manage control over this ethnicity by this group and in order to prevent any disturbance of their policy.
Those who really know language and can really speak it don't need any material support from any foundations or organizations to speak it. Those who can really speak don't need to organize strange festivals in order to speak.
All the efforts to preserve "traditional Ainu culture" such as museums, ethnographical settlings, festivals, and even such as "Iwor" project - a project of a special reservation where Ainu are supposed to live according to so called "traditional Ainu culture" in the wild nature together with animals for Japanese would be able to research them, all these items are just different kinds of theater.
Ainu are a part of Japanese society: Ainu use vending-machines, Ainu buy food in combinience stores, Ainu like karaoke and pachinko. Moreover, we have to remember that sometimes contemporary Ainu know about their own culture much less than Japanese. Finally, it is hardly possible to manage traditional Ainu existance in contemporary Japan cause such a way of life requires a vast space of wild nature, which are obviously absent in contemporary Japan.
And also should be noted that in our times there are no traditional cultures, cause all so called minorities accept the products of Western civilization and develop their languages for they will be able to express all the subject of contemporary world.
So if sphere of Ainu language use is determined as a language of traditional culture only it is just a theater but not a usual use of language. It is not preservation at all. It is death of language and death of culture.
But if there are somebody who really cares about maintain and development of Ainu language and Ainu culture what measures can be recommended? What have to be done?
First we have to know that no one language can exist without a society cause any language is a social structure. So I think only autonomy can save Ainu language as well as any other human language. So if Japanese government really cares about maintain of Ainu language it has to think seriously about Ainu autonomy. This autonomy must not be such a project like "Iwor" or an "ethnographical settling" it should be such an autonomy where Ainu language would be used in normal everyday life: in a railway station, in a shop, in a bar et.c. So I think it would be better to make Ainu refuse their traditional culture and start to manage modern industry for they will beable to get money and an influence on contemporary Japan. Then having got money Ainu would be able to buy lands of their ancestors and it would be "Aynu Mosiri" which is so much spoken about, having got money Ainu would be able to set their own education system where they really will learn Ainu. I think if Japanese government really cares about Ainu it has to grant much more rights to Ainu people, to Ainu communities; also the status of Ainu language has to be changed. Really, I think, there is no need of an independent state but there obviously is a necessity of a wide autonomy inside of Japanese state.
But unfortunately Ainu themselves cannot understand it and also cannot do anything. They are so depraved that they cannot act. If they were Basque they have already got everything. But Ainu are not fighters. Unfortunately since long ago they aren't fighters. Now they cannot act. They misunderstand that if they don't act nobody acts instead of them. They are just like bear who sits in the cage and waits for candies. A bear who forget that he is a bear, that he can easily break the cage. All the contemporary Ainu culture is such a bear in cage.