can lead to very dangerous areas as pointed out in this well researched post. Lots of graphs to prove his point and some of the comments on the comments are very interesting too.
And it does not have to be mistakes by people from afar, I have heard similar diatribes by people who have worked [short time] in Inuit communities. I guess prejudices become ingrained and also it is a lack of accepting the cultural differences or the history of the peoples and area they temporarily reside.
Don’t get me wrong, I have my prejudices too, but before I go off on any ranting and raving I attempt to do some research or look back in time to try and balance things out a bit, use some perspective.
Some readers of this blog may have come across comments made by an anonymous person. Or it could be three people going by anonymous, Wejitu and Phil. I have no way of knowing [well I do but I am not going to bother]. Who ever and how many, it seems they/them have got their knickers in a knot to the extent that they are doing the same thing I am being accused of.
I do not feel I owe anyone an apology for my sentence of “my wife is Inuit”. I’m sure not many Inuit would be offended, and if they were some would not say anything about it and others if inclined to correct me would do so with respect and calmness.
Now I am not obsessed [a surprise to no one] with syntax and synonyms of the English language, but “my wife is Inuit’ while it may or may not be correct to some Inuit, it is definitely not a slur or a derogatory word [in that context] as suggested.
My argument is that it identifies my wife as being of a certain race or peoples as she would want to be.
I know the deference between singular and plural, many people who live outside [and many inside] of Labrador would not know the difference. Many think Inuit and Innu are one and the same, saying “my wife is Inuk” could be interpreted as “my wife is Innu” by some.
Or when writing that post I may have become lazy or sloppy, who the hell cares really, except Anonymous or Wejitu or Phil.
One incorrect synonym used often by many people is “the Inuit people”. This drives my wife nuts. It is like saying Canadians Canadians, of Newfoundlanders Newfoundlanders.
Inuktitut or Inutut is an evolving and living language. Inuit cover all of Northern Canada, Greenland, Alaska, Russia. There are county, regional and even community differences in meanings of words, structure of sentences, and pronunciation of words.
English is similar, just look at Newfoundland for instance, or England.
I have been privy to more arguments and discussions of what certain words or sentences mean in Inuktitut and how to convert same to English and reverse than I have had hangovers. I have listened to Inuit from different regions, different communities argue their case, I have listened to linguists speaking to Inuit, and yes even Inuk’s, and visa versa.
So spare me the uninformed and angry critiques will ya?
4 comments:
i was lucky enough to learn the difference early in life. two of my uncles chose to live in labrador. one of my aunts was innu (recently deceased)and the other inuit. i learned early in life thanks to one aunt in particular that there is quite a difference.
I do not feel I owe anyone an apology for my sentence of “my wife is Inuit”. I’m sure not many Inuit would be offended, and if they were some would not say anything about it and others if inclined to correct me would do so with respect and calmness.
I don't feel you do, either.
"Inuit" has been borrowed into English as an adjective and a noun, just as numerous other words have. Once in English, it behaves like an English word.
Just as the plural of komatik, as an English word borrowed from another language, is komatiks, ulu is ulus, kumik is kumiks, etc., etc., "Inuit" is used in English per English rules, just as words that have been borrowed into Inuttitut from English, German, or other languages, behave as Inuttitut words. That's what loan words do, and that's what makes them loan words. And the ability to "borrow" and naturalize words from other languages and cultures is a part of what keeps languages alive.
So willie, what are the rules that govern those borrings. I looked in Dictionary.com and Wikipedia.org but I couldn't find Maclean's Arbitrary Rules for English anywhere.The first two didn't agree on the subject and I supsect MARE doesn't either.
I think the responsibility falls more on the public to make sure any borrowed words are used correctlt rather everyone and their komitik arbitarily assigning the their own meanings. I was told Inuk means the one now living or present here and now and Inuit is the plural of that. Why can't you be more responsible and use the words correctly. That way languages survive in their true form and not all bastardized according Willie and Brine.
So willie, what are the rules that govern those borrings.
I'm not sure why I should bother responding to someone who won't identify themselves, but here goes:
I looked in Dictionary.com and Wikipedia.org but I couldn't find Maclean's Arbitrary Rules for English anywhere.
That's not "Maclean's" [sic] rule of English.
That's Everyone's Rule of Every Language.
"Inuit", as a word borrowed into the English language from Inuttitut, behaves as an English word, and becomes subject to English rules of syntax and grammar, just as every other such word does, whether borrowed from Inuttitut (komatik, ulu, kumik, etc.) or from any other language (paprika, kangaroo, lieutenant, etc.)
I think the responsibility falls more on the public to make sure any borrowed words are used correctlt
And the assessment as to whether they are used "correctly" is according to the rules of the language they are borrowed INTO, not the language they are borrowed FROM. Just as English pluralizes "kangaroo" with -s, and not however it was pluralized in the Australian Aborigine language it was borrowed from (and English uses it to mean something very different). Just as French applies gender to the genderless words it borrows from English.
Similarly, in Inuttitut, which has borrowed a place-name like "North West River", you say, according to the grammatical rules of the language, "North West Riverimi", and not "in North West River".
I was told Inuk means the one now living or present here and now and Inuit is the plural of that.
That would seem to be the case, according to my limited knowledge of Inuttitut, yes. There's also a dual number, but I don't know whether that's present in the Labrador variety of the language, or, if so, how robust it is.
Why can't you be more responsible and use the words correctly.
If I were speaking and writing Inuttitut, I would follow the syntax, grammar, and meaning of that language, just as in English, you follow English rules.
That way languages survive in their true form and not all bastardized according Willie and Brine.
A part of language survival includes the ability to borrow new words and ideas from other languages.
English has borrowed from many languages around the world. When a language borrows from another, it also demonstrates that the word and idea from that other language is a useful and novel one. That's why English speakers have borrowed "Inuit" as a noun and as an attributive adjective, and made it a naturalized English word.
Similarly, Inuttit has borrowed "phone" from English (which itself borrowed it, as "telephone" from Greek), and naturalized it. That's why you can see "Fonnikut as a naturalized Inuttitut word, being used according to the grammar of that language.
Post a Comment