|
Phonological Situation
2.0 Historical background
Here
the term phonology is used in its traditional sense and not in the sense the
modern scholars of language understand it. For a language like Manipuri, which
has not been properly analyzed or its analysis is incomplete and unreliable
because the Manipuri data were put in the framework of Sanskrit, Bengali, Hindi
or English Grammar, generative phonology shall not have priority over the
traditional phonetics and phonology. It is also true that the numbers of
alphabets employed in writing the language are more than number of the phonemes
found in the language. In short many symbols (alphabets), which represent
sounds, which are not found in Manipuri are used in
the writing. From this one can easily imagine of the problems that might have
been in the analysis of the language and particularly in the preparation of the
grammars of the language. The reason which has become the most powerful force
to thwart in the attempt to standardize the Manipuri language was mainly due to
the imperfect knowledge of the structure of the language and their idea that
whatever features, (grammatical categories, form-classes, etc.) found in the
Sanskrit or Bangla or Hindi or English must be in
Manipuri also. They do not feel the difference in the languages. To add to our
woes, the modern education was started with the help of Manipuri speaking
translators from Sylhet,
Dacca
, etc after the British took over Manipur
in 1891. These people are fluent in Bengali both in speaking and writing.
They
have no knowledge of the Meitei Script. Therefore
they wanted to start education using Bengali Script. Accordingly, they might have proposed that by using the Assamese-Bengali Script, which has
already got the printing materials, it will be more advantageous in printing
the textbooks etc. This might be true, because the lessons prepared by them are
meant for the people who can read and write Bengali language using Bengali
alphabet to read Manipuri language correctly from the writing. It has been
prepared for the Bengali people to read and pronounce the language correctly,
without giving any consideration for the native speaker’s way of spelling and
the writing of the language. As a result of this, we have noticed a large
number of defects and discrepancies in the present writing of the language with
Bengali script. This has made the issue more complicated and has become the
biggest hurdle in the standardization of the writing. The following examples
proved that the writing was introduced keeping the Bengali speakers in mind.
Examples:
Agv /əma/ (transcribed according
to the Assamese/Bengali alphabet) the actual and correct
transcription shall be /əmə/. They
drop the v whenever some other alphabets are added to such and similar
forms. In the words AgMx, Ag`v, Ag`Mx, etc. it is noticed that the v after g in Agv is
removed. Again, the v after ` in Ag`v is
removed in Ag`Mx .
2.1.
The
Alphabets used in writing the Language
The
alphabets (Assamese-Bengali Script) used in the teaching of Manipuri and which
are found in the School Textbooks are shown below. The Primary level teachers
are teaching the students these made aware of the fact these are not sounds,
but they represent the sounds in the language. Therefore, the students or
learners always consider these alphabets as the sounds of Manipuri language.
Almost all of the symbols (alphabets) found in the school textbooks have been
employed in writing the language according to the wish of the writer. They
disregarded the fact that the sounds represented by some of the
symbols/alphabets do not exist in Manipuri at all. This results to the use of different
spellings in writing the same word. Hence there is a problem in the
standardization of the writing. The alphabets found in the School textbooks are
given below. Some of the symbols are no longer found in the list of alphabets
in the books of Assamese and Bengali but they are found in the textbooks of
Manipuri. They are - 9 etc. The Assamese/Bengali alphabets found
in the School text books are shown below:
The Vowels
A ǝ Av α B i C i:
D u E u: F rï 9 lï
G e H ǝ I o J ǝw
As ǝŋ At әh:
The Consonants
K k L kh M g N gh O ŋ
P c Q ch R j S jh T Ŋ
U t V th W d X dh Y ր
Z t _ th ` d a dh b n
c p d ph e b f bh g m
h z i r j l e w k sh
l s m s n h ¶ χ o đ
p đh q y s ƞ t m u ~
r ι
|
Manipuri alphabets found in
the School textbooks
The use of the symbols shown above led to
different writings/spellings of the same word having the same sound as follows:
mb/ kb/ lb /s«n/
‘cow’
mvwZb/QvwUY/QvwUb /sAtin/ ‘umbrella’
Mvwi/Mvwo/Mvox /gari/ ‘cart/van’
wiZy/FZy /ritu/ ‘season’, etc.
The phonemes of Manipuri language and
their
corresponding alphabets are given in 2.2. below.
2..2 The phonemes found in Manipuri language.
There are six vowel and twenty four
consonant phonemes in Manipuri. They are shown below:
The Vowels
The Consonants
p প t ত c চ k ক
ph ফ th থ kh খ
b ব d দ j জ g গ
bh ভ dh ধ jh ঝ gh ঘ
m ম n ন ŋ ঙ
s² স h হ
r³ র
l ল
w ৱ y য়
Phonemes (Vowels and Consonants)
of Manipuri Language
Although there are 24 consonant and 6
vowel phonemes in the language, the children have been taught as having 41
consonants and 14 vowels according to the textbook mentioned in 2.1.above. On
further examination of the 41 consonants and 14 vowels, reveal that 4 of theconsonants are digraphs and they are secondary
forms, one of the vowels is not at all used and it can hardly be uttered by the
teachers and two are the combination of the vowel অ and the digraphs ং and ঃ.
The child has been taught wrongly with a false notion. Thus their knowledge of
the grammar of his mother tongue is not correct. Since this has been taught and
learnt in the early childhood it has become very difficult for them to do away
with it when they grew old. This has made the task of standardization not
only difficult but also an uphill task
with stiff resistance. This resistance still exists with the majority of the
educated class including many of those who have been trained in linguistics.
2.
3. Phonological problem
The problems, which have been cropped up
from the application and use of the alphabets employed in the teaching and
writing of the language are not incorporated here. Because the problems related
with it will be impossible to solve. How can one solve a problem, which is
baseless, illogical, unsystematic as well as prepared without any rationale?
Therefore, only those problems coming up while we try to analyze the language
under the tenets of modern linguistic analysis are
discussed. However
it is felt necessary to point out
that due to lack of proper planning and
selection
of wrong script the writers have been given
liberty
to write in the way they like. So, the same
word is
written with different alphabets and also spelt
it
differently. Thus, several problems
come up in the
analysis of the Phonetics and Phonemics of the language. Still there are differing opinions in
the
concept of the phoneme and its allophones. The
major problems are:
a)
the status of [ch].
Phonetically it is [s] but if we examine taking into account the three way alternation of the stop
phonemes, it is preferable to institute it as [ch].
This can be seen in the following as we find thevariation in {-tok-~-dok-~-thok-}; {-cin-~-jin-~-chin-};
{-kay-~-gay-~-khay-}; etc. There are scholars, who do
not accept this logic. Examples:
/ch«t+tok+p«/ /chit+cin+b«/ /chAt+kAy+b«/
‘pull+out+Nom’ ‘sweep+in+Nom’ ‘bloom+blown+Nom’
/hut+tok+p«/ /hut+cin+b«/ /chik+kAy+b«/
‘pierce+out+Nom’ ‘pierce+in+Nom’ ‘pinch+blown+Nom’
/thAp+tok+p«/ /thup+cin+b«/ /khot+kAy+b«/
‘far+out+Nom’ ‘fold+in+Nom’ ‘scratch+blown+Nom’
/phuk+tok+p«/ /ph«k+cin+b«/ /ph«k+kAy+b«/
‘uproot+out+Nom’ ‘bitter+in+Nom’ ‘remove+blown+Nom’
/hAN+dok+p«/ /h«N+jin+b«/ /h«n+gAy+b«/
‘open+out+Nom’ ‘ask+in+Nom’ ‘dig+blown+Nom’
/khAy+dok+p«/ /khAy+jin+b«/ /kho+gAy+b«/
‘separate+out+Nom’‘separate+in+Nom’ ‘scratch+blown+Nom’
/phAn+dok+p«/ /phA+jin+b«/ /phu+gAy+b«/
‘cut+out+Nom’ ‘catch+in+Nom’ ‘beat+blown+Nom’
/ch«N+dok+p«/ /ch«N+jin+b«/ /chAy+gAy+b«/
‘shift+out+Nom’ ‘shift+in+Nom’ ‘damage+blown+Nom’
/pA+thok+p«/ /pA+chin+b«/ /pok+khAy+b«/
‘over-flow+out+Nom’ ‘over-flow+in+Nom’ ‘burst+blown+Nom’
/tAn+thok+p«/ /tAn+chin+b«/ /cek+khAy+b«/
‘drive+out+Nom’ ‘drive+in+Nom’ ‘crack+blown+Nom’
/loy+thok+p«/ /lAk+chin+b«/ /lAw+thok+p«/
‘complete+out+Nom’‘overpower+in+Nom’
‘declare+blown+Nom’
/k«n+thok+p«/ /kok+chin+b«/ /k«k+khAy+b«/
‘swipe+out+Nom’ ‘lay+in+Nom’ ‘cut+blown+Nom’
b)
/l/ changes to /r/ in intervocalic
positions. Whenever the prefix /«-/ or /m«-/
or a vowel or any other morpheme ending with a vowel or semivowel is added before the morphemes beginning with a /l/, the /l/ changes to /r/. This can be seen from the following and a host of such examples.
/lAnb«/
‘wrong’ /«+lAnb«/’wrong
one’ >/«rAnb«/
/lon/
‘language’ /m«+lon/
‘speech’ > /m«ron/
/loN-/
‘branching’ /c«y+loN/
‘wooden pitch-fork’ >
/c«yroN/
/lAyb«k/
‘fate’ /i+lAyb«k/
‘my fate’ > /irAyb«k/
/lAN/
‘net’ /mi+lAN/
‘cobweb’ > /mirAN/.
But most of the scholars working on
this
language are using /l/ in such cases
overlooking the above rule. Since this is a
common phenomena in this language it
shall be
analyzed carefully. This is not
happening in cases where there is a
syllable boundary or there is a case of
gemmination i.e. doubling the sound.
Further, they are not occurring in
contrastive positions, therefore, they can
be considered as allophones of the
same
phoneme. It is hard to accept to several
scholars, rather they are posing the
question of /l/ and /n/ variation in the final
positions. Here it may be remembered that
/l/ and /n/
occurs in contrastive positions,
for example: /lAb«/
‘male’ and /nAb«/
‘ill’, etc.
c)
the inclusion of the sounds or phonemes /bh, dh, jh, neven /b, d, j, g/ in the inventory of phonemes. The
argument put
forward in this connection is these
sounds occurs in the loan words only
and they cannot occur in initial
positions in indigenous words. Here the
argument is
the loan words in which these
sounds occur have become the part
and parcel of
the Manipuri life. They are
frequently used like the most frequently
used indigenous words. Some of the
indigenous words in which they occur are:
/tAdh«n/‘older
brother (not related)’,
/cAwbh«l/ ‘name of a person’, /kANgh«n/
‘mosquito net’, etc.
The loan words in which they are
found are: /bhArA/ ‘fare’, /bhAbok/
‘audience’,
/dhon/
‘a kind of drum’, /dhulok/
‘dholak’, /jhAl/
‘cymbal’, /ghi/‘ghee’ , /gh«ri/
‘watch/clock’ etc.
d)
the treatment of clusters is another area which
require attention. There are very few clusters in Manipuri but a large number
of sequences are found. Due to the influence of modern education and by virtue
of Manipuri people becoming bilinguals and multilinguals the majority of Manipuri speakers have been using the clusters in loan words
and sometimes in the indigenous words. The idea of ignoring these clusters and
transcribing them as different syllables shall not be accepted
because this has
to be treated as a change
in the language.
Here I would like to remind
the first point
in historical linguistics which
has been accepted
by all scholars that
Language always change.
e)
there are a few diphthongs in this language.
But it is more convenient to institute them as a combination of vowel and a
semivowel to avoid the difficulties in the transcription as well as to have VVV
syllables and VVVV in two syllables in which to identify the syllable boundary may be difficult as
indicated below:
/l«i/ transcribed for ‰j or jB flower’ and ‘line’
/iAi/ transcribed for BAvB or yuy
/iiAi/ transcribed
for BAvB or Bqvq
/m«u/ transcribed for gD
/m«u/ transcribed for ‡gŠ
/khutiAi/ ‘middle
finger’ L–rBAvB or L–rqvq or L–wZAvB
or L–wZqvq
VVV
syllables /iAi/ ‘precious object’ /-iAi/
‘middle’ VVVV/iiAi/ ‘mid water’ /l«uAi/
‘village/crown VVVVV /l«uiAi/ ‘middle paddy field’
The syllable
boundary in /l«i/ can be either
/l«i./ ‘flower’ or /l«.i/ ‘line’
and /iAi/ may be
read as /-iAi/ ‘middle’
or /iAi/ ‘precious
object’; /m«u/ may be read as /m«u. /
‘daughter-in-law’/m«.u/ ‘trunk of tree’;
/khutiAi/ can be read as */khuti.Ai/ or
/khut.iAi/
There are several such cases in which
the same or similar problems have
cropped up. Therefore, it is preferred to
treat h em combination of vowel and
semivowel and these can be transcribed
as follows:
/l«y/ ‘flower’ ; /l«yi/ ‘line’
/yAy/
‘precious object’
/iyAy/ ‘middle of water’
/m«wu/
‘trunk of tree’
/m«w/
‘daugher-in-law’
/khutyAy/
‘middle finger’ etc.
f) there are also problems in the analysis of the
tones in the language. Some scholars
have instituted as many tones as the number of homophonous forms having
different meanings, Again it is not very clear whether the tones are really
tones or they stress-pitch. For the time being it has been considered that
there are two different pitch variations.
|
