Watj-ja

People have always told me that the hardest thing to do when writing something was to submit it. I could never empathise. Maybe these people didn’t have a deadline set in stone. I handed in my honours thesis this afternoon and I feel fantastic. I mean, the thesis itself could have been much better, but honestly, I’m sick to death of the phrases ‘complex predicate’ and ‘argument structure’. I verge on physical illness upon hearing the name ‘Jackendoff’!

If anyone wants to read it (you shouldn’t bother, really) it’ll be published on the internet after it gets marked. Anyway, the point is, it’s done and there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it now so I may as well relax.

As they say in language, watj-ja!

8 Responses to “ Watj-ja ”

Comments:

Joe says:
October 31st, 2006 at 2:54 pm

Good on you Jaŋari, I dare say a few quiet ales would be in store, have one for me. Jungurra.

bulanjdjan says:
October 31st, 2006 at 4:25 pm

Congratulations! Have you finished for the year, or do you have to pick yourself up and finish off coursework too? Well done, though.

Claire says:
October 31st, 2006 at 10:56 pm

Congratulations! Could I have a copy of your thesis?

Jaŋari says:
November 1st, 2006 at 8:43 am

Thanks everyone.

Yes Bulanjdjan, being in the field in August meant I had to do all my coursework in first semester. That really turned out well.

Claire, a revised version (with any inaccuracies smoothed out) will be published online in a couple of weeks. But, if you’d like a copy before then I’d be happy to send you one.

Claire says:
November 1st, 2006 at 11:24 am

He right, I’ll wait.

bulanjdjan says:
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm

‘As they say in language, watj-ja!’

I wonder what the impact is of linguists using the colloquial practice of referring to a particular Aboriginal language with ‘language’.

Obviously (to me, and others), aidhoss refers to a particular language, no doubt the one he’s just written his thesis on. He may even have reasons to do with preserving anonymity for doing so.

‘language’ becomes a deictic term, but it also replaces a proper noun, i.e. the name of the language. And perhaps (?) could reinforce conventional notions of there only being one Aboriginal language?

I’ve been thinking lately that in writing at least, that there may be reason for spelling the deictic use of ‘language’ with a capital ‘L’.

I’m not being critical, just curious.

Jaŋari says:
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:43 pm

You raise an interesting point, Bulanjdjan.
As you guessed, I used the term ‘language’ to keep a semblance of anonymity about the language, but I hadn’t given any thought to the ramifications of using it as shorthand for ‘the language that my thesis is on’. I’m glad you pointed it out.
Certainly though, to Australianist linguists and Kriol speakers alike, ‘langguj’/'langgwij’/'language’ (whatever) has a specific referent, though it depends on the context; who is speaking, what country (land) you are in, etc.
I think the ‘language’ notion is a useful concept; I certainly use it frequently. I think it’s a good Australian version of the Papuan ‘Tok Pisin’ versus ‘Tok Pleis’ dichotomy.
As for capitalising it, well, I’m undecided. Maybe a good option would be to use Kriol spelling like, ‘langguj’ or ‘langgwij’, to reference the fact that it doesn’t mean ‘language’ in the English sense.
Either way, I’ve since abandoned the anonymity thing, so I’ll mostly say ‘in Wagiman’.