<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Truth in Numbers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/08/22/truth-in-numbers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/08/22/truth-in-numbers/</link>
	<description>a linguist without a language</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:47:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paradigm Oz</title>
		<link>http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/08/22/truth-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-448</link>
		<dc:creator>Paradigm Oz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/08/22/truth-in-numbers/#comment-448</guid>
		<description>&quot;The variation in figures depends on where you draw the line between language and dialect&quot;

There is no line.

Guessing at numbers is a colonial/scientific misunderstanding of the nature of the languages.

 Each individual person has many languages, those of the different branches of their families as well as friends and associates.

 Each &quot;tribe&quot; (I&#039;ll get to thet next) has many languages operating at the same time.  Other different languages exist also such as mens language, womens language and transcendent (secret) language.  Sign language and other non-verbal communication is thrown into the mix.

In one &quot;tribe&quot; their may be sub groups (e.g. north south east and west) who could be considered to speak the same language but they pronounce things differently e.g. some linguists identify that some words of a particular language can be pronounced with either a &quot;k&quot; or a G&quot;,which is technically true but each subgroup will deliberately use just one of them, effectively multiplying the number of distinct languages by the number of sub groups, within the one language group -  their pronunciations identifying who they belong to within the group  in the same way that images in painting do.

So there has never been one language per tribe, instead an intricate interweaving of an infinite number of elements - manifesting differently from place to place and occaison to occasion.

Now, &quot;tribe&quot; - this notion is a construction of colonial science.  It is a method of categorisation and exclusion - a filing system similar to the Linean categorising of species.

Colonial science disects things and looks for the points of separation and difference.  Native title is the logical conclusion of this notion of tribe which  draws artificial lines between organic family structures.

Aboriginal law and notions of identity (and language) is inclusive, it is about connnectedness and relationship - not delineation, exclusion, difference, separation and categorisation.

There never were &quot;tribes&quot; - they are just figments of anthropologist&#039;s imaginations.  This is what the scientific observer thought they saw.

What there allways was and still is is extended families, which like what I said about languages, are infinitely intertwined with each other.  One individual is a part of many extended families, not just one.

John T.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The variation in figures depends on where you draw the line between language and dialect&#8221;</p>
<p>There is no line.</p>
<p>Guessing at numbers is a colonial/scientific misunderstanding of the nature of the languages.</p>
<p> Each individual person has many languages, those of the different branches of their families as well as friends and associates.</p>
<p> Each &#8220;tribe&#8221; (I&#8217;ll get to thet next) has many languages operating at the same time.  Other different languages exist also such as mens language, womens language and transcendent (secret) language.  Sign language and other non-verbal communication is thrown into the mix.</p>
<p>In one &#8220;tribe&#8221; their may be sub groups (e.g. north south east and west) who could be considered to speak the same language but they pronounce things differently e.g. some linguists identify that some words of a particular language can be pronounced with either a &#8220;k&#8221; or a G&#8221;,which is technically true but each subgroup will deliberately use just one of them, effectively multiplying the number of distinct languages by the number of sub groups, within the one language group &#8211;  their pronunciations identifying who they belong to within the group  in the same way that images in painting do.</p>
<p>So there has never been one language per tribe, instead an intricate interweaving of an infinite number of elements &#8211; manifesting differently from place to place and occaison to occasion.</p>
<p>Now, &#8220;tribe&#8221; &#8211; this notion is a construction of colonial science.  It is a method of categorisation and exclusion &#8211; a filing system similar to the Linean categorising of species.</p>
<p>Colonial science disects things and looks for the points of separation and difference.  Native title is the logical conclusion of this notion of tribe which  draws artificial lines between organic family structures.</p>
<p>Aboriginal law and notions of identity (and language) is inclusive, it is about connnectedness and relationship &#8211; not delineation, exclusion, difference, separation and categorisation.</p>
<p>There never were &#8220;tribes&#8221; &#8211; they are just figments of anthropologist&#8217;s imaginations.  This is what the scientific observer thought they saw.</p>
<p>What there allways was and still is is extended families, which like what I said about languages, are infinitely intertwined with each other.  One individual is a part of many extended families, not just one.</p>
<p>John T.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jangari</title>
		<link>http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/08/22/truth-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-446</link>
		<dc:creator>Jangari</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:38:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/08/22/truth-in-numbers/#comment-446</guid>
		<description>Absolutely. Besides, he probably meant to say &lt;i&gt;one of just 20 remnants out of 200 original Aboriginal languages that once existed in &lt;b&gt;Australia&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/i&gt; In that case he&#039;d merely be on the conservative side.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely. Besides, he probably meant to say <i>one of just 20 remnants out of 200 original Aboriginal languages that once existed in <b>Australia</b>.</i> In that case he&#8217;d merely be on the conservative side.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Austin</title>
		<link>http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/08/22/truth-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-447</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Austin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:19:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/08/22/truth-in-numbers/#comment-447</guid>
		<description>Well at least they are now calling Gamilaraay and others in NSW &quot;original Aboriginal languages&quot; rather than the usual &quot;dialects&quot;. Gotta be a step forward.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well at least they are now calling Gamilaraay and others in NSW &#8220;original Aboriginal languages&#8221; rather than the usual &#8220;dialects&#8221;. Gotta be a step forward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

