ChinenyeN:
Ezeagu is hitting a point that I plan on discussing. Ezeagu, I remember that discussion very well and I actually made notes on it, fortunately before the data loss. That is something that I actually intended on including in my response to Scholti. Also, for hospitalization, I would actually suggest nno as opposed to ndo, due to the relationship -do has with inanimate object, but that is only a passing thought.

Scholti, there's no need to apologize. We all live lives outside of NL that would typically hinder us from immediate response. Also, this topic is loaded and requires thought. So, I don't expect you to always have an immediate response to a post I make. I don't have time now, but I will certainly be back to post my response. I believe it'll prove interesting.

Yes sometimes, events intervene. Thanks for understanding.

One of the affixes I am advocating for is 'pụrụ (can, able).'

Understandable - pụrụnghọta
doable - pụrụome
livable - pụrụobibi
justifiable -pụrụezi
eatable - pụrụoriri

1.The house is livable. (Ulọ a pụrụobibi.)
2.It is actionable in court. (Ọ pụrụomume na ulọikpe.)
3. It is perfectly understandable. (Ọ pụrụnghọta nke zuruoke.)

ezeagu:


Yeah, citadel, or walled enclosure like a fortress is iga, cross bow (Onitsha) is akpẹde (Bini: ekpede), and island is àgwà (more common) or àgwè.

The thread was about exposing the role of affixes in Igbo word creation. We were trying to figure out what the connotation of the affixes gave a verb root. We will use the verb má, to be beautiful, for example.

a - affix for either past tense, or for an institution, like an institution of beauty, if tha makes sense, so: àmá, past tense, 'was beautiful'; ámá, 'the beauty (in an abstract sense)'
i/ị - affix for being in the state of, or for the 'dictionary entry' of a verb, so: ịma, 'to be beautiful'
e/ẹ - affix for the inherent action of something/someone, so (maybe not used here so much, but): ẹmá, 'beautifying' ?
u/ụ - affix of the appearance of the verb, or the archetype, so: ụmá, 'beautiful', 'beauty thing'.
o/ọ - affix for he/she/it and something continuing the verb, so: ọma, good, do good; ọmá, they are/become beautiful.

n - affix for continuation, so: nma, beauty
m - different version of 'n', sometimes dialectal.

Maybe I didn't use the right translations, maybe I'm adding extra there, there was a wider discussion, but this is what I remember.

As I wrote earlier, the Igbo language does have its native affixes (every language does), but they are not enough. A new energy must be added to the Igbo language for it to be a serious language, if not it would remain a language of domestic usage, and one that its natives run away from whenever they want to discuss politics, the sciences, philosophy etc.We need new accelerated affixes that cover the multidimensionality of human existence.

scholti:
One of the affix I am advocating for is 'pụrụ (can, able).'

Understandable - pụrụnghọta
doable - pụrụome
livable - pụrụobibi
justifiable -pụrụezi
eatable - pụrụoriri

1.The house is livable. (Ulọ a pụrụobibi.)
2.It is actionable in court. (Ọ pụrụomume na ulọikpe.)
3. It is perfectly understandable. (Ọ pụrụnghọta nke zuruoke.)

I like this. Would Puta and putara also be substitutes?

Alright.. where to begin... WARNING: THIS WILL BE LONG

First let's try to be on the same page with regards to terminology. It will be important for what I have to say afterward. Igbo is what is known as a verb based language. This means that the morphology of words and the grammatical structure of the language emphasize flow, movement and constant transformation. This is the number one reason for the difficulty in translating a great deal of Igbo expressions into English. When asked to say what so-and-so means in English, an Igbo speaker will give a response akin to "it is like..", before they go on describing the complex interplay that the expression captures.

English, in contrast to Igbo, is a noun based language, great for discussions on concepts and classifications. As language is simply a tool for communication, it is impossible to say that one language is inherently better than another. So, in reality, grammatical structures, morphology, etc. are not features of a language that ultimately decide it's degree of sophistication.

**Interesting Fact: There is a school of thought with a large following in the Physics community that believes English to be unsuitable for the discussion of quantum theory. This school of thought claims that a verb based language structure would actually better express the ontology of quantum theory and so they introduced a verb based mode of the English language for that purpose. It's called Rheomode. It's interesting to read about, but eventually, as Igbo, we see that it is no news to us. This is not to put one language type above the other, but merely to emphasize the fact that language is simply a tool, which is often reshaped as needed to capture and express new things.

Now, there is no denying that Igbo is indeed not up to par. I've said it before several times, and I'll say it again. Igbo is treated by Igbo people as a relic, rather than something with the potential for growth and specialization. This is not an inherent fault of the language. If it were, then we would have to ask ourselves why our ancestors had no problem continuously coining terms and expressions until contact with Europeans. Fast forward from pre-European contact days to the present and we see that the treatment Igbo has received from Igbo people over the past 100+ years has created a problem that is two-fold.

1) A good deal of lexicon has fallen to obscurity. Some lexical items have even been lost to oblivion. An example of this is the expression biribiriga, which is the Ngwa equivalent for storm/rainstorm. When asked for a translation of storm, most Ngwa today will not have a response. Few will attempt to coin a phrase, and biribiriga remains a forgotten relic. This regression in lexicon then leads to the second part of the two-fold problem.

2) People have now developed the notion that Igbo lacks a robust and sophisticated vocabulary. This notion is oddly prevalent, despite the fact that these same people who carry the notion know only a fraction of the words and expressions used by those who lived just two generations earlier. These same people then progressively switch their mode of speech to English.

From my observation, the current state of Igbo has little to do with grammar and nearly everything to do with lexicon. If people knew half the lexicon of those who lived two to three generations ago and beyond, the state of Igbo would be significantly different [read: 'better'].

Now, back to the terminology. Igbo is a verb based language with an agglutinative structure. An agglutinative structure is a structure in which expressions are created from the stringing together of words, whose forms do not change once the words have been strung together. For example, nchoputa oria is an agglutination of two expressions, nchoputa and oria. Barring the morphological rules behind the conjugation of nchoputa, both expressions will retain the same form whether they are agglutinated together or not. In other words, the full meaning of nchoputa is still attested for, even when separated from oria and vice versa. There is no attested level of grammatical construction after this, among the Igboid languages. From my understanding then, it's not so much that Scholti wants to completely undo the grammatical structure of the languge, but rather, it is at this point [post-agglutination] where Scholti wants to introduce a new layer of grammatical construction.

Now, I have no problem with the introduction of a new layer of grammatical construction, so long as it works. However, this particular sort of grammatical addition that Scholti is suggesting is unlikely to be well-received, like Ezeagu stated. This isn't because it is ineffectual, but rather because it doesn't sit well in the mind or roll off comfortably from the tongue, and the reason for this is because it reflects an attempt to think simultaneously in English (just a case-in-point here) and Igbo. In other words, inflecting words/expressions after they have already been strung together. That is where the hiccup lies (if I can even call it that).

In reality, expressions such as mmuta in mmutandu, puru in puruome, onodu in onodumma, etc. actually do not qualify as examples of affixes, but rather examples of agglutination. It's important that we make this distinction now. Affixes are morphological aspects of certain languages that are used to modify meaning. Affixes typically cannot stand alone, as they are only modifiers. For example, \-s\ doesn't mean anything by itself, but affixed to a noun it does. In direct contrast, the mmuta, puru, onodu, etc. can all stand alone, and as such do not represent affixes, but rather instances of whole words in an agglutinated structure. This distinction is important to make, before I discuss the affixes in another post.

Right now, I want to bring our attention back to the reason for this thread, being that Igbo needs to become more robust. Overall, this topic is loaded and I know I stated a lot in this post that relates more so with the nature of Igbo, rather than addressing the point of the thread. However, I did so, because I believe that having that foundation is important. It will help when it comes time to make sense of my upcoming posts. It's late now, so I will be back to post later. In the meantime however, I will close out this post with the below:

I believe the problem with Igbo is a combination of lost lexicon and Igbo speakers' inability to effectively coin new words and expressions. Grammar, I believe, is a non-issue. In my opinion, the verb based structure of Igbo is particularly effective. How would we judge that, one might ask? Well, ask yourself why we often have so much trouble translating from Igbo to English. It isn't because English is short of words, but rather it is because the verb based structure of the language allows for us to capture and express processes in a compact manner. Igbo has the foundation necessary for robust discussion and for the addition of sophisticated lexicon. It simply won't be the same with how English has developed, and I believe that is where people fall short in their understanding.

To drive this point home, I'll tell a story about an experience I had with my grandmother a long while back. She is not an avid computer user. In fact, she's simply a petty trader in Aba, but she visited us here in the States a while back and I had to help her use the computer (my father set up an email for her so she could remain in contact with us once she gets back home). She actually understands and speaks English, but prefers to speak Ngwa (she's more comfortable with that). Anyway, in the process of her doing whatever it was she was doing on the computer, something happened and she could no longer get back to where she was. Of course, she calls me over in Ngwa, telling me how the computer is behaving sickly. I'm going through everything with her, describing what happened and why it failed, telling her where to click, etc. Eventually, in the process of me explaining and helping her, she made a statement that I will never forget. She said.. "a gbaketighita ya ta a gbaketighitaghi ya?", which for all intents and purposes translates as "is it recoverable or is it unrecoverable?". I turned and looked at her, and my mind just starts reeling, because I had long since known the verb construction, but it had never occurred to me to think of it in that way. I simply smiled and replied "mm a gbaketighita ya" (yeah, it's recoverable).

That moment with my grandmother opened my eyes and gave me a better understanding of things that I thought I already knew. I began to see the very same verb based structure I had always been making in a new light. Things that I innately knew to speak made sense to me on a conscious level. Psychologists say that there is a different thought process for every language. After that incident with my grandmother, I began to pay more attention to Ngwa, and little by little, I began to think differently when I thought in Ngwa (I mean, thinking in my head in Ngwa as opposed to thinking in English). I then realized that in this verb based structure lies the potential for compact and sophisticated constructions. What is missing (or our problem) is that we want to think in English and speak in Igbo. That is a mentality that we should do away with.

I'll be back to post about the affixes.

scholti:


With all due respect, there is not a single modern language that doesn't use affixes, from 'Greek/Latin/French', if you choose to see them as the birthplace of affixes. Affixes are universal to all languages including Igbo, they come from frequency or convenience. It is not true that Chinese doesn't have 'those' affixes. As well as having native affixes, it has borrowed many affixes from English directly and indirectly (through Japanese).(http://www.colips.org/journals/volume21/21.1.2-WangLei.pdf). There is not a single language that is breathing,- Arabic, Hindu, Russian, Lithuanian - that isn't robustly affixed. As languages modernise they become rigid, it has been the case for every language in serious usage; because they leave their simple ways of existing to more challenging topics and settings. It has to do with civilisation. Look at all the technology in the world and all the issues it faces; they must necessarily impact language.The Igbo language would incur a little rigidity but it is a price that every living language pays.

I have to read academic journals everyday and often they feel like a completely different language to common English. Every language on earth are the same, they may have different ways of saying things but they are all the same, that means they all share similar traits. English and Igbo belong to the same human language family, but the Igbo language is so poor in vocabulary and grammar that no Igbo discusses, Astrophysics, Economics, Biology, Engineering etc in it. You can't have vocabulary without grammar, the two move together. Grammar regulates word mutations. My sights are not just on English but in at least 15 languages that I have studied their grammars (I speak 6 international languages). Some of the affixes I am compiling, come from the bowels of the language.

Ghettosizing and refusing to modernise the Igbo language is why no one takes it serious even in traditional Igbo settings. The grammar is simply poor and results in comical translations by Igbo translators in an attempt to ring around English. Igbo is only used in domestics settings, farms and children playgrounds because it has failed to modernise. It has failed to do what Sankrit, Japanese, French etc did to bring their language to serious usage. This is not time for sentimentality, if the Igbo language must survive, it must create a new grammar and many new words. Grammar regulates words. Affixation is a well-known linguistical tool used to create words; languages have used them from time immemorial. No one that knows anything about languages would even suggest otherwise. The Chinese, Japanese etc are not fools to have borrowed lots of suffixes from English to enable them translate and use their languages robustly. Affixes are not unique to Latin or French or Greek, they are found in Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Zulu etc.

A language must have many layers of registers, classical, literary, scientific, idiomatic, slangy etc, if it must be a truly dynamic language its speakers want to use for the sciences, economics and multi-variegated human experiences (if that language wants to survive.) I give the Igbo language two more generations and if serious changes do not happen in its grammar that would enable the dynamic production of language (as well as a solidly developed vocabulary, not all the comical dictionaries around), it would either die or morph into a something that would even be avoided in domestic settings. Already, its speakers have mostly abandoned it. There is not a single functioning Igbo news site. I don't really blame anyone because after seeing what a language is capable of by learning world languages, nobody wants to tarry long with a diminutive language. Neither is the claim that the English being our national language impedes the progress of the language: the Hausa language is flourishing with many newspapers, in Nigeria and internationally; and many works of fiction and non-fiction are published each year in the language.

Maybe I didn't explain well since it was a quick reply. I know most languages have affixes, what I'm saying is that they deal with affixes in their own way. That Chinese journal for example gives us affixes and sudo-affixes which in the first page introduction has been described as different to English, these affixes I'm seeing on this thread look like a transliteration of the Latin/Greek/French affixes. Chinese may have taken its own process of affixation and extended it to other words and semantic fields influenced by English, but that's exactly what I was explaining you can do with Igbo now. Also every type of affix does not work interchangeably in the Chinese and English version for example. For instance, in Igbo, -ise/-ize is already covered by mẹ-, 'doing', so the word synchronise can be mmẹnyikọ. To use what ChinenyeN was saying, the affixes you used sound like we would be thinking in English and writing in Igbo. In some language affixes can stand alone, like -gate in the Chinese example given in the PDF we're talking about.

As I said before, I don't think rigid affixes should be added that ignore the system already in place because it would overlook the differences in Igbo and assume the Enlgish mode as superior, also when we then start using the different type of affixes they'd become confusing. I actually do not believe that Igbo speakers are abandoning Igbo, there are more Igbo speakers everyday. The phenomena of Igbo not being passed to children is the problem, although this is usually for those outside of Igboland, and there are a number of reasons for this that have little to do with Igbo itself. One reason is that Igbo speakers suffer under diglossia, which means even the most well versed Igbo speaker would write a notice board for example in English or would write a novel in English. This is because the language they are taught is English, there are no Igbo language schools in terms of teaching literature and priority subjects in Igbo. The dominance of English and the dominance of 'thinking in English, speaking in Igbo', as well as what we're saying about forgotten terms, has lead to perception of Igbo as archaic, even though people continue to speak it, also there's the perception that learning in Igbo or even teaching your children Igbo would hinder their chances at speaking good English which is dressed up as the worlds language, meaning opportunity. All of this boils to the point that even if you were to add all the vocabulary needed for the 21st century, or even completely change Igbo you would be hard pressed to find a 'middle-class' Igbo speaker who would send their child to an Igbo-language school, even though many "elite" send their children to French-language schools. It's because of perception, just like Latin was the only language of academia in Europe for hundreds of years. Like the example you gave of Hausa, it's flourishing in media because it's a lingua franca for millions of people who are from diverse backgrounds in northern Nigeria, as opposed to English most times. A problem with Igbo, however, is that its writing system isn't the best.

In terms of registers of language, English may have a simple and complex form for example, but German does not. Chinese may have a classical form, but English doesn't. It all depends on the history and function of the language itself.

scholti:


As I wrote earlier, the Igbo language does have its native affixes (every language does), but they are simply too rudimentary for the milieu we live in now. A new energy must be added to the Igbo language for it to be a serious language, if not it would remain a language of domestic usage, and one that its natives run away from whenever they want to discuss politics, the sciences, philosophy etc.We need new accelerated affixes that cover the multidimensionality of human existence.

My question is why do you think they are rudimentary? The simple affixes are easier to understand than the compound-word-like affixes you proposed. The approach you're taking to me looks like looking at Igbo form outside in. It's like saying every word has to follow the English equivalent to shed its 'rudimentary' ness. Many people discuss politics, definitely philosophy, and even sciences in Igbo, now is that many may use English loan words for more complex things.

Phut:

I don't think "beautifuness" is a good test case
@ Ezeagu: Thanks for the translation.
Ezeagu and Scholti how do we say the following words. Is there an already workable affix for these words or is there a need to extend the already existing:

biliousness, wantonness, manliness, faithfulness, freshness, wretchedness, trimness, abruptness, aggressiveness, righteousness, attentiveness, craftiness, fastness, fieriness, genteelness, gratefulness, greasiness, grouchiness, haughtiness, humbleness, indebtedness, queasiness, spaciousness, squeamishness, awareness, graciousness, bitterness, braveness, brawniness

I'll do a few for time:

ọgbụgbọ, mmaụma, òkè, ókwúkwé, ọhụrụ, nnọnụkọ, mbá/ụ́já, óbìọcha, ụrụ, ọsịsọ, okomoko, umeala, oyi/sọ oyi, mmụwa ányá, ịkilu, ịgbágbá

Phut:
biliousness, wantonness, manliness, faithfulness, freshness, wretchedness, trimness, abruptness, aggressiveness, righteousness, attentiveness, craftiness, fastness, fieriness, genteelness, gratefulness, greasiness, grouchiness, haughtiness, humbleness, indebtedness, queasiness, spaciousness, squeamishness, awareness, graciousness, bitterness, braveness, brawniness

There is an aspect of Igbo grammar that allows for the creation ideophones from what we would normally think of as 'nouns'. The resulting noun-ideophones are then used in a manner comparative to the \-ness\ that we see in the above post. Ex. oso is used for speed, and ure is used for decay. The respective ideophone would then be oso oso which connotes abruptness and ure ure connoting rottenness. This is not the case for all ideophones though. In fact, most are actually distinct from nouns.

Part of the problem with people who put Igbo down is that they in fact do not truly understand it. Sure, we have plenty of native speakers with an intrinsic understanding of their various lects, who can communicate effectively. However, as generations continue to come and go, we continue to realize the hard fact that Igbo is no longer the means with which we conceive of, experience and describe our world. This essentially creates and ever-growing population of native speakers who intrinsically know what to say, because they understand how it's said, and not necessarily because they understand why it is said that way.

One cannot grow a language with that understanding or lack thereof. It is never as simple as just tossing new features at a language. Those features need to be functional within the framework of said language. Therefore, if we want to add an extra layer of grammatical construction to encourage sophistication, we'd have to understand the already established grammatical structure. This way, all the new and sophisticated features we toss at Igbo will have functionality and not end up bouncing off like nothing ever happened.

Brief on the Affixes

Igbo has prefixes, suffixes, infixes and interfixes.

Ex.
-- akpa - prefix is the initial \a\
-- nkari - suffix is the \ri\
-- choputa - infix the \pu\
-- okomoko - interfix is the \m\
note: The infix category is probably a misnomer. For Igbo, infixes are typically just verb roots with another verb root affixed after it. So, it can be argued that Igbo has no true infixes and what we see is just the manifestation of 'progressive suffixation' (for lack of a better term).

For the sake of this discussion, I'll focus solely on the prefixes. Then I'll tie it back in with Scholti's proposal for a new layer of grammatical construction. A total of six prefixes exist in Igbo (not accounting for variation among the Igboid lects). Ezeagu listed them earlier, so I won't rehash what those prefixes are. Now, recall that Igbo is a verb based language. These prefixes are verb root modifiers. They work to fulfill a verb's meaning in different ways. I'm sure that for most of us (if not virtually everyone), these prefixes and their usages would seem annoyingly arbitrary. In trying to understand how Igbo words/expressions were created, one could easily get frustrated wondering why one word uses \a\ and another with the same root uses \u\. Surprisingly enough, I've found that Igbo people intrinsically understand the functions of these prefixes as verb modifiers. They just don't have a conscious realization of it. It simply makes sense to them. Anyway, I'll just quickly run through them all so we can get a brief understanding.

a/e - These two vowels fulfill the meanings of the verbs they modify. They show the process being captured in speech as active & ongoing.
Ex. anwu \a\chagbuo ya ... o ma \e\che ndu ya.

They also function as pronouns.
Ex. \e\ mere ya ... \a\ si na o bu mu mere..

In English this is called the indefinite pronoun. This function as an indefinite pronoun is made possible by the fact that these two vowels fulfill the action of verbs without any regard to the source of such action. From this, words like akpa are created. Translating to English, it means anything from bag to pouch to pocket (there's that "it's like.." all over again). However, thinking in Igbo, we see that it is the fulfillment of the process of gathering (the root kpa is collecting, gathering, handling), without considering the source of that process. In other words, the activity of handling, gathering and collecting occurs in that bag, regardless of who or what initiated or was involved in the process.

i/ị - Technically this is just one vowel. Pre-European contact Igbo speakers likely saw no difference between \i\ & \ị\, but retroactive vowel harmony and the onset of writing has us now differentiating the two. Anyway, this vowel is used to indicate an active state of a verb construction without necessarily showing any fulfillment, while at times ascribing that active state to someone or something. In fact, this is the only modifier that is used to directly associate an activity or process.
Ex. \i\ji mee atu ... Chuka si na ike \i\gba gburugburu adighi ya. This is the vowel used for second person singular (i.e. you).

o/ọ - Just as with \i\, this is also just one vowel, but it is rendered as two. This vowel is used when the verb construction is being ascribed to something or someone previously mentioned or easily identified.
Ex. Uche, \o\ mere gini? ... \o\ bu Uche ka a na-akpo?

From this, words like ole are created. Translating to English, it means anything from onlooker to bystander to observer. However, thinking in Igbo, we see ole as the fulfillment of le by something or someone concrete or easily identifiable. This vowel also gives us our third person singular (i.e. he, she, it).

u/ụ - This vowel isn't used in sentence construction, but it does show up as a modifier in verb construction, when turning verbs into nouns. In simple terms, where \o\ often describes a concrete association, \u\ describes an archetypal or abstract association. You can more easily see this when comparing these \u\ words with their \o\ counterparts, though this is not always necessary.

Ex.
-- ji (blacken, darken) -- ojii (black) -- \u\ji (darkening)
-- cha (shine) -- ocha (white) -- \u\cha (clean, white)

m/n - For all intents and purposes, I will call these two vowels (or pseudo-vowels, if you will). In a very simplified explanation, \m\ & \n\ are very similar to infinitives in that they indicate an active state for the verb construction. The difference being that \m\ & \n\ do not induce any tense or mood and they can also bind these active, mood-less, tense-less verbs to a subject.
Ex. \m\mezi ala ka \m\ma ... ihe \n\kea di \n\fe ibuli elu.

Here, we see a pretty well-rounded verb construction system. Combined with agglutination, this can be used to describe all sorts of activities and processes. The problem again is that we tend to think too much in English while describing these activities and processes.

We see now how the verb is the center of all activity, and part of the reason why Scholti's affixes don't seem easy to appropriate is because they seemingly break the fulfillment of these verbs.

Ex. They were housed in decrepit conditions. ( Ha ulọworo ha na ọnụdusis lelele.)

Reading the above sentence, we actually see no evidence of verb based speech at all. Though I get what's going on in that sentence, it still seems empty, because no verb constructions are used to indicate the processes being ascribed to the initial ha in the sentence. Essentially, this new grammar doesn't actually sit as an added layer of grammatical construction, but instead encroaches past the layer of agglutination and past the layer of conjugation and down to the layer of verb construction. Now let's compare a verb construction saying the exact same thing.

Ex. They were housed in decrepit conditions
-- Ha uloworo ha na onodusis lelele (new grammar)
-- E biwara we l'ajaghara onodi (verb construction)
*The above verb construction is the actual equivalent construction in the Ngwa lect.

The two statements above are saying the exact same thing. The only difference is that the second sentence provides a more compact translation, thanks to the verb construction. In simple terms, there already exists a way of conveying this message. In fact, the verb construction does such a good job conveying that message and still gives me room to do more.

Ex.
-- e bimawara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were well-housed in decrepit conditions)
-- e biwakwara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were again housed in decrepit conditions)
-- e biwasikwara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were still being housed in decrepit conditions)
etc.

So, now I'm left wondering why I would want to replace the verb construction for something else that will do the same job, albeit not as compactly. Basically, reinvention of grammar at this level is unnecessary. So now, Scholti, would it be possible to consider going a level higher with the new grammar construction as opposed to having it break through the current layers that already exist? Of course, it may mean having to substitute the idea of prefixes for more standalone lexical items. Maybe, a new grammatical class of adverbs.

Phut:

I don't think "beautifuness" is a good test case
@ Ezeagu: Thanks for the translation.
Ezeagu and Scholti how do we say the following words. Is there an already workable affix for these words or is there a need to extend the already existing:

The rest: trimness - ụkpá, ụchá, abruptness - ńkụjà, attentiveness - ńghé, fieriness - àgwà ọkụ, obi ọkụ, genteelness - ogaranya, gratefulness - ọgọ, greasiness - mmanụmmanụ, idi mmanụ, ụnya mmanụ, grouchiness - mkpasu, indebtedness - ịri ụgwọ, oriri ụgwọ, queasiness - afọ nsá, sọ oyi, spaciousness - mbadamba, sa, saasa, graciousness - úrè, uba, mma, braveness - obi shike

ezeagu:
The rest: trimness - ụkpá, ụchá

hehe, did you just coin these?

Phut:


I like this. Would Puta and putara also be substitutes?

The beauty of the Igbo language is that it is oceanic, never-ceasing, spoken across many dialects. However, we must move towards the codification of certain words. We must have one answer to the English suffix '-able.' I am quite happy with any consensus developed for it, whether it is 'pụrụ' or 'puta' or 'putakwara.'

scholti:
We must have one answer to the English suffix '-able.'

This is why I encourage people to really know their lects. We don't need to go round masquerading agglutination as inflection. I know, for example, that an equivalent of \-able\ exists in Ngwa. It's simply rendered during verb construction, like roots during 'progressive suffixation.' And just as I know the equivalent exists in Ngwa, so also would I like to believe that it is present in other lects. I'd be surprised if it weren't.

ChinenyeN:

This is why I encourage people to really know their lects. We don't need to go round masquerading agglutination as inflection. I know, for example, that an equivalent of \-able\ exists in Ngwa. It's simply rendered during verb construction, like roots during 'progressive suffixation.' And just as I know the equivalent exists in Ngwa, so also would I like to believe that it is present in other lects. I'd be surprised if it weren't.

What is it in Ngwa? And do Ngwa people say "Wo" for "They"?

You have a lot of knowledge in this area. Biko ya emena mkpikpi

ezeagu:


Maybe I didn't explain well since it was a quick reply. I know most languages have affixes, what I'm saying is that they deal with affixes in their own way. That Chinese journal for example gives us affixes and sudo-affixes which in the first page introduction has been described as different to English, these affixes I'm seeing on this thread look like a transliteration of the Latin/Greek/French affixes. Chinese may have taken its own process of affixation and extended it to other words and semantic fields influenced by English, but that's exactly what I was explaining you can do with Igbo now. Also every type of affix does not work interchangeably in the Chinese and English version for example. For instance, in Igbo, -ise/-ize is already covered by mẹ-, 'doing', so the word synchronise can be mmẹnyikọ. To use what ChinenyeN was saying, the affixes you used sound like we would be thinking in English and writing in Igbo. In some language affixes can stand alone, like -gate in the Chinese example given in the PDF we're talking about.

As I said before, I don't think rigid affixes should be added that ignore the system already in place because it would overlook the differences in Igbo and assume the Enlgish mode as superior, also when we then start using the different type of affixes they'd become confusing. I actually do not believe that Igbo speakers are abandoning Igbo, there are more Igbo speakers everyday. The phenomena of Igbo not being passed to children is the problem, although this is usually for those outside of Igboland, and there are a number of reasons for this that have little to do with Igbo itself. One reason is that Igbo speakers suffer under diglossia, which means even the most well versed Igbo speaker would write a notice board for example in English or would write a novel in English. This is because the language they are taught is English, there are no Igbo language schools in terms of teaching literature and priority subjects in Igbo. The dominance of English and the dominance of 'thinking in English, speaking in Igbo', as well as what we're saying about forgotten terms, has lead to perception of Igbo as archaic, even though people continue to speak it, also there's the perception that learning in Igbo or even teaching your children Igbo would hinder their chances at speaking good English which is dressed up as the worlds language, meaning opportunity. All of this boils to the point that even if you were to add all the vocabulary needed for the 21st century, or even completely change Igbo you would be hard pressed to find a 'middle-class' Igbo speaker who would send their child to an Igbo-language school, even though many "elite" send their children to French-language schools. It's because of perception, just like Latin was the only language of academia in Europe for hundreds of years. Like the example you gave of Hausa, it's flourishing in media because it's a lingua franca for millions of people who are from diverse backgrounds in northern Nigeria, as opposed to English most times. A problem with Igbo, however, is that its writing system isn't the best.

In terms of registers of language, English may have a simple and complex form for example, but German does not. Chinese may have a classical form, but English doesn't. It all depends on the history and function of the language itself.

German doesn't have simple and complex forms? English doesn't have a classical form? Did you really write these? Really? You are just throwing around hazy thought processes and inaccuracies and hoping that they stick. For your information, English and German, have, high, low, classical and other forms of register. I thought you were a traditionalist fighting a rearguard action, but now I believe you do not understand the profundity of what I am about. You are just lost in a localized way of thinking. Even if Igbo has lost words and aspects of grammar, they wouldn't be half enough to supply a modern vocabulary or grammar (if recovered). The simple truth is that the Igbo didn't have a robust civilization, to boast of lots of scientific terms or a high-powered repertoire of words.

Your refutations only reinforce the points I am making. The article I posted was about the borrowings the Chinese language took from English and nativized. I posted that article in response to your assertion that Chinese doesn't work with affixes: they do, massively, both native and foreign ones. The article is simply saying that it nativizes the borrowings it takes from English as I am doing. I am simply nativizing affixes from English as Chinese and plenty other languages have done. If your accusation that I am simply transliterating English words to Igbo is based on my proposed affixes like 'sis', I only chose them for illustrative purposes. 99.9% of the affixes I am working on are Igbo words . Guess what, I am not the only one thinking along the lines of affixes; today, a friend of mine, lent me an Igbo medical dictionary that was created in 2009 by a team of Igbo medical professions and it contains 41! affixes. ( Here is the book on amazon:http://www.amazon.com/Translation-NTAP-1eca-AS-1ee4S-1ee4-1ee4F-1eccD-1ee4-D-1eccK-1ecaTA/dp/1441590269/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8).

I am going to copy out the affixes here in another post. Every language that aspires to serious usage borrows/nativizes/creates affixes and words. The Chinese are not fools for borrowing '-ing'; nor are the Greeks fools for borrowing '-s' for their plurals; nor are the Germans fools for borrowing 'welt' from English (a nativized word denoting conscious or wide.) Affixes help the expressive powers of a language. And if you shelter under the argument that Igbo 'belongs to a different language family or is different', I would reply that language families are arbitrary, all languages share the same fundamental features.

I am not out to prove that the English language is superior, I am simply out to take the Igbo language to the next level, out of domestic settings to serious oral and written usages. Many Igbos do not believe that the language should be used to communicate biology, physics etc; they are content in the language being a local champion (and thus dying.) Languages must be made relevant to the times we live in, if they are used at all; that means we must create affixes that communicate every aspect of human experiences, the sciences, politics, economics etc. Yes we would incur a little awkwardness in the grammar structure initially, but it is a prize worth paying to advance the language. There is no alternative. And schools that teach exclusively in Igbo are not mandatory for the language to prosper: the Hausa language proves my point. Despite not having schools exclusive to it, it is a bounding, prosperous language. Many people make a living in Nigeria as Hausa journalists, radio hosts, media personnels etc; whereas the Igbo language spoken natively in more than seven states cannot even muster a single newspaper. There is simply no excuse for the Igbo language not to take on the next level of growth; it would do so with a new layer of grammar.

scholti:


The problem with the word 'dibia' is that it is heavily rooted in the Igbo paganic past. Its proper English equivalent is 'witch doctor.' And in any case it is only restricted to medical spaces. I suggest an all-compassing affix that signifies activity at a normal or advanced level like the English equivalents '-er'. '-ist'. My suggestion is that the word ( Dibia) is rested and a new word is invented or borrowed for 'doctor' or an affix is created. The prefix 'di' in my opinion, doesn't convey the gravity of a professional discipline and its risks being confounded with the ubiquitous Igbo 'di' which signifies 'is'. I thought about the 'ci' thinking that the Igbo may be used to it in English but it would pose problem for Igbo orthography in future so we can replace 'ci' with 'ti' or an other combination, the whole aim of 'ci' or 'citi' being to signify a doer whether in a professional or non-professional setting. This is the sort of the debate, we should have about the language to take it to the next level.

Why would di be confused with "Is" in this instance? Especially since it would not be a standalone word. It would be dieze. Diokpukpu. Di means master

Phut:
What is it in Ngwa? And do Ngwa people say "Wo" for "They"?
You have a lot of knowledge in this area. Biko ya emena mkpikpi

The equivalent affix in Ngwa is \-ghita\, indicating the potential for fulfillment. You can see it in the quote I posted from my grandmother, 'a gbaketighita ya'. I can't speak for other Igbo lects. As for your second question, yes. There are some parts of Ngwa that say 'wo' for 'they'.

ChinenyeN:


There is an aspect of Igbo grammar that allows for the creation ideophones from what we would normally think of as 'nouns'. The resulting noun-ideophones are then used in a manner comparative to the \-ness\ that we see in the above post. Ex. oso is used for speed, and ure is used for decay. The respective ideophone would then be oso oso which connotes abruptness and ure ure connoting rottenness. This is not the case for all ideophones though. In fact, most are actually distinct from nouns.

Thanks. Still reading through

A friend of mine lent me his Igbo-English medical dictionary today, created by a team of Igbo professionals in 2009. I am posting all the affixes in the book here, as an example of the necessity of affixes to drive growth in a language and to demonstrate that it isn't a capricious idea. You cannot have growth in any language without affixes. http://www.amazon.com/Translation-NTAP-1eca-AS-1ee4S-1ee4-1ee4F-1eccD-1ee4-D-1eccK-1ecaTA/dp/1441590269/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

1.-itis (inflammation) amaahia| otitis - amaahia nti
2. - osis (in increated state -ọnọdu| necrosis - ọnọdu ure
3.-iasis (condition of) onodu oria| ascariasis =ọnọduọriaokpo
4.-pathy (suffering from disease) mgbu| encephalopathy-mgbuuburu
5.-ectomy (surgical removal) mbepu |splenectomy- mbepu apupa
6. -oma(swelling, tumor) akpu| leiomyoma- akpuajienyi
7.-otomy (cutting onto) Ọwuwa| cystotomy= ọwuwa akpa amiri
8.-ostomy (surgically create an opening) nkwanyonu
9.-pexy (fixation) nkwusi | colpopexy-nkwuzi otu
10. -megaly (enlargement) mbufe oke| acromegaly- agba mbufe oke
11. -lysis (destruction, dissolution) mgbali| osteolysis - mgbali ọkpukpu
12. -ectasis (dilation) okuko-afọ|
bronchiectasis -okuko-afo obere opi
13.dynia (pain) mgbu
14.-algia 9pain) ufu | myalgia - ufu anu aru
15.-rrhea (discharge) nrisi |otorrhea- nrisi nti
16. -emia (blood) ọbara| anemia- ọbara ọtita
17. -penia (few) mkpuru one n'one |neutropenia - ọbara ọcha di mkpuru one n'one
18. -ology (study of) ọmumu maka| rheumatology - ọmumu maka nkwo
19.oligo- (small, few) uko| oligimenrrhea - ukọ asomezi
20. poly(many, much) imirikiti| polyphagia- imirikiti riri nri
21.hyper -(excessive) okanku| hyperemesis - okanku agboo
22. hypo- (below normal) nsunani| hypotension - nsunani ike uje ọbara
23. sub ( under, incomplete , less than) | subcutaneous -okpuru akpukpọ anuaru
24. super ( above, excessive) nri enu| superovulation - akwa nri enu
25. pre- (before) tupu/nkwadebe| preeclampsia - nkwadebe ose ime
26.post ( behind, subsequent to) aghasia| postpartum- aghasia imu nnwa
27. ante -(before) odinihu |antepartum- odinihu omumu nwa
28.bi-(double,two,twice) uzọ ibua/mkpi
29. anti-(against, counteracting) ogbochi| antibiosis -ogbochi njepeka
30.an-(absence of) ezughi oke |anencephaly-isi ezughi oke
31.dys-(bad status) njọ, ntọkiri, nsogbu |dysphagia - nsogbu ilo nri
32. a-(without) enweghi |enweghi nmetuta n'obi
33.endo-(inside) ime |endometrial-ime akpa nwa
34.eu (good status) enweghi nsogbu| euglycemia - shuga enweghi nsogbu
35. hydro-(water) miri | hydrorrhea-miri nruputa
36.intra -(during, within) n'ime| intraperitoneal - n'ime afọ
37. macro-(large)
|Macrognathia- agba buru ibu
38. micro-(very tiny) pere mpe, peka| microbiology - ọmumu maka opeka ndu
39. neo-(ohuru) |neonate- nwa ohuru
40.pyo-(pus) abu|

pyorrhea- iruputa abu
41. ad- (motion toward) njekwute, mmakọdo| adhesion - mmakọdo ime aru
|

ChinenyeN:

Ex. They were housed in decrepit conditions
-- Ha uloworo ha na onodusis lelele (new grammar)
-- E biwara we l'ajaghara onodi (verb construction)
*The above verb construction is the actual equivalent construction in the Ngwa lect.

The two statements above are saying the exact same thing. The only difference is that the second sentence provides a more compact translation, thanks to the verb construction. In simple terms, there already exists a way of conveying this message. In fact, the verb construction does such a good job conveying that message and still gives me room to do more.

Ex.
-- e bimawara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were well-housed in decrepit conditions)
-- e biwakwara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were again housed in decrepit conditions)
-- e biwasikwara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were still being housed in decrepit conditions)
etc.

So, now I'm left wondering why I would want to replace the verb construction for something else that will do the same job, albeit not as compactly. Basically, reinvention of grammar at this level is unnecessary. So now, Scholti, would it be possible to consider going a level higher with the new grammar construction as opposed to having it break through the current layers that already exist? Of course, it may mean having to substitute the idea of prefixes for more standalone lexical items. Maybe, a new grammatical class of adverbs.

Your examples are easy to understand.

As far as the bolded: Go ahead. We are "listening"

Scholti gave this a shot, earlier. How would you say the following:

1.The house is livable.
2.It is actionable in court.
3. It is perfectly understandable.

ChinenyeN:

The equivalent affix in Ngwa is \-ghita\, indicating the potential for fulfillment. You can see it in the quote I posted from my grandmother, 'a gbaketighita ya'. I can't speak for other Igbo lects. As for your second question, yes. There are some parts of Ngwa that say 'wo' for 'they'.

Wow! Oguta people say Wo as well

ChinenyeN:
Alright.. where to begin... WARNING: THIS WILL BE LONG

First let's try to be on the same page with regards to terminology. It will be important for what I have to say afterward. Igbo is what is known as a verb based language. This means that the morphology of words and the grammatical structure of the language emphasize flow, movement and constant transformation. This is the number one reason for the difficulty in translating a great deal of Igbo expressions into English. When asked to say what so-and-so means in English, an Igbo speaker will give a response akin to "it is like..", before they go on describing the complex interplay that the expression captures.

English, in contrast to Igbo, is a noun based language, great for discussions on concepts and classifications. As language is simply a tool for communication, it is impossible to say that one language is inherently better than another. So, in reality, grammatical structures, morphology, etc. are not features of a language that ultimately decide it's degree of sophistication.

**Interesting Fact: There is a school of thought with a large following in the Physics community that believes English to be unsuitable for the discussion of quantum theory. This school of thought claims that a verb based language structure would actually better express the ontology of quantum theory and so they introduced a verb based mode of the English language for that purpose. It's called Rheomode. It's interesting to read about, but eventually, as Igbo, we see that it is no news to us. This is not to put one language type above the other, but merely to emphasize the fact that language is simply a tool, which is often reshaped as needed to capture and express new things.

Now, there is no denying that Igbo is indeed not up to par. I've said it before several times, and I'll say it again. Igbo is treated by Igbo people as a relic, rather than something with the potential for growth and specialization. This is not an inherent fault of the language. If it were, then we would have to ask ourselves why our ancestors had no problem continuously coining terms and expressions until contact with Europeans. Fast forward from pre-European contact days to the present and we see that the treatment Igbo has received from Igbo people over the past 100+ years has created a problem that is two-fold.

1) A good deal of lexicon has fallen to obscurity. Some lexical items have even been lost to oblivion. An example of this is the expression biribiriga, which is the Ngwa equivalent for storm/rainstorm. When asked for a translation of storm, most Ngwa today will not have a response. Few will attempt to coin a phrase, and biribiriga remains a forgotten relic. This regression in lexicon then leads to the second part of the two-fold problem.

2) People have now developed the notion that Igbo lacks a robust and sophisticated vocabulary. This notion is oddly prevalent, despite the fact that these same people who carry the notion know only a fraction of the words and expressions used by those who lived just two generations earlier. These same people then progressively switch their mode of speech to English.

From my observation, the current state of Igbo has little to do with grammar and nearly everything to do with lexicon. If people knew half the lexicon of those who lived two to three generations ago and beyond, the state of Igbo would be significantly different [read: 'better'].

Now, back to the terminology. Igbo is a verb based language with an agglutinative structure. An agglutinative structure is a structure in which expressions are created from the stringing together of words, whose forms do not change once the words have been strung together. For example, nchoputa oria is an agglutination of two expressions, nchoputa and oria. Barring the morphological rules behind the conjugation of nchoputa, both expressions will retain the same form whether they are agglutinated together or not. In other words, the full meaning of nchoputa is still attested for, even when separated from oria and vice versa. There is no attested level of grammatical construction after this, among the Igboid languages. From my understanding then, it's not so much that Scholti wants to completely undo the grammatical structure of the languge, but rather, it is at this point [post-agglutination] where Scholti wants to introduce a new layer of grammatical construction.

Now, I have no problem with the introduction of a new layer of grammatical construction, so long as it works. However, this particular sort of grammatical addition that Scholti is suggesting is unlikely to be well-received, like Ezeagu stated. This isn't because it is ineffectual, but rather because it doesn't sit well in the mind or roll off comfortably from the tongue, and the reason for this is because it reflects an attempt to think simultaneously in English (just a case-in-point here) and Igbo. In other words, inflecting words/expressions after they have already been strung together. That is where the hiccup lies (if I can even call it that).

In reality, expressions such as mmuta in mmutandu, puru in puruome, onodu in onodumma, etc. actually do not qualify as examples of affixes, but rather examples of agglutination. It's important that we make this distinction now. Affixes are morphological aspects of certain languages that are used to modify meaning. Affixes typically cannot stand alone, as they are only modifiers. For example, \-s\ doesn't mean anything by itself, but affixed to a noun it does. In direct contrast, the mmuta, puru, onodu, etc. can all stand alone, and as such do not represent affixes, but rather instances of whole words in an agglutinated structure. This distinction is important to make, before I discuss the affixes in another post.

Right now, I want to bring our attention back to the reason for this thread, being that Igbo needs to become more robust. Overall, this topic is loaded and I know I stated a lot in this post that relates more so with the nature of Igbo, rather than addressing the point of the thread. However, I did so, because I believe that having that foundation is important. It will help when it comes time to make sense of my upcoming posts. It's late now, so I will be back to post later. In the meantime however, I will close out this post with the below:

I believe the problem with Igbo is a combination of lost lexicon and Igbo speakers' inability to effectively coin new words and expressions. Grammar, I believe, is a non-issue. In my opinion, the verb based structure of Igbo is particularly effective. How would we judge that, one might ask? Well, ask yourself why we often have so much trouble translating from Igbo to English. It isn't because English is short of words, but rather it is because the verb based structure of the language allows for us to capture and express processes in a compact manner. Igbo has the foundation necessary for robust discussion and for the addition of sophisticated lexicon. It simply won't be the same with how English has developed, and I believe that is where people fall short in their understanding.

To drive this point home, I'll tell a story about an experience I had with my grandmother a long while back. She is not an avid computer user. In fact, she's simply a petty trader in Aba, but she visited us here in the States a while back and I had to help her use the computer (my father set up an email for her so she could remain in contact with us once she gets back home). She actually understands and speaks English, but prefers to speak Ngwa (she's more comfortable with that). Anyway, in the process of her doing whatever it was she was doing on the computer, something happened and she could no longer get back to where she was. Of course, she calls me over in Ngwa, telling me how the computer is behaving sickly. I'm going through everything with her, describing what happened and why it failed, telling her where to click, etc. Eventually, in the process of me explaining and helping her, she made a statement that I will never forget. She said.. "a gbaketighita ya ta a gbaketighitaghi ya?", which for all intents and purposes translates as "is it recoverable or is it unrecoverable?". I turned and looked at her, and my mind just starts reeling, because I had long since known the verb construction, but it had never occurred to me to think of it in that way. I simply smiled and replied "mm a gbaketighita ya" (yeah, it's recoverable).

That moment with my grandmother opened my eyes and gave me a better understanding of things that I thought I already knew. I began to see the very same verb based structure I had always been making in a new light. Things that I innately knew to speak made sense to me on a conscious level. Psychologists say that there is a different thought process for every language. After that incident with my grandmother, I began to pay more attention to Ngwa, and little by little, I began to think differently when I thought in Ngwa (I mean, thinking in my head in Ngwa as opposed to thinking in English). I then realized that in this verb based structure lies the potential for compact and sophisticated constructions. What is missing (or our problem) is that we want to think in English and speak in Igbo. That is a mentality that we should do away with.

I'll be back to post about the affixes.

Mandarin is a verb-based language and it uses affixes actively, both borrowed and native. Whole words can stand as affixes, an example is the English '-able' borrowed from French in the middle ages. Affixes are inevitable in the construction of words and invigorating languages. My post in #51 listing 41 affixes in the Igbo-English medical dictionary, demonstrates that there are people who recognize the need for affixes.

The Igbo didn't have a sophisticated civilization like others in and outside the continent, to have developed a large stock of scientific words. True, words have been lost but they wouldn't be sufficient to supply the full corpus of words for academical disciplines, like chemistry, physics etc, if recovered.

The Igbo language does harbour a lot of potential that can create a lot words and channels. I have coined many words from the native Igbo stock, but the fact remains that it exists in a new milieu where it is must admit a new vigour to fully make sense of it. Other languages that have borrowed grammatical aspects like the Chinese, Japanese etc are not inferior. There are many fields of human learning and many registers of language usage that the Igbo language is simply incapable taking on as it is.

I am not advocating the doing away with the traditional Igbo grammar, I am simply calling for a new layer that would interact with the old. It is not thinking in English and writing in Igbo. The changes would interact with the old to create a new fusion that would respond to the grammatical and vocabulary mazes of academical English, the classical repertoire of English, Hindu, French, Chinese etc in written and spoken forms and give the voices of Igbo speakers a solid vocabulary and grammar to communicate the sciences, philosophy, etc in Igbo.

We started on the equal footing that languages borrow morphological aspects. It is a natural and noble thing. It is a sign of greatness. The Chinese language with millennia of civilization hasn't been diminished by borrowing '-ing', nor has the Japanese lost its sheen by borrowing grammatical aspects from English. It is simply a natural course of growth. Ofcourse every introduction, however nativistic, would register unwieldy, in the the settled processes of the language, but this is only a small prize to pay for the amount of expressive power the borrowings or more properly nativization brings (the affixes I am coining are mostly Igbo words). Languages must grow. The Igbo language wouldn't be diminished by nativizing affixes; they would help tremendously in the laddered production of the language. Every language, that has aspired to growth, has done it, whether, noun- or verb-centred.

I am a native speaker and I have as much love and knowledge of the language and its dialects as anyone else out there. I only long to see a language that lives up to its potentials. I have read its writings, listened to its words and I know with more prodding, it would further blossom.

scholti:
A friend of mine lent me his Igbo-English medical dictionary today, created by a team of Igbo professionals in 2009. I am posting all the affixes in the book here, as an example of the necessity of affixes to drive growth in a language and to demonstrate that it isn't a capricious thinking. You cannot have language growth in any language without affixes. http://www.amazon.com/Translation-NTAP-1eca-AS-1ee4S-1ee4-1ee4F-1eccD-1ee4-D-1eccK-1ecaTA/dp/1441590269/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

1.-itis (inflammation) amaahia| otitis - amaahia nti
2. - osis (in increated state -ọnọdu| necrosis - ọnọdu ure
3.-iasis (condition of) onodu oria| ascariasis =ọnọduọriaokpo
4.-pathy (suffering from disease) mgbu| encephalopathy-mgbuuburu
5.-ectomy (surgical removal) mbepu |splenectomy- mbepu apupa
6. -oma(swelling, tumor) akpu| leiomyoma- akpuajienyi
7.-otomy (cutting onto) Ọwuwa| cystotomy= ọwuwa akpa amiri
8.-ostomy (surgically create an opening) nkwanyonu
9.-pexy (fixation) nkwusi | colpopexy-nkwuzi otu
10. -megaly (enlargement) mbufe oke| acromegaly- agba mbufe oke
11. -lysis (destruction, dissolution) mgbali| osteolysis - mgbali ọkpukpu
12. -ectasis (dilation) okuko-afọ|
bronchiectasis -okuko-afo obere opi
13.dynia (pain) mgbu
14.-algia 9pain) ufu | myalgia - ufu anu aru
15.-rrhea (discharge) nrisi |otorrhea- nrisi nti
16. -emia (blood) ọbara| anemia- ọbara ọtita
17. -penia (few) mkpuru one n'one |neutropenia - ọbara ọcha di mkpuru one n'one
18. -ology (study of) ọmumu maka| rheumatology - ọmumu maka nkwo
19.oligo- (small, few) uko| oligimenrrhea - ukọ asomezi
20. poly(many, much) imirikiti| polyphagia- imirikiti riri nri
21.hyper -(excessive) okanku| hyperemesis - okanku agboo
22. hypo- (below normal) nsunani| hypotension - nsunani ike uje ọbara
23. sub ( under, incomplete , less than) | subcutaneous -okpuru akpukpọ anuaru
24. super ( above, excessive) nri enu| superovulation - akwa nri enu
25. pre- (before) tupu/nkwadebe| preeclampsia - nkwadebe ose ime
26.post ( behind, subsequent to) aghasia| postpartum- aghasia imu nnwa
27. ante -(before) odinihu |antepartum- odinihu omumu nwa
28.bi-(double,two,twice) uzọ ibua/mkpi
29. anti-(against, counteracting) ogbochi| antibiosis -ogbochi njepeka
30.an-(absence of) ezughi oke |anencephaly-isi ezughi oke
31.dys-(bad status) njọ, ntọkiri, nsogbu |dysphagia - nsogbu ilo nri
32. a-(without) enweghi |enweghi nmetuta n'obi
33.endo-(inside) ime |endometrial-ime akpa nwa
34.eu (good status) enweghi nsogbu| euglycemia - shuga enweghi nsogbu
35. hydro-(water) miri | hydrorrhea-miri nruputa
36.intra -(during, within) n'ime| intraperitoneal - n'ime afọ
37. macro-(large)
|Macrognathia- agba buru ibu
38. micro-(very tiny) pere mpe, peka| microbiology - ọmumu maka opeka ndu
39. neo-tn(ohuru) |neonate- nwa ohuru
40.pyo-(pus) abu|

pyorrhea- iruputa abu
41. ad- (motion toward) njekwute, mmakọdo| adhesion - mmakọdo ime aru
|

ChinenyeN said they are examples of verb agglutination as opposed to affixes. I don't believe he and Ezeagu have anything against verb agglutination. Is it possible to work together to come up with some standard verb agglutination?

Also ChinenyeN asked:

So now, Scholti, would it be possible to consider going a level higher with the new grammar construction as opposed to having it break through the current layers that already exist? Of course, it may mean having to substitute the idea of prefixes for more standalone lexical items. Maybe, a new grammatical class of adverbs.

What say you, Scholti? Two heads are better than one

Phut:

ChinenyeN said they are examples of verb agglutination as opposed to affixes. I don't believe he and Ezeagu have anything against verb agglutination. Is it possible to work together to come up with some standard verb agglutination?

Also ChinenyeN asked:


What say you, Scholti? Two heads are better than one

An affix is simply any word or term that reoccurs or can be appended to words for convenience of meaning. In the English language for example, whole words like 'under-(understaff, underpaid etc)', 'sub-', 'life-' are used as affixes.

I got these affixes from chapters 4 and 5: 'Basic Medical suffixes', and 'Basic medical prefixes' (respectively).

I am not bugged down by technicalities, he can use whatever term(s) he wants on them, as long as he accepts their roles and appendage, because one affix can create and nativize many new words, and ofcourse inject their own grammatical mutations.

Phut:
Scholti gave this a shot, earlier. How would you say the following:

1. The house is livable. [e bighita la mkpu]
2. It is actionable in court. [a tughita omu ya ..or.. a gbaghita ikpe ya]
3. It is perfectly understandable. [a kotatighita ya]

ChinenyeN:
Part of the problem with people who put Igbo down is that they in fact do not truly understand it. Sure, we have plenty of native speakers with an intrinsic understanding of their various lects, who can communicate effectively. However, as generations continue to come and go, we continue to realize the hard fact that Igbo is no longer the means with which we conceive of, experience and describe our world. This essentially creates and ever-growing population of native speakers who intrinsically know what to say, because they understand how it's said, and not necessarily because they understand why it is said that way.

One cannot grow a language with that understanding or lack thereof. It is never as simple as just tossing new features at a language. Those features need to be functional within the framework of said language. Therefore, if we want to add an extra layer of grammatical construction to encourage sophistication, we'd have to understand the already established grammatical structure. This way, all the new and sophisticated features we toss at Igbo will have functionality and not end up bouncing off like nothing ever happened.

Brief on the Affixes

Igbo has prefixes, suffixes, infixes and interfixes.

Ex.
-- akpa - prefix is the initial \a\
-- nkari - suffix is the \ri\
-- choputa - infix the \pu\
-- okomoko - interfix is the \m\
note: The infix category is probably a misnomer. For Igbo, infixes are typically just verb roots with another verb root affixed after it. So, it can be argued that Igbo has no true infixes and what we see is just the manifestation of 'progressive suffixation' (for lack of a better term).

For the sake of this discussion, I'll focus solely on the prefixes. Then I'll tie it back in with Scholti's proposal for a new layer of grammatical construction. A total of six prefixes exist in Igbo (not accounting for variation among the Igboid lects). Ezeagu listed them earlier, so I won't rehash what those prefixes are. Now, recall that Igbo is a verb based language. These prefixes are verb root modifiers. They work to fulfill a verb's meaning in different ways. I'm sure that for most of us (if not virtually everyone), these prefixes and their usages would seem annoyingly arbitrary. In trying to understand how Igbo words/expressions were created, one could easily get frustrated wondering why one word uses \a\ and another with the same root uses \u\. Surprisingly enough, I've found that Igbo people intrinsically understand the functions of these prefixes as verb modifiers. They just don't have a conscious realization of it. It simply makes sense to them. Anyway, I'll just quickly run through them all so we can get a brief understanding.

a/e - These two vowels fulfill the meanings of the verbs they modify. They show the process being captured in speech as active & ongoing.
Ex. anwu \a\chagbuo ya ... o ma \e\che ndu ya.

They also function as pronouns.
Ex. \e\ mere ya ... \a\ si na o bu mu mere..

In English this is called the indefinite pronoun. This function as an indefinite pronoun is made possible by the fact that these two vowels fulfill the action of verbs without any regard to the source of such action. From this, words like akpa are created. Translating to English, it means anything from bag to pouch to pocket (there's that "it's like.." all over again). However, thinking in Igbo, we see that it is the fulfillment of the process of gathering (the root kpa is collecting, gathering, handling), without considering the source of that process. In other words, the activity of handling, gathering and collecting occurs in that bag, regardless of who or what initiated or was involved in the process.

i/ị - Technically this is just one vowel. Pre-European contact Igbo speakers likely saw no difference between \i\ & \ị\, but retroactive vowel harmony and the onset of writing has us now differentiating the two. Anyway, this vowel is used to indicate an active state of a verb construction without necessarily showing any fulfillment, while at times ascribing that active state to someone or something. In fact, this is the only modifier that is used to directly associate an activity or process.
Ex. \i\ji mee atu ... Chuka si na ike \i\gba gburugburu adighi ya. This is the vowel used for second person singular (i.e. you).

o/ọ - Just as with \i\, this is also just one vowel, but it is rendered as two. This vowel is used when the verb construction is being ascribed to something or someone previously mentioned or easily identified.
Ex. Uche, \o\ mere gini? ... \o\ bu Uche ka a na-akpo?

From this, words like ole are created. Translating to English, it means anything from onlooker to bystander to observer. However, thinking in Igbo, we see ole as the fulfillment of le by something or someone concrete or easily identifiable. This vowel also gives us our third person singular (i.e. he, she, it).

u/ụ - This vowel isn't used in sentence construction, but it does show up as a modifier in verb construction, when turning verbs into nouns. In simple terms, where \o\ often describes a concrete association, \u\ describes an archetypal or abstract association. You can more easily see this when comparing these \u\ words with their \o\ counterparts, though this is not always necessary.

Ex.
-- ji (blacken, darken) -- ojii (black) -- \u\ji (darkening)
-- cha (shine) -- ocha (white) -- \u\cha (clean, white)

m/n - For all intents and purposes, I will call these two vowels (or pseudo-vowels, if you will). In a very simplified explanation, \m\ & \n\ are very similar to infinitives in that they indicate an active state for the verb construction. The difference being that \m\ & \n\ do not induce any tense or mood and they can also bind these active, mood-less, tense-less verbs to a subject.
Ex. \m\mezi ala ka \m\ma ... ihe \n\kea di \n\fe ibuli elu.

Here, we see a pretty well-rounded verb construction system. Combined with agglutination, this can be used to describe all sorts of activities and processes. The problem again is that we tend to think too much in English while describing these activities and processes.

We see now how the verb is the center of all activity, and part of the reason why Scholti's affixes don't seem easy to appropriate is because they seemingly break the fulfillment of these verbs.

Ex. They were housed in decrepit conditions. ( Ha ulọworo ha na ọnụdusis lelele.)

Reading the above sentence, we actually see no evidence of verb based speech at all. Though I get what's going on in that sentence, it still seems empty, because no verb constructions are used to indicate the processes being ascribed to the initial ha in the sentence. Essentially, this new grammar doesn't actually sit as an added layer of grammatical construction, but instead encroaches past the layer of agglutination and past the layer of conjugation and down to the layer of verb construction. Now let's compare a verb construction saying the exact same thing.

Ex. They were housed in decrepit conditions
-- Ha uloworo ha na onodusis lelele (new grammar)
-- E biwara we l'ajaghara onodi (verb construction)
*The above verb construction is the actual equivalent construction in the Ngwa lect.

The two statements above are saying the exact same thing. The only difference is that the second sentence provides a more compact translation, thanks to the verb construction. In simple terms, there already exists a way of conveying this message. In fact, the verb construction does such a good job conveying that message and still gives me room to do more.

Ex.
-- e bimawara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were well-housed in decrepit conditions)
-- e biwakwara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were again housed in decrepit conditions)
-- e biwasikwara we l'ajaghara onodi (they were still being housed in decrepit conditions)
etc.

So, now I'm left wondering why I would want to replace the verb construction for something else that will do the same job, albeit not as compactly. Basically, reinvention of grammar at this level is unnecessary. So now, Scholti, would it be possible to consider going a level higher with the new grammar construction as opposed to having it break through the current layers that already exist? Of course, it may mean having to substitute the idea of prefixes for more standalone lexical items. Maybe, a new grammatical class of adverbs.

Have you considered writing an Ngwa dictionary? A friend recently drew my attention to an Abiriba-English dictionary: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1505445760?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00. It is a pity we don't have an active written culture via newspapers, that would archive and spread every aspect of Igbo dialects. The Igbo dialects are the powerhouses of the language, however, they fall short on truly expounding the modern realities we live in. One obvious lacuna is the lack of affixes for specialist areas of learning (the list I posted in #51 demonstrates the importance of affixes in specialist areas) and mundane areas of existence and the subsequent grammatical infrastructure that they need to function. Also missing are subtleties of rendition, for example, in your translation, 'E biwara we l'ajaghara onodi', 'onodi' is left singular; whereas the Igbo rendition (in the new grammar) is pluralled. Now this is a typical Igbo language silent treatment of 's', it implies it, which is inadequate.

Secondly, you make use of another burdened Igbo word 'bi'. There is a reason why I came up with the affixes, 'wo' and 'woro'; I did it to extend the Igbo language to non-traditional usages. The English language or any robustly used modern language, Japanese, Arabic, etc can take any word and do what I would term '360ize' it. That is, they can vest it with multi-flexibility, thereby rendering it eternal/reinventive. The word 'housed' is one of such processes of '360ization.' By appending house with '-ed' it invigorates it. The English language can take any word, whether common or uncommon and invest it with with an arsenal of affixes: '-ed', 'under', 's' etc. So house can become 'underhoused' (an appendage of two affixes). Sand can be become 'sanded', 'path','pathed', uncountable nouns can be plurals etc. This is what I simply want to achieve for Igbo. A laddered way of speaking and writing. By taking the best practices and injecting them into Igbo to cohabit with the old, because the old still seethes with life, albeit limitedly.

Now back to the word 'bi'. Like certain Igbo words 'obodo', 'mma', 'ọma', etc, are overburdened; because very few words have been created to sit side by side the huge chest of English synonyms. I look forward to the time when ulọworo or akwukwọworo (booked), can be normal. This is what I call '360ization', the complete freedom of words to mutate, become unpredictable and break monotony. And this is why I am creating a new layer of affixes most of which are nativized Igbo words, with less than one percent borrowed or made up like '-vi' standing for '-er', or '-or' in 'akaravi' (marker), 'Mgbakọtavi' (coordinator).

scholti:


German doesn't have simple and complex forms? English doesn't have a classical form? Did you really write these? Really? You are just throwing around hazy thought processes and inaccuracies and hoping that they stick. For your information, English and German, have, high, low, classical and other forms of register. I thought you were a traditionalist fighting a rearguard action, but now I believe you do not understand the profundity of what I am about. You are just lost in a localized way of thinking. You do not understand how languages evolve and grow. Even if Igbo has lost words and aspects of grammar, they wouldn't be half enough to supply a modern vocabulary or grammar (if recovered). The simple truth is that the Igbo didn't have a robust civilization, to boast of lots of scientific terms or a high-powered repertoire of words.

Your refutations only reinforce the points I am making. The article I posted was about the borrowings the Chinese language took from English and nativized. I posted that article in response to your assertion that Chinese doesn't work with affixes: they do, massively, both native and foreign ones. The article is simply saying that it nativizes the borrowings it takes from English as I am doing. I am simply nativizing affixes from English as Chinese and plenty other languages has done. If your accusation that I am simply transliterating English words to English is based on my proposed affixes like 'sis', I only chose them for illustrative purposes. 99.9% of the affixes I am working on are Igbo words . Guess what, I am not the only one thinking along the lines of affixes; today, a friend of mine, lent me an Igbo medical dictionary that was created in 2009 by a team of Igbo medical professions and it contains 41! affixes. ( Here is the book on amazon:http://www.amazon.com/Translation-NTAP-1eca-AS-1ee4S-1ee4-1ee4F-1eccD-1ee4-D-1eccK-1ecaTA/dp/1441590269/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8).

I am going to copy out the affixes here in another post. Every language that aspires to serious usage borrows/nativizes/creates affixes and words. The Chinese are not fools for borrowing '-ing'; nor are the Greeks fools for borrowing '-s' for their plurals; nor are the Germans fools for borrowing 'welt' from English (a nativized word denoting conscious or wide.) Affixes help the expressive powers of a language. And if you shelter under the argument that Igbo 'belongs to a different language family or is different', I would reply that languages families are arbitrary, all languages share the same fundamental features.

I am not out to prove that the English language is superior, I am simply out to take the Igbo language to the next level, out of domestic settings to serious oral and written usages. Many Igbos do not believe that the language should be used to communicate biology, physics etc; they are content in the language being a local champion (and thus dying.) Languages must be made relevant to the times we live in, if they are used at all; that means we must create affixes that communicate every aspect of human experiences, the sciences, politics, economics etc. Yes we would incur a little awkwardness in the grammar structure initially, but it is a prize worth paying to advance the language. There is no alternative. And schools that teach exclusively in Igbo are not mandatory for the language to prosper: the Hausa language proves my point. Despite not having schools exclusive to it, it is a bounding, prosperous language. Many people make a living in Nigeria as Hausa journalists, radio hosts, media personnels etc; whereas the Igbo language spoken natively in more than seven states cannot even muster a single newspaper. There is simply no excuse for the Igbo language not to take on the next level of growth; it would do so with a new layer of grammar.

Okay, first of all there's not classical English. I think you misunderstood me saying Chinese and all do not have those prefixes, not prefixes in general, to function. This is what your sources says on Chinese affixes in relation to English ones.

"An affix is a morpheme that is attached to a word stem to form a new word. Words with
multiple affixes (WMAs) such as “translatability”, “postmodernism” and “surrealism” are
very common in English. But in Chinese most WMAs are borrowed from Japanese which
were also influenced by English. In recent years, research such as in Pan et al. (2004) and
Shen (1995) has been conducted to explore the new phenomenon of adding affixes to
Chinese words to form new words in scientific literature, which are mainly translated from
English or other western languages. Although these words have an English origin, they
show their own characteristics. To distinguish them from their counterparts in English,
Chinese linguists call them “quasi-affixes”. The concept was first proposed by Lu Shuxiang
in The Analysis of Chinese Grammar in 1978, which turned a new leaf of study Chinese
affixes. For this Xu(1997) also remarked: “In Chinese-Tibetan languages, the derivation
that plays an important role in new word creation is not those affixes whose senses are
fading and that only serve as formal markers, but those quasi-affixes that retain their certain
senses”. Because quasi-affixes emerge very fast, many new words have been created in this
way, especially in scientific literature. As we mentioned above, many Chinese compound
words were borrowed from Japanese (more than 20,000) in late Qing Dynasty by
introducing Japanese textbooks. In the process, WMAs became a part of Chinese lexicon,
e.g. words with common affixes like “-性(-ity)” and “-度(-dom)”.

"By comparing the WMAs in both English and Chinese, their features that can be used
for automatic translation are summarized into the following three categories: First, in
English the part-of-speech a word is generally shown by derivation and many multiple
affixes are used to indicate their syntactic functions. But this is not true for Chinese.
Therefore, when an English WMA is translated, the stem word is usually kept while the
affixes will be taken off. For instance, the structure of the word “modernization” is “stem
word+suffix+suffix”. Its Chinese translation is “现代化(modernization)” and the last
suffix has to be omitted and corresponds to the empty character ε.
In contrast, English words with a single affix may be translated to Chinese WMAs.
For instance, when a word like “usable” is translated, the Chinese prefix “可-(-able)” has
to be added and its translation becomes “可 利用 的 (usable)” (with the structure
“prefix+stem word+suffix”）. When analyzing this type of words, new characters need to be
generated. Some WMAs correspond very well in both languages, e. g., word
“nongovernmental” with the structure “prefix+stem word+suffix” and “ 非 政 府 的
(nongovernmental)” with the structure “prefix+stem word +suffix”.
The work in this paper considers only verbs and adjectives, the majority of WMAs.
Ordinary dictionaries usually cannot collect all the WMAs, especially in scientific literature.
They often become “unknown words” in machine translation and cannot be translated
successfully. Section 5 provides a few examples for such words."

So the point is Chinese may have been influenced by the scientific words in English by way of Chinese, but their affix or quasi-affix system follows the way established way of affixing. I don't know why I need to say 'ọnọdụnwanyọ' when I can just say 'nwanyọ'. The nature of Igbo itself flows and removes redundancies in order to harmonise words. I see this as a classic example of what this process of affixing will do, which is to attach a one-size-fits-all English-derived affixation system to everything regardless of whether it is needed or not. Reading the Chinese affixation system makes it clear that theirs is different enough from English and works with the language how it has always done. Chinese didn't 'take from English and nativized' in the sense you're talking about, rather it looked at English and provided a suitable Chinese response.

On Hausa and the Igbo languages use in media, again: I am 99% certain if you were to switch the language of all the Hausa speakers to Igbo and the language of the Igbo speakers to Hausa, we would still see a phenomena where Igbo would be used in all types of media. I am equally certain that Hausa is used in schools in northern Nigeria in a way Igbo isn't in southern Nigeria, in fact, speaking Igbo was/is often times punishable in some schools. The problem is diglossia and the rubbish orthography Igbo has, Igbo speakers don't need to speak Igbo because English is widely spoken, while in northern Nigeria Hausa is really all they've got. Even taking the Hausa example, we see that they did not need to change their grammar much to have a language that everyone uses comfortably in all or most areas of life. I'm not even going to talk about grades of civilisation, partly because it's quite irrelevant in the discussion of expanding vocabulary today.

Phut:
2.It is actionable in court.

I was thinking about how the word for court could be created with the affixing and compounding of 'kpé' and using tone to our advantage, as well as in the creation of other law terms.

ikpe; legal battle
nkpè; court
ukpè; judgement, judge v. [gọ ụkpè]
àkpè; legislation
èkpè; act, decree; acting [èkpùkpè]
òkpè; lawyer
ókpè; court room

compound
àzúikpè; verdict
ńjụíkpè, ọjụíkpè; objection
ọláíkpè; inconclusive
ọhàíkpè [ọhíkpè]; jury

and so on, I haven't even gone into íwú and I've made, presumably, ten legal terms. From one verb. 10. Now imagine what could be done with the thousands of verbs using this simple affixing, and in that case understandable, style that's been used to create most Igbo words already.

Hey guys, I bought a couple of dictionaries off Amazon and by comparing and from them, I was able to compile the attached dictionary. What do you guys think of the work, so far?

I want to make it an online, searchable dictionary with audio pronounciation for all the entries. I only attached the A entries but it is currently 525 pages long. I will add Biribiriga - Rainstorm as well as Iga - Fortress, akpede-crossbow and Agwa - Island. Can any of you make any recommendation(s) as to whom to hire for the development of the site?

cc: ChinenyeN
Ezeagu
Cheruv
Scholti
Radoillo
Melzabull

Phut:
Hey guys, I bought a couple of dictionaries off Amazon and by comparing and from them, I was able to compile the attached dictionary. What do you guys think of the work, so far?
I want to make it an online, searchable dictionary with audio pronounciation for all the entries. I only attached the A entries but it is currently 525 pages long. I will add Biribiriga - Rainstorm as well as Iga - Fortress, akpede-crossbow and Agwa - Island. Can any of you make any recommendation(s) as to whom to hire for the development of the site?
cc: ChinenyeN
Ezeagu
Cheruv
Scholti
Radoillo
Melzabull

You should get in touch with Oge Nnadi who developed mkpuruokwu.org. It was the best online dictionary and I don't know why it's no longer online. It also provided the region of origin of dialect words and have their tone, like with ákwà (cloth), they transcribed it as [HL]. And it was searchable in both ways (Igbo-English-Igbo).

His contact details: http://nnadi.org/.

ezeagu:


You should get in touch with Oge Nnadi who developed mkpuruokwu.org. It was the best online dictionary and I don't know why it's no longer online. It also provided the region of origin of dialect words and have their tone, like with ákwà (cloth), they transcribed it as [HL]. And it was searchable in both ways (Igbo-English-Igbo).

His contact details: http://nnadi.org/.

Thanks for the recommendation. Will do so.