Probz:
How do you think Igbo would be if serial verb-construction was more of a thang?

This is where things get interesting.

So using the Ngwa example that I mentioned earlier, we have “i kahigba hwe nne ahu” which breaks down to “i ka hwe hi nne gba ahu”. We could posit that “i ka hwe hi nne gba ahu” might have been a serial verb construction, and on the surface it makes sense. It makes sense because it mirrors the modern “kahigba” sequence rather well. The one-for-one correlation is so readily apparent that we can be almost certain that “kahigba hwe nne ahu” comes from the breakdown of “ka hwe hi nne gba ahu”. At the very minimum, we can be almost 100% certain that “kahigba hwe nne ahu” once was likely a serial verb construction. However, even if this thought makes sense, it has one major flaw.


To go from “ka hwe hi nne gba ahu” to “kahigba hwe nne ahu” requires A LOT of linguistic motivation. Here’s what I mean.

Language is not a logical thing. It’s just a series of conventions that speakers agree to and even modify over time by speech consensus. So very few things in language are rigid rules. For Igbo, one of those few rigid rules seems to be word order.

Igbo is a strict word order language. The subject goes in a specific place, the object goes in a specific place and the verbs go in a specific place, etc etc. I have not come across any linguistics study that has proven Igbo to have a loose word order whether in modern times or historically. This strict word order is important, because it acts as a direct hinderance to the theory I just gave earlier.

Basically, because Igbo is a strict word-order language, we have to face the hard truth that a development from “ka hwe hi nne gba ahu” to “kahigba hwe nne ahu” would have likely been impossible without to heavy motivation by the speakers. This is because in order to get the modern “kahigba”, we have to significantly break the word order, jump “hi” over one clause, in this case “hwe”. We also have to jump “gba” over two clauses, in this case, both “hwe” and “nne”.

In a strict word-order language, this would not be possible without significant pressures. Either the speech community decided to re-engineer their language, or direct contact with another language community caused a rather abrupt speech change. Think about it like a chemical reaction. The linguistic bond within “gba ahu” and “hi nne” and “ka hwe” as clauses is stronger than the external bond between “ka hwe” and “gba ahu” (because of being a strict word-order language). We would require a strong catalyst to break “ka hwe”, “hi nne” and “gba ahu” to create “kahigba” and “hwe nne ahu”.

It would be very difficult to break the bond within “gba ahu” and shift “gba” to be a compound with “ka”. That is, if we were still talking in SVO terms… SOV though makes it 100% possible with far less motivation.

So some clarification.

Igbo is an SVO language with strict order. Subject clause comes before the verb clause and the verb clause comes before the object clause. SOV languages are different in the sense that the subject clause comes first, followed by the object clause and then by the verb clause.

So this sparked a question in my mind. If Igbo was originally SOV, then it would be 100% possible to get verb compounding from serial verb construction. And it is a specific type of serial verb construction. The key here is that the objects in Igbo verb compounds are treated as a singular object and not separate objects.

Using the Ngwa example of “i kahigba hwe nne ahu”, the “hwe nne ahu” (though written separately for our orthographic benefit) is semantically treated as a singular object. This means that the “ka” in “kahigba” governs the “hwe nne ahu”. This means that for Igbo, it is easier to move objects clauses than it is to move verbs.

If we still wanted to hold on to the SVO structure, we end up with

“i ka hwe nne ahu hi gba”.

This is actually significant. It takes us one step closer to unraveling this mystery, except that it doesn’t allow us to create the verb compound. The “hi” and “gba” are separated from “ka”, and we are still stuck with requiring significant linguistic motivation to move “hi gba” and break the bond between “ka” and “hwe nne ahu”.

However, if we sequence it as an SOV, EVERYTHING falls in place.

Recall, the key to Igbo verb compounds is that the objects are governed together as a single unit and not as separate units. The “main verb” of “ka” governs them and the “hi” and “gba” lose their objects and become closely linked with “ka”.

To do SVO, we have

“i ka hwe nne ahu hi gba”

To do SOV, we have

“i hwe nne ahu ka hi gba”

The verb compound now has an unbroken serial context and sharing a singular object that is governed by the “main verb”.

This is so far what my analysis has led me to. Our Igbo languages may have originally been SOV.

My theory, we had an SOV word order and developed serialization in the SOV context. We later developed compounding from the SOV serialization, then (due to YEAI pressures) we switched to an SVO word order.

Now, I am not claiming this is the actual case. It is just that the fact that our verb compounding is highly developed, highly productive and creates only a singular object that is shared by the compound, suggests that only and SOV word order would allow us the chance to develop such serialization.

Once we had it, “ka”, “hi” and “gba” became closely linked. The “hi” and “gba” verbs govern no objects, so they can be treated as a single lexical unit with the main verb “ka”.

The motivation for shifting

{i} {hwe nne ahu} {ka hi gba} to our modern syntax

Requires far less linguistic effort than shifting

{i} {ka hwe} {hi nne} {gba ahu}

So, long story short. To answer your question, Probz, I think Igbo would have to have been an SOV language for serial verb construction to be more of a thing and develop into the modern compounding we have now.

Maazieze:
i dont have much to contribute but a suggestion, please compile your ideas onto a blog, would love to read through it all, wordpress is an easy site to start with.

I’m actually a developer/systems software engineer. I work on many projects, but one of them that I recently started is to build a platform where we can openly publish this sort of content, review others’ publishings, cite each other, etc. I hope to finish building the platform in about 6 - 8 months. I know a few people here on NL that I will certainly invite to be initial contributors, and one need not be an academic or PhD to publish on this site. There can even be amateurs, but at least we will all get to openly publish, share, cite each other and hopefully create something lasting that will advance our Igbo languages and save them from the same fate as Latin.

OkayDaddy:
See brilliant people that Ohaneze should support, but no. They will prefer to go around and be doing bambiala from politicians.

People have the things that are important for them, I guess. Whether it is national politics, or the regular “us vs them” on NL or sports or fashion, etc. We cannot fault people for having what they consider important interests.

I just happen to be among a handful of our people where Igbo language and linguistic anthropology happen to be my interest. I will continue to advance Igbo linguistics for myself and for those who either don’t have time or have other interests more important to them. They can come and read what I write and benefit from what I create.

A few years ago on this very forum, while discussing new ways to develop Igbo (and save it from the same fate as Latin), I had mentioned that Igbo will need two things.

1. One or more new classes of adverbials
2. Many more verb roots

I have been interested in #2 as of late. As a case in point, I have endeavored myself to coin several new verb roots. The results have been better than expected, but then I realized one of the reasons why it worked so well—compounds.

For a YEAI language, Igbo is an oddity. The verb compounding feature of the language is highly developed and serial verb constructions are practically nonexistent (compared to what can be easily attested in the Yoruboid, Edoid and Akokoid set of languages). Of course I began my analysis and now want to share my findings.

I’ll start first with serial verb construction and why this is so important (or why it’s lack thereof is so important to Igbo).

In layman’s terms, serial verb construction is where a series of verbs or verb phrases are strung together in a sentence without any sort of hint of words like “and” (coordinating conjunction) or “because” (subordinating conjunction). On top of that, their meaning is treated as a single event and not as separate events (due to there being separate verbs).

For instance, “she carry book come”. Here we have two verbs, “carry” and “come”. Ordinarily, as these are verbs in their own right, they will be thought of as separate events in their own right when used alone. However, for practically all YEAI languages, the entire serial construction of “carry … come” as used above is semantically thought of as a single event. In the minds of YEAI speakers, you are effectively saying “she brought the book”, which would be the semantic meaning of “carry … come”. This is true for all YEAI languages… except Igbo.

Igbo is the only branch that lacks any sense of modern serial verb construction. Instead, something else developed in its place—verb compounds. We can compare and contrast the difference as seen below.

YEAI: “she carry book come”
Igbo: “she carry-come book”

Modern Igbo language studies teaches us that this is “verb inflection”, but I have begun to disagree with that. My attempts at coining new roots has only been successful because verb compounding in Igbo is highly productive. It stands to reason that virtually every “inflection” we see on verbs is historically a verbial that has been reanalyzed in the language.

Take the following example for instance. In Ngwa using Onwu orthographic standard, “I kahigba hwe nne ahu.”

I      ka     hi     gba    hwe    nne    ahu
you    talk   much   run    thing  plenty body

The above is a typical Ngwa construction. Semantically, it means “you belabor the point.” What many do not know (and what most Ngwa people seem to take for granted) is that “kahigba” is not a series of inflections but rather the direct reanalysis of live verbs into an on-demand verbal compound.

When we break down the aforementioned example in the Ngwa person’s mind, we get three full verb phrases.

-ka hwe
-hi nne
-gba ahu

If we split the compound apart, we would get the following sentence.

“I ka hwe hi nne gba ahu”.

Although this might be morphosyntactically legal in Ngwa, it is borderline clumsy to the point where no one even thinks to seriously make a statement like this. This would have been the serial verb construction, but an Igbo speaker’s mind practically rejects it.

My understanding of my own dialect plus my attempt to coin new roots suggests that one of the keys to further develop Igbo lies in our capacity to reanalyze verbs into on-demand compounds.

Following the Ngwa example, the range of what we can semantically convey will increase exponentially when we combined the creation of new roots with the the reanalysis of said newly-created roots into compounds.

There is also one other thought that this had triggered in me about Igbo’s SVO (subject-verb-object) structure potentially having been an originally SOV (subject-object-verb), but perhaps I might save that to discuss at a later date.

I’m interested in seeing now (if we follow the Ngwa example) what sort of new semantic meaning we can convey. There was a thread we had here a while back on translating words and/or modern things into Igbo. Perhaps I’ll go pluck from there and come back with some potential examples of how we can be productive with an already highly developed and productive morphosyntactic system.

No. They are not. Ngwa and Ukwa are three different groups. Ngwa and Asa and Ndoki. Asa and Ndoki are collectively referred to as “Ukwa”. Asa is furthermore two groups, Ipu and Oza.

So in total it is Ngwa, Ipu, Oza and Ndoki.

They are all related (having blended into each other), but they are not the same clan.

jamesversion:
Yes. I'm not fluent in Ikwerre.

In Ikwerre (Owé, mmam osu onu ikwerre k'oma.)

I kwula whne ka. Ma kanu u ezi uka. M nu m whne ka i ka. O ziri la i ma onu anu ke oma. I ma osu ma ogba a. Ka bu ezi uka o bu.

jamesversion:
Owéé.
Me, I only know few words in Ikwerre.

The fee is logistics money. As I'd have to travel down to the village and ask my elders to give the perfect translation.

So I will need money for fuel and money to buy elders ekamiri(local gin).

That's all.

I mala ikwu onu anu gba?

jamesversion:
I can translate it to you for a fee. You are abroad, therefore you have money.

I'd translate to Ibaa dialect.

I ka l’ezi?

Why is this still a debate?

Bonny-Ijo oral traditions affirms that they sojourned among already settled Ngwa (and Asa) communities what is now Ndokiland before making it to Bonny. Plain and simple, Ngwa and Asa were already settled in Ndoki area before there was even an “Ndoki” group to talk about.

The communities of Okobo (primarily Umuagbai and Azuogu), the communities of Ohambele and Ohanku, the communities of Ohuru and Mkporobo and others were already settled in the area before the Ndoki migration. These are Ngwa and Asa communities.

Just because they are now collectively referred to as “Ndoki” does not change the fact that they all remember when the actual Ndoki migrated in, and Ndoki at that time was known as Umueze (the Obunku, Azumini, Akwuete, etc communities). The communities that collectively make up Umuihueze, Umukwokwoeze, Umuilokoeze, etc.

Umueze only later got the name “Ndoki” after they had already settled and that came to be applied to the other non-Umueze communities that also had extensive dealings with Bonny and Opobo.

Long story short, you cannot tell the story of Ijo migration to Bonny without talking about Ngwa (and Asa) who they fraternized with along the way. Otherwise, it’s dishonesty.

Bonny-Ijo traditions also claims that they did not travel alone to Bonny. So what is all of this debate? A simple look at Bonny-Ijo oral traditions settles this conversation clear as day. No modern day statement coming from an Umueze chieftain or a Bonny amanyanabo will change the information that was freely given to the British between 1900s - 1930s. A time period devoid of the controversy we see today. The narrative has been settled, unless you can show that the people lied for one reason or another.

If Bonny wants to carry on being an Ijo community, then so be it. But it won’t change actual history. You are an amalgamation of two communities. Ngwa-Igbo and Brass-Ijo. Denying such doesn’t get you anywhere unless you can somehow manage to wipe collective human memory and oral tradition as well as destroy all textual references.

So either take pride in your mixed heritage, or pick a side and carry on, but don’t waste time thinking that history will be rewritten to serve a specific narrative.

Honestly, think about it. Let us say that we had lost 90% of our lexicon and are trying to revive the various modern Igbo lects, and that for some reason the word for "person" is one of the lexical items that was lost. Let's also say that modern Igbo had to coin a new expression for "person" and ended up with something like "mụọ̄ ndụ̀".

In "mụọ̄ ndụ̀" we already see the genitive relationship. "mụọ̄ ndụ̀" give us the idea of "mụọ̄ ǹkè ndụ̀". In fact, for those who don't understand the genitive case in linguistic studies, you can think of it as adding "ǹkè" between nouns. In fact, yes, this should definitely help show the contrast between the genitive and the compound.

If the multiword expression uses "ǹkè" or has an implicit "ǹkè", it is genitive. Removing the "ǹkè" and removing even the implicit notion of "ǹkè" give us the compound.

So think about "mụọ̄ ǹkè ndụ̀" and "mụọ̄ ndụ̀" (with zero notion of ǹkè). That is the genitive vs the compound, respectively. If we followed the path of our ancestors, the next step would be to weaken the phonetic boundary between "mụọ̄" and "ndụ̀", and that would give us any number of lexical items like "mụdụ̀", "mọdụ̀", and because the boundary is weak, we can even further assimilate the expression and maybe get "mọdọ̀" in some lects.

It is that simple.

If modern Igbo did not lose the capacity for true compounds, we could potentially see many such examples new lexical items in modern day using this morphosyntactic/morphophonolocial process. It is unlikely that the weakening did not follow some sort of rules, even if they were followed loosely. Identifying these rules and putting them back into practice can help revive the intuition for compounding. This is ultimately the goal of my parser.

Maybe an even better example of what I mean by compounding is the expression "madụ̀". It has the halmarks of a compound. We can identify its separate parts, and most especially, we have one part with an opaque etymology. This probably also makes for a better example of a compound because the genitive expression no longer exists. Here's what I mean. If we examine different lectal variants of "madụ̀" we see we can quickly see that the "dụ̀" is the word for "life". However, the etymology of "ma" remains opaque.

madụ̀ == whatever "ma" is supposed to be + "ndụ̀"

According to the work of linguists Ohiri-Aniche, Blench and Williamson (the linguists that did proto-Igbo reconstruction), the "ma" in "madụ̀" might have originally be a "mgba", based on their comparative study across surviving Igbo lects. If we take their linguistic research seriously, we might then say that the original genitive form of "madụ̀" might have been along the lines of "mgba ndụ̀" (mgba of life, a live mgba, a living mgba). We can try to deduce any number of interpretations for "mgba", but that is beyond the scope of the point being made here. Perhaps if anyone wants to try to dig into that later, we can.

Anyhow, the point is that "mgba ndụ̀" went from having a genitive relationship "mgba of life" to a compound relationship "mgba life" and that soon opened it up to internal changes in its phonology. The "gb" weakening to "b" in some lects and perhaps weakening further to an "m" in some, while disappearing altogether in others. The "n" in "ndụ̀" being clipped off.

Through this weakening of the phonetic boundary between words, we get the following (potential) branching.

"mgba ndụ̀" => "mba dụ̀"

"mba dụ̀" => "ba dụ̀" => "va dụ̀"

"mba dụ̀" => "mma dụ̀" => "ma dụ̀"

"mba dụ̀" => "ma dụ̀"

If we were to take a grammarian's approach toward writing Igbo, we should actually be separating the "ma" and "dụ̀" and writing it as "ma dụ̀", because we know that it is two identifiable nominals compounded into a "multiword expression" without the genitive case. This final part (without the genitive case) is the most important part of compounding, I believe. This is one of the major features that differentiates modern Igbo from proto Igbo.

The underlying relationship looks like this:

- ma mgba NOUN
  |- dụ̀ ndụ̀ NOUN

Comparing "ma dụ̀" to "mgba ndụ̀" side-by-side, we should be able to see with our native intuition that the genitive case that exists in "mgba ndụ̀" is completely missing in "ma dụ̀".

Yeah, I think this is a good example since the the genitive case no longer exists in modern Igbo, having been completely displaced by the compound it seems. So to resurrect the genitive case now would show how contrasting it is from the compound that has survived it.

Alright, let me show the dependency graph to perhaps should help ginger our intuitions. I'll still use the expression "nwannē m". I'll provide two dependency trees. One showing the genitive relationship and the other showing the compound relationship.

- nwa
    |- nnē
          |- m

The above is the genetive relationship. In other words, "child of mother of me". In other words, "my mother's child". Here we see that "m" directly modifies "nnē" which in turn directly modifies "nwa". If you were to ask any modern Igbo person how to explain what "nwannē m" means, this above is undoubtedly the explanation that they will give. Why? Because modern Igbo can seemingly only conceptualize the genitive case.

But, when we actually make the statement "nwannē m" in speech, we never actually mean "my mother's child". Instead, we mean something else. We mean "my nwannē" and not "nwa, my nnē".

- nwa
|    |- nnē
|
|- m

The above shows the compound relationship between "nwa" and "nnē" and we see that "m" does not modify "nnē" but rather modifies the entire compound "nwannē". This transition to a compound opens us up to phonological changes in "nwannē", and we finally arrive at the below.

- nwa
|    |- nē
|
|- m

As well as all its various lectal variants.

This suggests that proto-Igbo made very productive use of this morphosyntactic process. So many lexical items that we inherited from proto-Igbo a the result of this very productive morphosyntactic process which is now lost among many Igbo-speaking communities.

Just to further show the example with "nwatàkịrị".

- nwa
    |- ntàkịrị
        |- ihe

vs

- nwa
|    |- tàkịrị
|
|- ihe

These two show two different relationships with "ihe" modifying "ntàkịrị" in the first inatance and "ihe" modifing "nwatàkịrị" in the second. The difference in meaning is clearer with this example. To say "nwa ntàkịrị ihe" is to say "a little something". To say "nwatàkịrị ihe" (child of something).

This is why true compounding is so important.

If the “nwatakiri” example is not clear enough, let us look at another example, “nwa” + “nne”.

Most Igbo will try to explain the etymology of “nwa” + “nne” using the genitive case and claim that it means “child of (the) mother”. While it may be true that the etymology might have come from the genitive case in antiquity, by the time we arrive at modern Igbo, it had since transformed to a compound. Now, rather than it meaning “child of (the) mother”, “nwanne” is actually better translated as “childmother”, the genitive “of” sense gone.

It may be difficult to see initially, but in our intuition as speakers, we know it is true. So how do we prove it? Easy, parse the dependency relationship. Let’s look at the dependency relationship of “nwanne m” vs “nwanne m”. Yes, I know. Those are the same, you want to say, but they aren’t. One is the compound and the other is the genitive case.

In the genitive case, the “m” modifies “nne”, giving us “child of my mother”. See how the “my” is associated with “mother” solely. In the compound case, “m” modifies the entire “nwanne” expression, giving us “my childmother” (as a term of kinship or endearment). One need not actually be “child of my mother” to be “nwanne m”.

To further cement this, let us examine the final piece of compounding, phonological changes (even shifts). For example, “nwa nta” -> “nwa ta”.

Even though we write “nwa” + “nne” as “nwanne”, the pronunciation in a number of lects is actually a bit different.

In places like Ngwa and Mbaise, it’s as though it is pronounced as “nwane”, you can also hear “nwune” in parts of Mbaise. In places like Ikwerre, Echie and Asa, we see “nwene”. In Ekpeye, we get “nwana”. In some communities in the Isu complex, we see “nwune”. In Echie, Ngwa and Mbaise it can be taken a step further to “nweneta” (Echie) or “nwaneta” (Ngwa and Mbaise) for a junior.

We can easily see the difference between the genitive case and the compound when comparing across all lects.

Ngwa - nwa nne (genitive) - nwane (compound)
Mbaise - nwa nne (genitive) - nwane/nwune (compound)
Ikwerre - nwo nne (genitive) - nwene (compound)
Echie - nwa nne (genitive) - nwene (compound)
Asa - nwa nne (genitive) - nwene (compound)
Ekpeye - unwo ina (genitive) - nwana (compound)
Isu - nwa nne (genitive) - nwune (compound)

The genitive case still exists in all the above lects, proving that the phonology change shows that the genitive relationship is gone in the compound. It then follows that we can use the weakening of the phonetic boundary between words as evidence of true compounds. Rather than the individual nouns being treated as individual nouns in their own right, they are treated collectively as a single noun, opening up them up internally to phonetic shifts between themselves.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw other such examples among other lects. It’s probably also the case that other lects also pronounce “nwanne” as “nwane” or maybe even used to pronounce it a different way, but modern Igbo orthography has reinforced writing “nwanne” and forced the compound out of the lexicon.

The fact that the genitive “nwanne” is reinforced in modern Igbo further signifies that modern Igbo has (in large part) lost the capacity for true compounds.

Okay, for those who may be interested in knowing more, here is why this issue of compounding is significant.

Every Igbo lect has lexicon that seems to have an opaque etymology. Take the word "nwatakiri" or "nwakatiri" for instance. This is actually an excellent example of why this issue of compounding is significant.

"nwatakiri" is obviously treated as a noun in its own right, but for all speakers, it is clear that "nwatakiri" is the agglutination of at least two nouns, "nwa" + "ntakiri". If we dive deeper, as speakers, we even know in our intuition that "ntakiri" is the agglutination of "nta" + whatever "kiri" is supposed to have been. "kiri" is the opaque part of this word.

"nwatakiri" represents one of the many examples of a "true compound" according to linguists like Emenanjo, and they make a good point. "nwa" + "nta" + "kiri", when rendered as "nwatakiri", indicates a rather flat association between "nwa" + "nta" + "kiri". None of the hallmarks of a genitive association exists.

According to Emenanjo, the morphosyntactic process that allowed for the transition of the genitive "nwa" + "nta" + "kiri" to the compound "nwatakiri" is no longer productive among the majority of Igbo lects. In other words, most Igbo lects have completely lost the ability to create new words with compounding. Practically every "noun" + "noun" multiword expression in modern Igbo is in the genitive case. Emenanjo does admit though that there are lects in which this morphosyntactic process is still somewhat productive.

If we can expose and revive this morphosyntactic process across the board, we can in fact unlock the ability to productively create a myriad of new lexicon. Plain and simple.

So I wanted to test a hypothesis about how we perceive certain types of "noun" + "noun" association as Igbo speakers to see if I can uncover a pattern that proves (or disproves) my hypothesis on how to revive the morphosyntactic process.

Well, since I've already managed to scare off aghalari unu, I guess I will just go ahead and expand a little more, in case anyone is curious about the context behind my request.

Basically, I develop software as a profession (programming, engineering, etc., whatever you want to call it). I have had the goal to develop software that will help boost the Ngwa lexicon by creating new words. With my understanding of Ngwa, linguistics research and software deveopment, I have managed to coin new lexicon that is currently in active use. However, it is not good enough. If I want to bring Ngwa back to the point of being a language of instruction, I'm going to need to create many more new words. I've discovered that the problem lies in our understanding of the morphosyntactic dependency structure of Ngwa (and Igbo at large). So now I am writing software to analyze and parse the dependence structure of Ngwa sentences. The simple goal is to bypass our modern orthographic approach at writing Igbo and take a morphosyntactic (grammarian's) approach at writing to see if I can uncover more of the thought process behind how different expressions were created in the past.

Now, I have come against a blocker. Attempting to define what constitues as a true noun + noun compound vs what constitutes as a genitive expression, vs what constitues as a verbal compound.

I am relatively certain that I have figured out the dependency structure for various types of verbal compounding. The real issue lies in the genitive vs non-genitive compounding of noun + noun multiword expressions. So I have come to nde we nnwe m la nde maa nnwe. Anybody that actively speaks Igbo and doesn't mind answer the questions identified in the original post would be pushing this project along a helpful path. In fact, I'm fairly certain that any principles I discover for coining new terminology can likely be applied to any other lect just as easily as with Ngwa. Who knows, maybe I'll help expand your own community's lexicon as well.

UCHIHAmask, we have the Nairaland developers to thank for this neat feature. They made it so that simply mentioning a handle triggers a notice. So tagging someone is as simple as that.

As for the rest of your post. While it is true that I am certainly seeking at least one person with a fundamental understanding of nominal compounding in linguistics as well as genitive vs non-genitive relationship between nominals, I would still also very much like to hear the thoughts and feelings of others besides myself that speak. Ultimately, I want to avoid the effects of keeping myself in an echo chamber and having my hypotheses sound good to me, but end up being nonsense when tested with others. That said, I understand your reservations. No wahala.

UCHIHAmask, yes, I was concerned that a thorough reading might deter most. Truly, I don't think someone needs to be versed in literature and Igbo language research. Rather, what I am hoping for is that people will at least try to use their native intuition to answer (what I hope will be interpreted as) some simple questions. Perhaps I have myself to blame for thinking I was providing necessary context in each question, when all it probably ended up doing was scaring people off.

But seriously, give it a try and share your thoughts. Think of it as a survey. I just want to get the opinion of other Igbo speakers to see if there is a basis for the morphological hypotheses I am currently developing (of it is all just in my head).

This is likely a long shot, but I am going to try anyway. I didn't know anywhere else to turn, but I am hoping for some real and meaningful engagement in this thread.

The Short Story: A while back, I developed a test program to programmatically generate new words for Ngwa (it also works for Igbo in general, but that's neither here nor there). The program was not as effective as I would like for it to be, so I scrapped it. I restarted my efforts about four months ago, but from a new angle---using dependency parsing.

It turns out dependency parsing is not easy for Ngwa (and consequently, Igbo). I have had to rewrite this parser twice and redo my corpus at least three times over the course of the last four months. What I've learned from all of this is that on a technical level, the language is complex (obviously), but far more complex that Igbo language researchers have given it credit for. This brings me to why I'm here.

The Issue: In my effort to build a dependency parser, I've come to really disagree with the Igbo language academia on a number of fronts. I'm very well familiar with the works of many Igbo linguists/language researchers, from earlier researchers like G. E. Igwe to contemporaries like O. N. Anyanwu. While I appreciate their excellent contribution (and great documentation), my efforts in building a dependency parser (based in part on their collective works) has left me feeling as though they failed to analyze the language for what it really is and based significant portions of their interpretation on semantic comparisons with English. So now, I am venturing on the edge of a few new hypothesis about some morphological and syntactic aspects of the language, and I want to try bouncing some ideas off others to see if I am heading in the right direction.

Now the Main Part: I want to administer a single test. Don't worry, it is not something that requires technical expertise. I would prefer you rely on your native competancy in the language. Essentially, use your intution as speakers to go through the various tests and provide your response in this thread. Thank you.

Question 1: In Igbo, we build relationships between nouns simply by stringing them one after the other. This creates a noun phrase. The order that we string them does not matter, so long as they satisfy an association in our native intuition. The following are examples of what I mean by such association.

"ime ulo" => "ulo ime"
"aka elu" => "elu aka"
"okpuru akwa" => "akwa okpuru"
"akwukwo iwu" => "iwu akwukwo"
"eze oha" => "oha eze"

I can go on, but I'm hoping the picture is clear, using your native intuition. The above transformations are all considered valid in our native intuition. The meaning in English is not what is important here, but rather the fact that the nouns can be switched and the association will still be considered valid in our native intuition, even though the meaning changes.

Now, I'm going to list a series of transformations similar to the above, please use your native intuition to mark them as either valid or invalid.

1. "ogbu agu" => "agu ogbu"
2. "mpa n'aka" => "n'aka mpa"
3. "mgbafu oso" => "oso mgbafu"
4. "ora ofe" => "ofe ora"
5. "mbido isi" => "isi mbido"
6. "ofe ogwugwu" => "ogwugwu ofe"

Question 2: If you did not mark any of the above as invalid, skip this question and go to Question 3. Igbo is an SVO language with strict word order. What that basically means is that there is always a subject (S) responsible for an action (V) that affects or is received by an object (O).

For example, "o gara ahia", where "o" is the subject, "gara" is the action being discussed and "ahia" is what is targeted or affected by that action.

This ties into our native intuition of "verbal force". Igbo is a strictly verb-based language and draws distinction between a "thing being referenced" (non-verbal force) vs an "action being discussed" (verbal force).

For each of the ones you marked as "invalid" above, do you believe any still contain "verbal force"? If so, which ones?

Question 3: On the topic of verbal force. Please label whether or not you believe any of the below have verbal force. Simply say "yes" for verbal force, or "no" for non-verbal force.

1. erimeri
2. mbadamba
3. apirapi
4. ebighebi
5. ahurahu
6. nchorincho

This will have to suffice for now. I do have a few other questions, but I'll wait for some meaningful engagement before I take it further.

I'm sorry the Ndoki one is funny. It definitely seems heavily "centralized", clear as day, but the man is saying it has nothing to do with Igbo.

The Echie one is disappointing. It's not the Echie I'm used to hearing. There's no way they're using the "na" auxiliary or using "ha" as the third person plural or using the verb participle form with "ga", using "-hu" for negation among other things and calling that Echie. This Eberi Omuma is as "central" as the Ndoki one.

These are definitely not the Echie and Ndoki speech forms I'm used to hearing. Granted, I've heard that the Eberi community was actually Isu. Seems they've integrated Echie identity and culture, but retained Isu-type speech. That's interesting. But the one from Okehi... There's no excuse, but at least the Okomoko woman redeemed in some way.

I will say one thing. The interviewer is very superficial with the linguistics. Asking about basic words and common phrases doesn't expose the lects, because words are not the same as morphology and syntax, which is where the root of most Igbo lect differences actually lie. Not the lexicon.

I must say though, the “Ikwerre are Ijo” angle, yet settled directly next to Ijo, have been interacting with Ijo for centuries and not speaking or practicing Ijo language and culture, is a wild statement to make.

It’s interesting to see the different responses though.

Cc: Bigfrancis21, Fulaman198, odumchi.

I understand everyone has a life that they live so no rush. I just wanted to bump this back up to your attentions, in case it was missed.

100 years ago, there was no “Ikwerre” identity. 600 years ago, there was no “Ngwa” identity, etc etc.

I think it’s time we be honest with ourselves. If you want to say that people are culturally and linguistically similar, and if that similarity has a general name (like “Igbo” ), then sure. People are culturally and linguistically “Igbo”.

But identity is different. A person, people or community choose their identities, even in the face of cultural and linguistic similarity. People can be culturally and linguistically similar, but still not share and identity.

Take Ibibio, Efik, Annang, etc. They all have their different identities and have managed to get away with not having a general name for their cultural and linguistic similarity, unlike Igbo. Because they lack that general name, it is easier for them to maintain their identities without controversy. If they had a generic name like we do as “Igbo”, I’m fairly certain the more separatist identities among them (like Annang) would be stirring up similar controversy as we see here for our Igbo context.

Long story short, identity is not the same as language, culture or history. If this is a question of “Igbo” identity, then it will forever be a controversial topic, because we allowed ourselves a general name. But if this is about culture, language and even history, the answer is simple. Those communities that are Igbo-speaking and culturally Igbo (as best as we can even define that) are “Igbo” plain and simple.

Afam4eva, kanu la nnine ee. I na-agaghari na-eme ndi mmadu interview?

AjaanaOka, what tantalizing bits are you coming across?

I'm aware of Ohafia and Obolo traditions that discuss contact between the two. Ohafia (at least part of Ohafia) migrated from present day Rivers state to their present location, sojourning at Obolo along the way. Ejituwu believed the metal works Obolo has cannot be credited to the Obolo since they have no metallurgy traditions. So Ejituwu tentatively credited them with the Ohafia. It's interesting that he would do this, since the Ohafia are not the only ones that had contact with the Obolo during the Portuguese era. The Oron, the Ibeno, etc. various groups resided in Obolo (some even integrated), but Ejituwu credits the Ohafia (who did not integrate). That might mean something, but I am hesitant to believe so for the below reasons.

This Obolo-Ohafia account is the only account that I am aware of where someone directly suggests Ohafia of smithing. I am not aware of any others. This makes it difficult for me to be truly convinced, since I also don't know of any Ohafia traditions that touch on it at all (as far as I have seen) or much (if there are some things I have not yet seen). Now that said, there are instances of Ohafia-born individuals who became itinerant smiths. I remember reading about one Eke Kalu born in the late 1800s. It is very unlikely that he would have been the first Ohafia blacksmith. However, considering when Eke Kalu's story takes place, I'm left wondering whether we can attribute the itinerant smithing as the influence from a nearby culture-group like the Abriba. Ohafia would have been living within the same regional complex as Abiriba for at least the last 300 - 400 years. It's very possible that itinerant smithing would have been learned from them. But Ohafia's head hunting culture is well-established, even as far back as the time when they sojourned with Obolo (if we are to take the oral traditions seriously).

If I take a step back to think of it, for a community like Ohafia, that seems to have traversed a non-trivial distance between its previous settlements and it current location while maintaining a head hunting culture, loss of and/or damage to weapons is a serious liability. A community cannot remain as head hunters for long withing having a way to resolve this liability, and I can only think of two real ways to solve it. One can simply collect it from other communities, or know how to reforge found metals into the weapons that one needs. A combination of both is also reasonable. It seems Ohafia's culture favors the first option (collecting it from other communities) via ukwuzi. Granted, we do not know when the ukwuzi practice began, but considering it is where their society ended up, I suspect that prior to ukwuzi, the Ohafia had to make do with taking it off the dead they killed or from the communities they sacked. I find it difficult to believe Ohafia would go from smithing its own weapons to ukwuzi (unless they figured they either lacked the manpower, resources and technical expertise so they had to give it up).

Also, considering the role that ukwuzi played for Ohafia as they traversed as head hunters (offering ukwuzi in exchange for goods and services), I suspect that head hunting was their primary long-range commerce, if we can call it that. I don't see much evidence for any other form of itinerant trade (not even metal work).

AjaanaOka:
Hmm. I've seen different accounts of Arọ origins, but I don't recall seeing one where they and the Ohafia shared a common descent.

Personally, I think the Ohafia custom of entering alliances/blood pacts (called Ukwuzi ) with groups in the Cross River area, including the Arọ, may be sufficient in explaining the adoption of Kamalu Ikere.

Fair enough. Likewise, this is my first time hearing a mention/hint of shared origins between Aro and Ohafia. I didn't know what to make of it, but I figured if it held any material weight then it might help explain. But the culture of ukwuzi alliances is satisfactory.

AkuOlisa:
Some accounts say he was a descendant of Oti Eze son of Ife Nta from whom the Ohafia(Uduma Eze), Edda (Imoh Eze) and Abam(Onyerubi Eze) are also descended, Oti is hailed as a supreme ancestor of the Aros

AjaanaOka, a while ago (when we were discussing Amadioha vs Kamanu), you had a question about why Aro would be using an Ohafia deity. I don't know much about this particular story, but if this is the oral tradition shared between Aro and Ohafia, etc. then it might explain the ease of adoption of Kamalu Ikere.

AkuOlisa:
in fact the Aro is part of the reason why the cult of Amadioha/Kamalu was widespread, also why the name of Amadi was widespread, as well as the concept of Diala who cannot be enslaved, which I’ll discuss later...

Very interesting writeup. I will continue to read, but I must pause at this juncture. This is a misstatement. I'm sorry, I cannot help myself, but I will always speak out against a misstatement such as this. Contrary to what the academia (and maybe even Aro people) are believing, Amadioha and Kamanu are not the same cults. In the southern Igbo-speaking region, we distinguish between Amadioha and Kamanu and our oral traditions affirm that Kamanu was introduced into the region after Amadioha had already spread.

This leads me to my next statement, contrary to the notion held by the academia (and maybe even Aro people), the "amadi" in Amadioha is not the same "amadi" as is used with Aro cultural complex. In the Aro cultural complex, "amadi" are "freeborn". In the southern Igbo-speaking cultural complex "amadi" are affluent members of society, well-versed in communal law and perform the role of arbirators. The "amadi" cultural feature in the southern Igbo-speaking axis predates interaction with Aro and so the two are not related. Amadioha (an cult of arbitration) is based on the southern Igbo-speaking "amadi" cultural feature and not the Aro "amadi"/freebon cultural feature.

The premise of this scenario seems to be influenced by modern-day (post-colonial) definitions of family. In the pre-colonial definition of family, genetic was inconsequential. A legitimate child was any child born to a woman whose bride-wealth had been paid.

Also, whoever carries the ofo is whoever takes on the role of Mbichiri Ezi. That can be either a man or a woman.

Maazieze, unfortunately, the Igbo community here on NL also does not appreciate the linguistic and historico-cultural discussion that AjaanaOka and I have here. We would be better off taking our discourse elsewhere, really, but I guess we care too much about having honest discourse in front of others, so we stick around.

If Eke is willing, we will live long enough to have many more engaging discussions to come.

Omahjasper:
Please i want to ask how can etche man comunicate with ikwerre man or another igboid speaking region's in River State without the use of Igbo Izugbe or they will be speaking English to each other as if there different people or tribes? Please someone should clear the air!

Ikwerre is not a single speech form. There are variations of Ikwerre. One variant shares close affinity to Ohaji in Imo state. Another variant is actually very syntactically similar to Ngwa, morphologically similar to Asa and phonologically similar to Ndoki. Yet another is lexically similar to Ekpeye, Ogba, with what seems like sprinkles of Ndoni and Ukwuani lects. Echie lect has shared affinity somewhere between Asa and Ngwa. So it has affinity with Ikwerre as well. Echie does not need Izugbe to communicate with Ikwerre.

Omahjasper:
no mgbooko means world � earth in ikwo dialect of Ebonyi state

Mgboko (Mgbọkọ) in Ngwa is not the same one in Ikwo lect. Mgboko are an offshoot of Ibeme, and they are not Ibibiod, which we know as “Mmogho” (corruption of mmong).