SlayerForever:
What I mean is, what if the unique differences between the various dialect groupings were as a result of (shared but) different ancestry?

Like, the three main dialects groupings were all one super dialect earlier (like eons ago(which accounts for why some (less common) words are found within an area then going further along these words totally disappear, only to fantastically reappear in another corner of Igboland with no migratory backdrop whatsoever))). Then as time goes on, still eons ago, a few persons or a group of related people or even a notable figure(I will call (dialect) progenitors) begin to prefer(as humans are wont to) to speak in a particular way, using particular words of that super dialect as against others words. Maybe it happens concurrently or it happens later but another group of closely related people grow a fondness for some other words of choice and then another group too. Ofcourse the whole words of the super dialect are not(and probably CAN NOT be) shared out equally amongst the three groups, there are uncountable overlaps, words that can be found across the three groups.

And in that way generations and generations later this preferences of the earliest (dialect) progenitors become the bedrock of 3 main dialects of the once, one super dialect.


Hypothesis again.

What you’ve just described here is a hypothetical example of how dialect continua can be formed. According to linguists, dialect continua are typically formed when societies have an extended agrarian period. In other words, two or more language communities with agrarian lifestyles and occupying relatively contiguous territories for long enough will linguistically merge branches (eventually). What that “long enough” period looks like is dependent upon the societies in question; too many factors at play to make a blanket statement.

That said, I believe your hypothesis is too “neat”, and if there is one thing about human history, it is far from neat. From my point of view, your hypothesis falls into the same sort of pitfall that the Igbo academia (linguists and historians, specifically) fell into; the assumption that we are working with a large “meta-language” whose speakers were all neatly related. I believe this assumption is likely due to the fact that some people still heavily associate the movement of language with the speakers of said language. However, how language diffuses and how populations move are not the same thing. They don’t always correlate. In fact, the farther back in time we go, the more we lose any sort of guarantee that the surviving speakers of a given language are in any way related to the speakers of the “proto language” (super dialect, if I could borrow your words). On top of that, the farther back in time we go, the more likely that the idea of a “proto language” (super dialect) is simply nothing more than an assumption we make to reconcile linguistic branching.

Understanding that last point is critical. I don’t know if I made it clear enough, so let me know if I need to restate it better.

Now, with all that context provided, here is the main point I want to make:

“Igbo language” existing as dialect continuum implies that some sort of dialect leveling has already occurred.

Such dialect leveling could be as insignificant as two or more already very close dialects become even more similar at their borders. It could also be as drastic as two or more different language communities merging branches at their borders. It could also be any manner of combinations between these two. Now with this range of possibility, a short list of dialect groupings based on perceived similarities (and hypothetical ancestry) will provide us with little to no novel insight into the past. Meaning we get our real insight from identifying the differences that often encode significant linguistic (and sometimes historical) information. These differences are essentially markers for identifying isoglosses. The more isoglosses we consistently can identify and validate, the better we position ourselves to paint an honest picture of the language (and perhaps cultural) history of the surviving communities.

So if you really want to make headway in answering those questions you talked about earlier... i.e. the quote below:

SlayerForever:
In essence, I'm asking "why do the dialects sound so different in the first place, but similar enough amongst themselves such that they can be grouped". Different origins but one root? Different progenitors(but all related) for the main dialect clusters? With each having a different fancy for some words as against others? How did the difference come about on that basic level(I dont mean influence from other groups as in borrowed words and accent. That is usually at the top. Like superficial).

You are going to need a more expansive list than just

1. Archetypical Anambra
2. Waawa
3. Southern Igbo

ChinenyeN:



That said, I believe your hypothesis is too “neat”, and if there is one thing about human history, it is far from neat. From my point of view, your hypothesis falls into the same sort of pitfall that the Igbo academia (linguists and historians, specifically) fell into; the assumption that we are working with a large “meta-language” whose speakers were all neatly related.

I find this paragraph quite interesting.

Yes, I agree prehistorically it couldn't have been that "neat", definitely not. However we're focusing on the general idea of what likely happened not specifics. Hard to go into specifics for something of over thousands of years.

I believe this assumption is likely due to the fact that some people still heavily associate the movement of language with the speakers of said language. However, how language diffuses and how populations move are not always the same. In fact, the farther back in time we go, the more we lose any sort of guarantee that the surviving speakers of a given language are in any way related to the speakers of the “proto language” (super dialect, if I could borrow your words).

How can a language move without it's speakers carrying it How can the speakers today not be related at all to the earliest speakers

On top of that, the farther back in time we go, the more likely that the idea of a “proto language” (super dialect) is simply nothing more than an assumption we make to reconcile linguistic branching.

Truly, you may be right. It's all hypothesis after all. But you may be wrong too.

All this linguistic terms eh

SlayerForever:
I find this paragraph quite interesting.

Yes, I agree prehistorically it couldn't have been that "neat", definitely not. However we're focusing on the general idea of what likely happened not specifics. Hard to go into specifics for something of over thousands of years.

This would have to be one point where we may just not agree. There are definitely levels to this and all we really do is paint a “general idea” at each level. Still, the potential to dive deeper, decompose the context and build an interpretation is worth the pursuit of “specifics”, even if speculative or hypothetical.

SlayerForever:
How can a language move without it's speakers carrying it How can the speakers today not be related at all to the earliest speakers

You don’t need to think hard or look far to gain a sense of this. Languages move due to various factors like cultural influence, diffusion, politics, etc. With these many factors the map of “speakers” of a given language can quickly become different from the map of said language’s earliest speakers. English is an excellent example of this. Despite the fact that westerners do not notably inhabit countries like Nigeria, these countries speak English. These countries invariably represent surviving speakers not related to the earliest speakers of English (excluding the fact that we are all human). As such, the language has a different spatial distribution from that of its earliest speakers.

Now, let me provide you with a hypothetical. Say that the population that represents English’s earliest speakers are wiped out by say nuclear winter. This isn’t that far fetched. The US and other world powers have been at the brink of such a reality at least once. It is easy to imagine a scenario in which it was never abated. In such a case, the surviving speakers of English end up being those communities/countries to which English had been spread. And just like that, there are no surviving speakers that are related to the earliest speakers of English (as this population is wiped out).

Now scale this down to hunter-gatherer populations that represented the societal structure of much of humanity for millennia. It is easy to wipe out a hunter-gatherer society. They can make the wrong move and end up in natural life-threatening situations of their own. They can be hunted and exterminated by another unrelated hunter-gatherer population. They could also be disadvantaged in the sense that they do not procreate quickly enough and their population declines until the last surviving member dies. None of this is hypothetical. We know this happened to these populations rather often. With this context established, it is easy to see how language can spread from one hunter-gatherer group to another for various reasons (contact, internal/external politics etc). It is also easy to imagine the society that initially spread it gets wiped out. The language itself can continue to spread (and innovate), but by that time, the surviving speakers do not represent the language’s earliest speakers.

This is why I say that the further back in time we go, the more we lose any sort of guarantee that modern, surviving speakers are the same population as the language’s proto speakers. It simply is not a guarantee that we can make, no matter how we look at it. This is why I believe the approach by the Igbo academia has a fundamental pitfall.

Only in instances where we can guarantee isolation and language innovation can we truly consider the possibility of surviving speakers being related to the earliest speakers.

This is also why I hold the view that the idea of “proto-language” is reconciliatory. It’s is unlikely that there existed a group that spoke that reconstruction. Instead, it is more like an approximation used to reconcile the surviving lects of a given language.

Long story short, a very general broad strokes list of three groupings based off non-guaranteed ancestral relationship (which may or may not match the language history of the area), is simply the same sort of pitfall that the academia has been holding on to for decades now. It is really hard to support such a theory without ignoring various lects and communities (which is exactly what the academia has done for decades). Lastly, a grouping of three is just not representative of the dynamics in the region. So those questions you claimed you were seeking answers to will likely not get answered with your current approach. You will have no choice but to dive deeper, become more granular and eventually add more to your list of dialect groupings.

ChinenyeN:


This would have to be one point where we may just not agree. There are definitely levels to this and all we really do is paint a “general idea” at each level. Still, the potential to dive deeper, decompose the context and build an interpretation is worth the pursuit of “specifics”, even if speculative or hypothetical.

Yes I understand. I myself would absolutely love a more indepth study, more sophisticated research, to reveal this "specifics". However, we are limited by several factors within the Nigerian sphere.

You don’t need to think hard or look far to gain a sense of this. Languages move due to various factors like cultural influence, diffusion, politics, etc. With these many factors the map of “speakers” of a given language can quickly become different from the map of said language’s earliest speakers. English is an excellent example of this. Despite the fact that westerners do not notably inhabit countries like Nigeria, these countries speak English. These countries invariably represent surviving speakers not related to the earliest speakers of English (excluding the fact that we are all human). As such, the language has a different spatial distribution from that of its earliest speakers.

Now, let me provide you with a hypothetical. Say that the population that represents English’s earliest speakers are wiped out by say nuclear winter. This isn’t that far fetched. The US and other world powers have been at the brink of such a reality at least once. It is easy to imagine a scenario in which it was never abated. In such a case, the surviving speakers of English end up being those communities/countries to which English had been spread. And just like that, there are no surviving speakers that are related to the earliest speakers of English (as this population is wiped out).

Now scale this down to hunter-gatherer populations that represented the societal structure of much of humanity for millennia. It is easy to wipe out a hunter-gatherer society. They can make the wrong move and end up in natural life-threatening situations of their own. They can be hunted and exterminated by another unrelated hunter-gatherer population. They could also be disadvantaged in the sense that they do not procreate quickly enough and their population declines until the last surviving member dies. None of this is hypothetical. We know this happened to these populations rather often. With this context established, it is easy to see how language can spread from one hunter-gatherer group to another for various reasons (contact, internal/external politics etc). It is also easy to imagine the society that initially spread it gets wiped out. The language itself can continue to spread (and innovate), but by that time, the surviving speakers do not represent the language’s earliest speakers.

This is why I say that the further back in time we go, the more we lose any sort of guarantee that modern, surviving speakers are the same population as the language’s proto speakers. It simply is not a guarantee that we can make, no matter how we look at it. This is why I believe the approach by the Igbo academia has a fundamental pitfall.

Excellent breakdown. Very plausible explanation.

Only in instances where we can guarantee isolation and language innovation can we truly consider the possibility of surviving speakers being related to the earliest speakers.

This is also why I hold the view that the idea of “proto-language” is reconciliatory. It’s is unlikely that there existed a group that spoke that reconstruction. Instead, it is more like an approximation used to reconcile the surviving lects of a given language.

A hypothesis. Till proven.

Long story short, a very general broad strokes list of three groupings based off non-guaranteed ancestral relationship (which may or may not match the language history of the area), is simply the same sort of pitfall that the academia has been holding on to for decades now. It is really hard to support such a theory without ignoring various lects and communities (which is exactly what the academia has done for decades). Lastly, a grouping of three is just not representative of the dynamics in the region. So those questions you claimed you were seeking answers to will likely not get answered with your current approach. You will have no choice but to dive deeper, become more granular and eventually add more to your list of dialect groupings.

You've made a strong argument and presented your own hypothesis. However, in the absence of deeper research I will stick with what I know.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. Well, now that I’ve provided all the context beforehand, let me restate my words in a more blunt and concise manner.

The idea that speakers of a language are genetically related to the earliest speakers is not a guarantee we can make.

The idea of a “super dialect” (proto language) is also a hypothesis that we generally cannot prove. So “super dialects” become reconciliatory tools (i.e. used to construct language family trees). In other words, the idea of a “super dialect” is not a guarantee that we can make.

Your approach has similar foundational markers as the current orthodox teachings of the Igbo academia, which do not hold up to scrutiny; fundamental pitfalls, I call them. It will ultimately force one to take a different approach in their considerations.

So with all that said, I was never making arguments to convince you to drop your approach. Instead, I wanted to understand why, despite all the pitfalls, you choose to stick to your guns. In a way we’ve come full circle, because I still hope for my original request to be answered.

If you’ve got any novel information or considerations that informed your attempt to group the various lects, feel free to share it.

In other words, what realizations did you come across? What insights do you have? What is it that truly informed your opinion so much so that you would want to take this approach and stick to the list of only three grouping despite all the pitfall and I had mentioned? That is ultimately what I’m interested in and all my words were to prompt you to share what you might have realized or seen that others (like the Igbo academia) might have missed. Because I would definitely like to know.

However, it’s also understandable if this is just the beginning of your working theory, or a hunch. Often times, we start off with hunches. If you’re still at the “this is a hunch” phase and need to take time to flesh out your working theory so that you can comfortably explain it to others, then no problem. That’s normal, and I’m content to wait and see where your current line of thought takes you in the future.

ChinenyeN:
Perhaps you misunderstand me. Well, now that I’ve provided all the context beforehand, let me restate my words in a more blunt and concise manner.

The idea that speakers of a language are genetically related to the earliest speakers is not a guarantee we can make.

The idea of a “super dialect” (proto language) is also a hypothesis that we generally cannot prove. So “super dialects” become reconciliatory tools (i.e. used to construct language family trees). In other words, the idea of a “super dialect” is not a guarantee that we can make.

Your approach has similar foundational markers as the current orthodox teachings of the Igbo academia, which do not hold up to scrutiny; fundamental pitfalls, I call them. It will ultimately force one to take a different approach in their considerations.

So with all that said, I was never making arguments to convince you to drop your approach. Instead, I wanted to understand why, despite all the pitfalls, you choose to stick to your guns. In a way we’ve come full circle, because I still hope for my original request to be answered.

If you’ve got any novel information or considerations that informed your attempt to group the various lects, feel free to share it.

In other words, what realizations did you come across? What insights do you have? What is it that truly informed your opinion so much so that you would want to take this approach and stick to the list of only three grouping despite all the pitfall and I had mentioned? That is ultimately what I’m interested in and all my words were to prompt you to share what you might have realized or seen that others (like the Igbo academia) might have missed. Because I would definitely like to know.

However, it’s also understandable if this is just the beginning of your working theory, or a hunch. Often times, we start off with hunches. If you’re still at the “this is a hunch” phase and need to take time to flesh out your working theory so that you can comfortably explain it to others, then no problem. That’s normal, and I’m content to wait and see where your current line of thought takes you in the future.

Yes, nothing concrete on my part. Maybe you can call it a bunch. I didn't do any research, I'm only learning from you that several others prior to this time have proferred something akin to mine. All I've stated is based off observation.


However the only thing I didn't mention earlier , or perhaps I didn't state clearly, is that I was spurred on to look at our dialects structure because I am interested in our origin as Igbo people. I'm thinking that looking at how we speak may provide pointers to how we've come to be(so my interest spans anthropology, through linguistics, so to say).

SlayerForever:
How correct is this. Take note it's not an in depth study of any sort.
I was just discussing with a colleague moments ago and I grouped the Igbo language into 3 main dialect groups namely:
1) The typical, very common "Anambra" dialect.
2) Waawa.
3) Southern Igbo.

Too simplistic I must say,if you knew igbo well you would have made a better attempt

ChinenyeN:
That is an oversimplification. So I’ll ultimately say it’s unfounded. Here is the truth.

There are two major isoglosses. We will call them Isogloss-A and Isogloss-B; A & B for short. They are characterized by the following features:

1. Switch between h/r. A uses h, B uses r.
2. Switch between r/l. A uses r, B uses l.
3. Switch between h/f. A uses h, B uses f.
4. Switch between l/n. A uses l, B uses n.

Due to the the fact that the idea of “Igbo” is hyper focused on Anambra primarily and then Imo secondarily, the impression now exists that this isogloss dichotomy is an Anambra-Imo thing. By effect, it is treated as a “Northern Igbo”-“Southern Igbo” thing. This is far from the truth and the picture is more complex.

There are are communities in A that use f and not h (with regards to this switching). There are communities in B that use h and not r (with regards to this switching). Long story short, these two isoglosses are not sufficient enough to characterize all existing lects. Likewise, an “isogloss list” that separates Waawa, but does not separate the old Bende group of lects is not well-put-together.

So no. Igbo cannot be separated into only three major lectal groups. We will need more than that to fully characterize and delineate all the surviving lects.

Absolutely correct you're a knowledgeable igbo woman

SlayerForever:



I've heard Ezza. I would group it under 2, it's just really divergent such that one would think it is unique. I haven't heard it's sister tones but I'd wager it's the same case. Same applies to Afikpo. With the accent.

Nop,you can't put Afikpo under 2,Afikpo isn't wawa and far different from the 4 and 5.infact I'm ikwerre and the Afikpo people in ph I tend to meet speak something more similar to ikwerre,Remember Afikpo was part of Abia and have language similarities with ohafia , Aro and Bende and greets Jokwa with Bende so connect it

ThumbzTNA:

Afikpo can be grouped with Ohafia, Arochukwu, Bende dialects of Abia. If you have ear for one, you'll understand the rest

Some words unique to this dialect are

Jokwa - Well-done, Good morning. Greetings generally

Kaa - Sorry

Okpogo - Money

Mie - blood
etc

SlayerForever this guy is more correct than you,looks like you're not familiar with igbo groups,ikwerre and ohaji/Egbema are more related

ChinenyeN:
I’m a bit confused on why you’ll state that your grouping is not based on an in-depth study, then ask what others think (all of whom have disagreed), yet you disagree with them all.

So on what basis are you disagreeing? Was your grouping actually based on an a deeper study? If so, why hide that? If you’ve got any novel information or considerations that informed your attempt to group the various lects, feel free to share it.

I don’t know about most, but I know there are at least a handful of NL’ders that would be interested in learning how, why and what informed your grouping.

ChinenyeN the guy is deceived by the simple division of Nigeria into states and not understanding the fact that some groups that are more related are cut into different states
E.g
Ihiala in anambra has almost same with orlu in IMO
Oyigbo in Rivers and Ukwa ppl in Abia
Ikerre and IMO
Afikpo in Ebonyi and Ohafia, Arochukwu and Bende in Abia

The op lacks knowledge about igbo dialects and only looks at it from state angle which is too simplistic and wrong funny enough SlayerForever doesn't want to learn

Ikwerelastborn:

Chinenye.N the guy is deceived by the simple division of Nigeria into states and not understanding the fact that some groups that are more related are cut into different states
E.g
Ihiala in anambra has almost same with orlu in IMO
Oyigbo in Rivers and Ukwa ppl in Abia
Ikerre and IMO
Afikpo in Ebonyi and Ohafia, Arochukwu and Bende in Abia

The op lacks knowledge about igbo dialects and only looks at it from state angle which is too simplistic and wrong funny enough SlayerForever doesn't want to learn

Hahaha

Ikwerelastborn:

Nop,you can't put Afikpo under 2,Afikpo isn't wawa and far different from the 4 and 5.infact I'm ikwerre and the Afikpo people in ph I tend to meet speak something more similar to ikwerre,Remember Afikpo was part of Abia and have language similarities with ohafia , Aro and Bende and greets Jokwa with Bende so connect it

To me it is Waawa. Just a very diverged one. I made an argument against using some choice words you feel are unique to a dialect(just as the other guy did). It doesn't work, because what you feel are choice words rather astonishingly reappear in another corner of Igboland that has no history of migration or kinship between both places. I went into detail as to how that happened which Chinenye.N acknowledges, even though with reservations. Hence, using some choice words doesn't cut it.

SlayerForever:




To me it is Waawa. Just a very diverged one. I made an argument against using some choice words you feel are unique to a dialect(just as the other guy did). It doesn't work, because what you feel are choice words rather astonishingly reappear in another corner of Igboland that has no history of migration or kinship between both places. I went into detail as to how that happened which Chinenye.N acknowledges, even though with reservations. Hence, using some choice words doesn't cut it.

You're still wrong,ppl with boundaries will tend to have more common origin.I'm sure if you check their origin they have a common ancestor. Like I said before your classification is too simplistic

Ikwerelastborn:

You're still wrong,ppl with boundaries will tend to have more common origin. I'm sure if you check their origin they have a common ancestor. Like I said before your classification is too simplistic

Hahaha. Okay.

ThumbzTNA:

Afikpo can be grouped with Ohafia, Arochukwu, Bende dialects of Abia. If you have ear for one, you'll understand the rest

Some words unique to this dialect are

Jokwa - Well-done, Good morning. Greetings generally

Kaa - Sorry

Okpogo - Money

Mie - blood
etc

Is mie = mmęę as pronounced by some other Igbo groups in reference to blood?
For instance, this is a typical usage of the word in a sentence.
Aga m eyi gi mmęę = I'll bloody you.
This is used in boundary areas of Enugu, Anambra and Abia.