The Exigency to Standardise Apatani Orthography

(An extract from the book THE QUINTESSENCE OF APATANI LANGUAGE (PRELUDE) released on 5^th July 2011) 

It is absolutely weird and downright ironic! A book with the purpose to educate about the importance of mother tongue, underscore about the endangerment of our langugage and emphasise on the importance of documenting  the language with the intention to preserve it is written in a foreign script.  How is this contradiction going to serve the purpose anyways? 

Apatani language is a spoken language with no script like most of the Tibeto–Burman languages of India. Some educated and sensible native speakers of Apatani have tried to write the language using Devnagri script, Roman script, Bangla script and some innovative individuals have even tried to invent artificial scripts. All their efforts are appreciable and praiseworthy. 

Herein, the use of the Roman (=Latin) alphabet complemented with International Phonetics Alphabet (IPA) to transcribe Apatani language is my conscious selection over other scripts. It should not be misunderstood that I am creating or devising a new script. The reasons to opt for Roman script and IPA are many. 

There are many systems of representing the sounds of human language. Of all such systems, International Phonetics Alphabet (IPA) is most widely accepted and used. IPA is a system of symbols designed by the International Phonetic Association (IPA) to be used to represent the sounds of all human languages in accordance with a set of common principles. The symbols consist of letters and diacritics (small added marks placed over, under, or through a letter that can be used to distinguish different values of a sound). Some letters are taken from the Roman alphabet, while others are special symbols[1]. Through my experience I found that IPA is the best alternative to transcribe all the sounds of Apatani language. It precisely and accurately transcribes all sounds of human languages. 

Using Roman alphabet has also many advantages over other scripts. Firstly, Roman and Devnagri scripts are more known by Apatani speakers which is followed by Bangla script (which is limited to some older folks and some younger ones who had elementary education in Assamese medium schools). Some individuals might know other scripts too, but they are isolated cases. Though most prefer Hindi over English or Assamese to speak but to write preference is  over Roman alphabet than Devnagri or Bangla scripts. That is, we are more comfortable in speaking Hindi and other Indian vernacular languages but more comfortable in using Roman script for the purpose of writing. 

Secondly, though the 26 alphabets of Roman script is inadequate to represent the whole of Apatani language sounds, it is more equipped than Devnagri or Bangla scripts in terms of sound symbol correspondences. The insufficient sounds can be made up with little bit of modifications in the numbers and forms (e.g. superscript, subscript, strike through, underline) of the alphabets by using some IPA symbols and diacritical marks (e.g. accents, cedillas, tildes, dots). However such diacritic modifications in Indian scripts would be more confusing and technically not feasible. 

Thirdly, if an invented script is used for orthography of Apatani, one has to learn the new script from the scratch which would be an enormously difficult task. Of course if the community people unanimously wish to, a new script can be invented, learnt and popularly used. But when the same purpose (the use of new script) can be served in easier way, why unnecessarily complicate things. That is to say, when Roman script with some modifications can perfectly cater to the need to Apatani orthography, why the need of a new script.

However, inventing a new script is as easy as a child’s play. The only basic formula is to meticulously and completely identify the sounds of a language and represent them with corresponding symbols. For instance, if some imaginary symbols are used in hypothetically invented Apatani script called Ommography, the following would be a very simple way to write Apatani in Ommography. 

Hypothetical Ommography

The above table makes the complicate symbols look simple and readable . It is like encoding and decoding message by Intelligence departments. Inventing and devising a new script is simple and looks effortless. The challenging task and the main hurdle is approval, recognition, acceptance, promoting it and popularising for undisputed acceptance.

Fourthly, using other (Chinese, Thai, Tamil, Arabic, Greek, Cyrillic etc) scripts  apart from Roman alphabet  for Apatani orthography; it would be like learning a new invented script and will again needlessly compound the situation.        

Hopefully my preference of Roman over other scripts does make sense now. The next step in using Roman script would be to standardise the orthography or the writing system and hence standardisation of the language. There are four[2] challenges to it, but light brainstorming and cooperative effort can easily eliminate these challenges.

Through the interactions that I had with many learned fellow Apatani folks; the first challenge which comes to our mind even before the selection of the dialect of Apatani language is the codification, i.e. the orthography. This is not so complicated as it seems. Firstly, all the sounds and features available in Apatani have to be identified completely. The sounds which are not represented adequately with the Roman alphabet should be corresponded with modifications (e.g. superscript, subscript, strike through, underline) and diacritical markings (e.g. accents, cedillas, tildes, dots). IPA symbols can be used if necessary (which is the best way of course). Even unused Roman alphabets with regards to Apatani language (e.g., f, q, v, w, x, z) can be used by reassigning them with some sounds of Apatani language. 

As in all other languages even if the sound changes happen (which is indeed happening presently–[x] and [´]) in Apatani language, the original sound can be transcribed and retained in written form. As language is dynamic and susceptible to changes. Even English has undergone series of changes. Ever wondered why people say ‘English is a very funny language’ and that it has the most inconsistent and difficult spelling system? It is not because of the incompetence of Roman script, rather it is because of the natural process of sound changes that English has gone through from age to age. Standardisation of modern English came about in the 18^th century with the publication of dictionary by Dr Samuel Johnson in 1755. That is the very reason why the written representation of English is not phonetically exact to the spelling. The spelling of words has changed to a lesser extent than their sounds (e.g. the k in knife and the gh in right were formerly pronounced).    

Regarding the codification or orthography, we have to be consistent. Different writers, organisations and publications have used various symbols and diacritics for Apatani phonetics. It is the result of inconsistent representation of sound and also because of the absence of an accepted standardised orthography that different spellings are used for the same referent of sounds. For instance, consider the following spellings of {(Bulla, Bula, Biilla); (Hong, Hangu); (Danyi, Dani); (Anya, Ania, Aniya); (Grayu, Gyayu, Giayu); (Lalyang, Lailang, Laliang); (din)ta, dinta, dingta); (alyo, alio, aliyo)}. The variant spellings for nasalised vowels in various Apatani publications are the very example of inconsistency. Due to such inconsistent and confusing spellings, not only foreigners but even native speakers have changed their way of pronouncing native words. As pointed in earlier section, language controls our thought process. Evidently we are subconsciously governed by the faulty spellings and flawed orthography.        

If we have a standardised and uniform spelling writing system which will accurately and perfectly transcribe the sounds, no such complicacies will ever encounter. In fact we can retain and save our mother tongue from dilution, endangerment and extinction. 

A minor obstacle regarding the orthography is the fonts in the computer and keys in the typewriters. Well, if the fonts for Roman, Arabic, Cyrillic, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Devnagri, Tamil, Bangla and even Tanilipi can be designed and created,  why not a font for Apatani language be designed and created? And talking about the inclusion diacritics in the typewriter, may order for special typewriters be placed. Or, why worry about the typewriters when the world is turning to computer, why retreat? Someday computers will replace typewriters completely, let us be on a par with the time and technology. Why should let time defeat us, let us defeat time with collective and cooperative efforts. Fonts can be easily created; technology shouldn’t be a hurdle on the way to noble works and development in this modern period. 

     

Russian Alphabet[3]

The modern Russian alphabet has 33 letters. It uses the Cyrillic system, which was developed in the ninth century and based on Greek uncial letters. Russian words are largely spelt phonetically.

Arabic Alphabet

The Arabic alphabet has only 18 distinct characters, but, by adding dots below and above 8 of these, the 28 consonants and 3 long vowels of the Arabic language are formed. The Arabic alphabet is the second most widely used in the world, having been adopted for use in languages such as Farsi, Urdu, Spanish, and Malay.

Greek Alphabet

The modern Greek alphabet has 24 characters and is written from left to right. It is based on the alphabet used by the ancient Greeks. Modern Greek may be divided into the broad categories of Katharevousa and Demotiki (or Dimotiki, or Demotike). The former is a 19th-century invention that followed Greek independence; it was intended to create a national language purged of foreign, especially Turkish, influences. Demotiki is vernacular Greek, which developed naturally over centuries, and was made the national language only in 1976, when democratic government was restored.

Hebrew Alphabet

The Hebrew alphabet is written from right to left and has 22 letters. Modern Hebrew was developed in the 19th and 20th centuries and was declared the national language of the new state of Israel in 1948. Uniquely, it was revived as a spoken tongue from the written language. Hebrew has characters for consonants only; vowels are indicated by the Masoretic system—dots and dashes—in certain types of literature, such as poetry.

The second challenge in the way of standardisation of orthography of a language is the role of the language. Apatani language should be used in various fields on daily basis and emphasis should be given on its usage and implementation: administrative functions, education system, public meetings, entertainment, media, literatures and most of all as lingua-franca for day to day life communication everywhere (of course, in Apatani areas). In short, the use of Apatani should be popularised.      

We complain, criticise and regret that youngsters are not learning Apatani, they are abandoning our mother tongue, they are losing our identity, blah blah blah… Give me a good reason why should anyone learn Apatani. To save our language? To save our culture? To save our identity? Are they matured or experienced enough to understand what is identity and the importance of saving it? Have they volunteered to be the saviours for our cause? If they did understand, why will they not talk in Apatani and why will they want to lose their identity? They are no fools to axe their own legs. It is because of the lack of understanding, scope, opportunity and motivation to speak and learn Apatani language that they are abandoning and losing it. Regular workshops and consistent awareness camps to target groups could do some good for the cause.   

Why do we learn foreign languages like Hindi, English, German, French and so on? Isn’t it because of the motivation to learn them? The motivation to get good jobs and other benefits? So why don’t we popularise Apatani language and create such opportunities and motivations to learn. And such motivations and inspirations will come only with the popularisation and standardisation of our language in public domain.

The third challenge on the way of standardisation of a language is of great social importance and the most critical one, i.e. the choice of the speech variety. Now, this choice of variety does not remain just in linguistic domain but it is of socio–political concern. 

In England there are many different accents of English. It is the Southern England English called Received Pronunciation (RP) considered to be the standard English. In Japan the Tokyo dialect of Japanese is treated as the standard variety. In USA, the accent of Midwest and West used by the Television announcers is considered as the standard accent called the General American.  In China, of amongst the hosts of unintelligible languages; the Putonghua dialect of Mandarin, of North China is chosen as the official spoken language.

In our scenario, of the 7 major dialects spoken in Apatani valley; one variety has to be selected to make it universal. The choice of the variety essentially does not verify to be superior than the other varieties nor does that mean that it is linguistically finest. For example, not claiming the superiority; the Bamin–Michi dialect which seems most neutral in accent and popularly used may be picked for the purpose of reference.

The last challenge to standardise a language is the approval, recognition and the acceptance of a variety as the standard variety. The selected variety should be first approved, recognised and accepted by the elite groups and the people’s representatives (of course, by the support of the mass). If they accept it, the rest will follow them. 

Now, the challenges that lie ahead of us are: how are we going to arrive at a unanimous acceptance. Tasks are magnanimous, but we can achieve it with regular awareness camps, conducting seminars, emphasising on the use in all areas, parental guidance to the children, collective and cooperative efforts of the society as a whole will prove good to serve the purpose.

---

[1] Longman Dictionary of  Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Jack C. Richards and Richard Schmidt edited, 3^rd Edition.

[2] Haugen. E. (1966a). Language conflict and language planning: The case of modern Norwegian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[3] All the plates of scripts are from Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation.