Participant referencing

For those who don't like grammar, you might not want to read the rest of this post.

I'm working on attempting to figure out how Gumawana tracks its participants in a story. Participants are both people and things that a speaker has to keep track of while telling a story. What I'm struggling with at the moment is the interesting use of the Gumawana word for "one" which is tayamo [taYAmo]. So far I've discovered that Gumawana does not have a system where they mark nouns as either definite or indefinite. English uses "a" and "the" to mark the majority of nouns as either indefinite or definite. English can leave both off to give the idea of a class of nouns like in the clause "elephants are big". I'm not referring to any particular elephant nor do I have one particular one in mind. I'm just talking about elephants in general.

So without such an overt system, how do Gumawana speakers tell when a noun is definite or indefinite. As I read the stories that have been written by native speakers over the years, I sense that context plays a huge role in determining this. They also mark nouns with possession for example to say "I am going to go fishing for some fish." a Gumawana speaker will say "I fish my fish." By saying "my fish" he is not referring to any particular fish he could point out since he hasn't caught them yet. What he is saying is that the fish are for eating. They accomplish this concept by the use of one of their possessive phrases (they have three!). I am still learning how this all works.

Instead of an overt system of marking definite and indefinite nouns, Gumawana speakers seem to be more interested in the status of the participant. In other words, they mark those participants who are important to the overall story and plot. Those who are minor or trivial are never marked in any way when they are introduced. So in some of the stories I've collected the authors will begin with something like "one boy whose name was Gumasai." What they are saying is "there once was a certain boy whose name was Gumasai." The italicized word translate the word tayamo as it is used here. Again, not all participants are introduced this way, only those who are most important to the story from the author's perspective.

One way they mark a participant as prominent is by means of either the word tayamo "one" when the participant is being introduced. Then they use a suffix on the noun [-ya] to mark those participants who are the center of attention at a particular point in the story once they have been introduced. Only one noun in a clause can be marked with -ya.

This discovery is vital to good translating. So now I must apply it to our translating by looking at each participant in how he/she/it is introduced so that those who are the most important are to be marked with tayamo when they first appear.

The word tayamo is also used with the word for "time". When this phrase is used it seems to mark a break in the story line. It implies that there is a major shift in the story that happened at a particular time. In other words, the events that happened at that time are being marked as prominent.

I still am working to refine my hypothesis. The goal is to be able to predict when it will occur. Not quite there yet. So much to learn still.

Gumawana Verbs

Gumawana has an interesting verb system. They use numerous prefixes to convey meaning that other languages do through prepositional phrases. As an example, in Gumawana they can do the following with one verb mata 'die'.

1. kimata 'kill by use of hand'. Literally 'cause to die by hand'. This one can be used of someone killing another person with his hands. Or it can refer to turning off something (extended use of 'kill by hand').
2. samata 'kill with water'. Literally 'cause to die with water'. This can be over watering something to the point of killing it. The subject can be rain in that too much will kill certain plants in a garden.
3. kaumata 'kill with stone/force'. Literally 'cause to die by stone/force'. This one most likely originally meant only to kill by stone but is used more often now with the idea of 'force'.
4. kalimata 'kill with pointed instrument'. Literally it is 'cause to die with a pointed instrument.' So if someone spears someone, this is the verb to use to describe that action since a spear is pointed.
5. vamata 'kill with foot'. Literally 'cause to die by foot.' So if I squash a bug on the ground, I can use this verb to describe the action.
   
6. tumata 'kill with the buttocks'. Literally 'cause to die by buttocks'. Sounds funny, does it not? But if a person sits on a small insect or even a puppy and kills it, this is the word you want to use to describe that action.
   
7. kanamata 'kill by lying down.' Literally 'cause to die by lying down.' Another somewhat humorous one considering that we normally don't think of killing someone or something by lying on them. Yet if someone rolls over and kills something this is the way to describe it.
   
8. didmate 'killing by strangling or choking'. Literally 'cause to die by strangulation.' This could be considered a compound verb except that the verb didi is being used to describe the manner in which the killing occurs. It is used of a vine wrapping around another plant and choking it off.
   
9. sapimate 'kill by slapping.' Literally 'cause to die by slapping.' This is really a compound verb since technically sapina can occur by itself. However, in this case it appears to function like the other prefixes in giving the manner in which the killing is accomplished. It is heard often with respect to putting out a fire since the action of slapping is perceived as the means of putting the fire out. I have not heard it used for anything else, though it could.
   
10. kamata 'kill by teeth'. Literally 'cause to die by use of teeth.' This one is typically used with dogs who kill by biting. But it can be used of any animal killing another.
    

Now in the book of Exodus God's commandments are listed. One which we all know is "You shall not kill." The one that is really the only appropriate one to use is number 3 kaumata 'kill with force'. This one is somewhat generic and can be used in most instances. In other words, the prefix kau- has come to be so vague that the word as a whole can mean just 'kill' in most cases.

Another example is the word upa 'break' which can take a variety of prefixes to describe how something is broken. This verb refers to the breaking of something long and thin. That would include things like, rope, twine, string, wire, etc. It does not refer to breaking of glass or clay pots. That is another verb.

1. taopa [ta+upa becomes topa] 'broke'. The prefix ta- here indicates that the action happened on its own. So this would be the generic way of saying 'it broke.' By using this form the speaker is saying that no one is to blame. By using any other form, the speaker is saying the subject intended to break it. In other words, if you want to say that it was an accident, you have to use this form to convey that information.
2. kiupe 'break with hands.' If I break string with my hands, this is the one to use.
3. kauupe 'break with stone/force.' Using extreme force or a rock on a wire or vine would require using this one.
4. vaupe 'break with foot'
5. kaliupe 'break with pointed instrument.'
6. kaupe 'break with teeth'. Very common there. I've seen people cut fishing line with their teeth (also fish cutting a line) and use this term.
   
7. saupe 'break with water.' Again the water is the means by which someone breaks or cuts through something long and thin.

You get the idea. The language has many, many verbs that work this way. So once I figured out the different prefixes, I could create words fairly easily. However, Gumawana speakers tend NOT to want to create new words. In fact, as I have tested them, they tend not to recognize these parts of the word. They view kaumata 'kill by force' as a whole. So if I try to create a word using the various parts I have identified, unless someone in the language has said the word and it is being used, they reject it. They would rather borrow a word than create one.

Yet other language groups in the same province will create words easily and accept them. In fact, it becomes almost a game. Every language is different. It never ceases to amaze me how they function.

So this is just to give you a little glimpse into how people on the Amphletts organize their world.

Trip to Nubogeta update

I went to the village this time hoping to maybe finish six chapters of Luke and half of John. This would result in finishing both books next year. As we began working on Luke the first week, I was convinced if we got done with 3 chapters while I was there we would be doing good. The group of men and women who came were just not talking this time. However, on Wednesday we began working quicker and it seemed they were coming to life. After two weeks of working on the book we had finished chapter 22. So the question was do we wait until next year to do 2 chapters or attempt to work through them in the week that was left. During the day we would be working on John so I asked a couple of the men if they would be willing to work on Saturday and then each night until we finished. They were all for it. Saturday we finished chapter 23 and on Sunday afternoon we finished chapter 24. I was amazed that we were able to get so much completed.

As for John, when the men showed up to work, I noticed there were 5 who had never worked with me before. That was not a good sign. New people tend to not talk and so it looked as though that week was going to be difficult. But God seemed to have brought the right people together. Isileli, who leads that group from Gumawana, had asked Tomasi from Nubogeta to join us. I had also asked Tomasi to come thinking it would be better if he was in the group as well. It was a good decision. As it turns out Tomasi had been studying the book for the last year on his own. He had no thought of joining us when he began reading it. Even before we started work on it Tomasi and I were talking about the difficulties in the book.

What impressed me most with this group from Gumawana was there interaction with each other. I would write on the board how I translated the text over the past year. They would immediately ignore me and begin discussing with each other as to the best way to render it. This kind of discussion is always good because they argue with each other and try various ways to state something. When they all agree, I usually feel we have it right. We made it to around the middle of chapter 8. The half way point in the book is the end of chapter 9. So I feel grateful that we completed as much as we did. I have left copies of both Luke and John for them to edit Luke and to work through the rest of John. Next year I do believe we might be able to complete John.

I enjoyed many conversations with Tomasi over the past month. He continues to grow in his faith. The difference between him and many others is his humility and his desire to continue learning. He has never gone to school, yet he taught himself enough English to read a study Bible. He studies daily and has memorized a great deal of Scripture.

Recently he told me how a woman from our village was at the United Church circuit headquarters at Wadalei (about 25 km south of Nubogeta) to give a sermon. Before going she had come to Tomasi for help. He outlined and explained how she could give a sermon on a particular topic. Later after she had given the sermon, the minister in charge was quite impressed with what she had to say. She never told him that it was Tomasi. God continues to use him to produce a great translation.

Taukidi is one of our translators from Gumawana Island. He came to work on John with us over the past month. I noticed Taukidi would read what was written on the board, but consistently misread what was written. Furthermore, he was having to move up closer to the board to see better. He told me his eyes were getting bad to the point where he could see very little at a distance. I have never seen anyone from the Amphletts have difficulty in seeing things in the distance. I'm guessing the use of lanterns at night is damaging the eyes of most of the people. One morning when I noticed he was having a great deal of trouble reading the board, I took off my glasses and handed them to him. After putting them on he exclaimed, "It's so clear! It's like the way I used to see." So while home I need to find some old pairs of prescription glasses for nearsighted people to take him a pair. If you have glasses you no longer need and would like to donate them to someone on the Amphletts, contact me and I will show you how.

Overall the time in the village went well. I enjoyed seeing everyone again. It is always hard to leave them, because I know next time there may be a few people missing. Death is all too common there. I'm thankful that I stayed healthy the entire time.

Thanks to those who prayed for this trip. It is an important aspect of the task!

Update on Clif's trip.

The first week of translation seems to have gone well. In fact, the group came to Clif and asked if they could work on Saturday as well.

This is their second week translating; I haven't heard how this week is going thus far.

The outboard engine, which Clif mentioned in his prayer requests, was working fine when they checked it.. that was a very big praise.

The Vanuatu tsunami warning this evening gave me a little bit of a, "mouth dropped open, and 'What! How far away are we?'" feeling... for all of five minutes, until the newscaster announced that it had been canceled already. THAT was a nice thing to hear. I'll still be very interested to hear if they had any outlying ramifications as a result of it.

I think that's about it for now. If I can remember, I will post again after I hear from our friends, who are acting as liaison for us.

Clif is in PNG

Hi,
This is actually me (rox) writing on Clif's blog.
He should, if all went as he had hoped and planned, be on the boat and just about an hour and a half into his 15-17 hour trip to Nubogeta. Please pray for calm seas and a safe trip.
I figured while he is gone, when I remember, I will come and post an occasional blog and update you on what I hear from him (via our friends in PNG).

On to Papua New Guinea

Tonight I head back to Papua New Guinea for another short stint of translating. I would appreciate your prayers for this trip. I've listed a number of things you can be praying for:

1. We are working on both John and Luke. Pray that we have unity among the men working on this with me. Pray also for God's wisdom as we translate. There are number of very difficult concepts to translate in John. Pray that we can find just the right way to state these.

2. Pray for good health for all involved in the translation.

3. Pray for good weather both for my 15 hour boat ride and for the time in the village. I need lots of sunshine on our solar panels to keep the 12 volt batteries charged that I depend on for powering my computer. Pray that my computer works well.

4. Pray for Roxanne and PJ. Roxanne is looking for a house for us. Pray that something will come up while I am gone.

5. Pray that these two books will have an impact on those working on the translation.

6. I will be attempting to do some checking of other books as well in the evenings. Pray that we can find any problems in these books at this point.

7. I've learned that our outboard motor is having trouble. This could limit who I can get to work from other villages. Pray we can get it going.

That's it for the moment. The plan is to begin translating on Monday September 28 on Luke. We will work 1 week on Luke, then a week on John, then back to Luke and finally a last week on John. We want to see about half of John completed and another 6 chapters of Luke.

Crying

One of my favorite verses of the Bible is John 11:35. You are probably wondering why it is a favorite, right. Well, it's easy to memorize because it has just two words: "Jesus wept." Don't laugh too hard. And as a Bible translator, it's a pretty easy verse to translate. In Gumawana it is also just two words: Yeisu itaiya" (I'll let you figure out which word is Jesus and which is "he-cried"). It's one of those verses I translate without thinking too much about it and move on. That is not a good way to translate I have discovered.

Looking at the Greek the verb used here is different from the crying done by Mary and the Jews who had come to mourn with Mary over the loss of her brother Lazarus. What's the difference? There is a big difference and it changes the way you look at the whole story of Lazarus dying and being raised from the dead. When Jesus cried the verb used has the idea of quiet crying, i.e., tears but no sound. Gumawana actually has a verb for indicating crying with real tears, but without any sound. I mention no sound because the verb used in the Greek for Mary and the Jews crying refers to wailing. It would have most likely been quite loud. I have witnessed this kind of thing in the village where we work. Gumawana has a different verb for that as well.

On the Amphletts when someone dies, everyone in the village as well as from the other islands of the Amphletts will come "to cry". They will come to the house and sit underneath it and with the family of the deceased and wail very loudly. This "death wail" can be heard throughout the village. Depending on the deceased it can last for hours. It is the community's way of standing with the family during a very sorrowful time. Also, everyone comes because of the fear of being accused of sorcery. If someone does not wail, others will suspect that person as having done sorcery on the deceased.

From what I have read, the first century was similar to this kind of scenario. It would have been customary for the community to come and wail with the family of the deceased. But in the passage I was translating Jesus knows that he will raise Lazarus from the dead. I highly doubt Jesus was mourning the loss of Lazarus since shortly he will raise him to life. The fact that John describes his crying as a sort of quiet crying indicates that Jesus is crying for another reason. Perhaps the lack of faith he saw in the people who continued to wail as though there was no hope. He greived over their lack of faith. He had told Mary to just believe.

So how do we respond to the circumstances that come our way? I have to ask myself whether I respond like those with no hope or do I see possibilites in Jesus? Tough question, but the answer is even tougher.

From just a little verse with just two words, we learn so much. I need to remember to check things carefully and not assume I know!