Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages/Fula

[discussion that was on the main project page has been moved here on 18 May 2008]

Name(s) of the language in the language and in English

[NB- I'm upgrading this to a new section.--A12n 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I'm sure you're aware that the name Fulfulde is also quite commonly used for the dialect chain as a whole. See for example Breedveld 1995 (Form and meaning in Fulfulde) and this SIL Electronic Survey Report (which contains a lot of data that might be of help for the general article you have in mind). I'm not sure which variant is more common, Fula or Fulfulde, though Breedveld (1995:5-6) tells us that

'David W. Arnott, the most well-known Britisch scholar who worked on this language, proposed the more euphonious name fula, a form which is used by the Mandinka and Susu in Gambia. His proposal is widely used by linguists in the English-speaking linguistic community. Presently, a number of linguists working on the language use the term Fulfulde, the language name used by its speakers in Fuuta Jallon (Diallo 1991) and in most dialects from Mali (Fagerberg-Diallo 1984) and eastwards (e.g. McIntosh 1984, Abu-Manga 1986).'

Harrison in the SIL ESR mentioned above states that "when asked, most speakers simply say they speak "Fulfulde," whether a religious leader in a Senegalese urban locale or a nomadic herder in eastern Niger". Based on Breedveld and Harrison, I would tend to go for Fulfulde as it is (1) used quite widely in the literature and (2) seems to be used widely as an autonym (except of course for Pulaar, which is used only in Senegal in Mauritania). — mark ✎ 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. Yes I am aware of the discussion which seems to have two parts. (First I should mention that unless things have changed radically in Fouta Djallon, Guinea in recent years, Pular is the term used for the language there.) The two parts of the discussion are, as I see it:

Whether one uses the language name that the speakers use in their language, and
In the case of this language, whether Fulfulde is used or at least recognized by all speakers.

The first point is similar to that raised in a lot of cases in Africa and elsewhere now. In effect it is or was a fashion to use the name of the language in the language, so: isiZulu and not Zulu, Kiswahili and not Swahili, and even Yorùbá instead of Yoruba, etc. There seems in some cases to be a countermovement that points out that (a) we don't say Français, Deutsch or Zhongwen in English, but rather use anglicized terms French, German and Chinese, and (b) you wouldn't say in Fula/Fulfulde/Pulaar: Aɗa nana English na? You'd say something like: Aɗa nana Angele(nkoore) na? (of course polyglot people do codeswitch but that's another issue).

Both positions are valid, IMO, that is: Maybe it makes sense in all our languages to move towards referring to others the way they refer to themselves, but maybe it also makes sense to allow each language to have its own terminology (as long as that doesn't hide negative/derogatory meanings). Which side do we fall on here?

Personally I have been comfortable with Arnott's proposal to use Fula to describe the language as a whole (which dates back to 1970 as I recall and also includes a suggestion to use the Hausa-based Fulani term for the people, but let's not get into the latter point). I also have no problem with the French continuing to use Peul. One advantage of such terms is that they cover Fulfulde, Pulaar, and Pular.

Which brings us to the second point... I was interested to hear what Dr. Salimata Sow of the University of Niamey said a couple of years ago in regard to the name of the language used by the speakers. She basically said that Fulfulde was the proper name of the language. It's not my place to argue the point, but it also seems clear that Pulaar and Pular are in common everyday use in the west (ever heard of Haalfulfulde'en?). To me the basic lessons are that (1) any native speaker would recognize the ful- root (with the f-p consonant shift it's effectively the same as pul-) and its variants for people (Pullo/Fulɓe), culture (pulaaku), and speech (in addition to the names for the language, I've even seen reference to Fulaare in a kind of mocking phrase about how one uses the language); and (2) no one has a problem with the variant forms (which reminds me a bit of Chinese: zhongwen, hanyu, puthonghua are overlapping ways of referring to aspects of one fact; in English we get used to thinking that a language needs one name).

For our purposes on Wikipedia, it might do to stay with the current nomenclature and sound out other opinions before changing. I tend to think that unless it is considered really bad form to use Fula language (along the lines of using Sarakolle rather than Soninke, for instance), that we could keep it. Fula gives English speakers who aren't specialized in language or African studies a term that holds the oneness of ful- and behaves like an Englisn word (French language, French people; Fula language, Fula people -but- Fulfulde language, Fulɓe (sing. Pullo) people?).

Sorry to be so longwinded, but hope that responds to the points. --A12n 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the topic of Fulani, it was just brought up on Talk:Fula_people. --A12n 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive reply (I have indented it for readability). I can see the sense in using Fulani as the English term for the language. In fact, I have always advocated to use the most common English term for language articles (e.g. Sonjo rather than ketemi, Yoruba rather than Yorùbá). Therefore, I agree with you that it might just be a good idea to keep the article at Fula language.

Thing is, I was reading Breedveld's dissertation and she makes a rather convincing case for Fulfulde. But based on the background information you've brought in I think Fula is the way to go for now. — mark ✎ 18:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breedveld by the way writes about Fulaare: 'Indeed, in Maasina there is actually another language name: fulaare, which can be translated as 'Fulbe language'. It is a very poetic name for the langauge' (Why, she doesn't tell.) — mark ✎ 18:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this feedback. I just mentioned in the discussion on name for the people in Wikipedia that I will put the question to the H-West-Africa list to sound out what people there say on the overall language and people names-in-English issue. For the moment, yes, the status quo is fine (and ultimately probably no solution is perfect).--A12n 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been slow to get the question to HWA, but will do soon. --A12n 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category?

...for varieties of the language?

One quick thought. As this language category develops, it may be useful to have a category Fula/Fulfulde languages/dialects under Category:Dialects by language. Just came across that and wanted to make a note before getting back to something else. Haven't studied how that has worked for other languages or what that might mean for this one. --A12n 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'd prefer Category:Fula varieties, to circumvert the perpetual language/dialect issue. — mark ✎ 13:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or variants? I agree that the language/dialect debate is good to avoid. I have a draft to send to HWA on the language name issue. Need to push it through. Though as I think about it it could just be a multiple reference thing - trying to force the issue (either the language name or people name) to one name will always end up in an imperfect solution. --A12n 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is one of the things we have redirects for. — mark ✎ 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...more broad?

Tinkered a bit with the Fula language page and also Pular language. Treating the latter as a specialized page in the as-yet-to-be-named category. My thinking is that pages on the varieties / variants / dialects can each focus on particularities / peculiarities of the variety in question. It also occurs to me that:

The main page with language description, that is Fula language may be inadequate to include all the basics such as oulined presently under Classification. Hence one might need to have a separate page say for noun classes, and another(s) describing some other features in general. (The variety/dialect pages could go into detail about topics such as the specific verb endings - this being one of the ways in which Fula varies.)
So, if we do that + have variety/dialect pages, then the category becomes larger and the name different. Perhaps the category should be something like Category:Fula language.
Such a broader category could then also encompass pages on, say, the Pulaar renaissance movement in Senegal, publications in the language, griots whose primary performance is in this language, etc. --A12n 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Category:Fula language

I added the category for Fula language per the above. I looked at some non-African languages, and this seems to be the general pattern: Cetegory:German_language for instance. Under this category we can hae pages on features of the language and its varieties - the latter could also be grouped under a subcateggory. --A12n 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Added Maasina Fulfulde. --A12n 05:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Fula orthographies. --A12n (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]