Media, Education and the Count of Namibian Languages Pedro Lusakalalu

Journal of Namibian Studies, 2 (2007): 85–101 ISSN: 1863-5954

Media, education and the count of Namibian languages Pedro Lusakalalu

Abstract This paper shows that the number of languages in Namibia, as it happens with the linguistic diversity of many countries, is a range (10 to 31) whereby the margin of error (±21) is greater than the minimum count (10). The paper uses the framework of a typological categorisation of languages presented in a previous paper which suggested that the morphological behaviour of language names, or glossonyms, as well as the way these can be grouped, were to a large extent responsible for this pattern. The paper also shows that, in the case of Namibia, the minimum count relates to the use of glossonyms in the media, while the maximum count relates to their use in the education system.

The title of the book by Maho suggests that Namibia houses a disproportionate number of languages in relation to its small population.1 Yet, by any standards, the number of Namibian languages is quite manageable. This does not mean that there is a fixed number. The framework proposed in Lusakalalu (2001) for the analysis of linguistic diversity shows that a fixed number is only possible where all the languages belong to the second category of a three-category classification, which is summarised in section 1 below.2 The number of languages of a given country tends to be a range, e.g. 10 to 30 languages for Namibia.3 Manageability can then only refer to the relative certainty with which the minimum and the maximum figures in the range are understood. In a country like Angola, as argued in Lusakalalu (2004), the minimum, the maximum, or any other point within the range, cannot be accounted for with any measure of certainty.4 This paper, on the other hand, attempts to demonstrate that the linguistic diversity of Namibia can be accounted for using the dichotomy media/education, with media relating to a large extent to the minimum figure and education to the maximum. Any point within the range can also be accounted for perfectly clearly according to the theory of glossonymic units and the three-category classification presented in Lusakalalu (2001).

1 Jouni F. Maho, Few people, many tongues. The languages of Namibia, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998. 2 Pedro Lusakalalu, “Languages and glossonymic units: contribution to the assessment of the linguistic diversity of Angola and Namibia”, Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, 66, 2001: 47-65. 3 Maho, People : 22. 4 Lusakalalu, Pedro, Línguas e unidades glossonímicas, Luanda, Editorial Nzila, 2004.

1. The three-category classification According to the framework presented in Lusakalalu (2001), there are three categories of languages related to the ‘behaviour’ of their glossonyms (also called glotonyms) or language names. The term ‘glossonym’ is better than the term ‘language name’ because of the hierarchy language group – language – language variety – language subvariety. A language group consists of several languages; a language is a set of language varieties, and a language variety can consist of subvarieties. In linguistic studies there are no clear-cut criteria for telling a language group from a language, a language from a language variety, and a language variety from a language subvariety. Even dialectological studies have not been very helpful in telling a language from a language variety.5 Yet the task of classifying and subclassifying languages has been undertaken. For example, Maho proposes a way of updating the classification of Bantu languages presented in Guthrie’s volumes, the latest of which is Guthrie (1971).6 In the updates, it is still not clear at which level the languages stand in relation to the groups of languages and to the language varieties and subvarieties, when each level can be designated by a glossonym. The example used for category 1 in Lusakalalu (2001), Kikongo (H10 in Guthrie’s classification), is sometimes referred to as the Kongo group. This means that, if it is a language group, rather than a language, then glossonyms like Kizombo, Kisolongo and Kimbembe are languages, rather than language varieties. Similarly, when Snyman et al. and indeed Maho talk about the Sotho languages, they mean that Setswana, Sesotho and Sepedi constitute a group.7 In Lusakalalu (2001) the examples used were Kikongo for category 1, Umbundu for category 2 and Oshiwambo for category 3. Umbundu is an Angolan language, Kikongo a Kikongo

Kizombo Kisolongo Kimbebe Kintoso Kinkusu Kiyombe etc.

Diagram 1: Category 1 language in Lusakalalu, “Languages”

5 William Nelson Francis, Dialectology: an Introduction, London, Longman, 1983. 6 Maho, Jouni F., “A referential classification of the Bantu languages: Keeping uthrie’s system updated”, 2006. http://goto.glocalnet.net/maho/downloads/NUGL2.pdf (accessed July 2007); Guthrie, Malcolm, Comparative Bantu: an Introduction to the Comparative linguistics and Prehistory of the Bantu Languages, London, Gregg International, 1971. 7 Jan W. Snyman et al., “The current position of Setswana in the Republic of South Africa”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED; Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998: 135-167; Maho, People : 50. 86

cross-border language spoken in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Congo- Brazzaville, while Oshiwambo is an Angolan-Namibian cross-border language. The technique was that a glossonym that stands alone at a certain level in diagrams like Diagram 1 and Diagram 2 below can be considered as designating a language. A category 1 or a category 3 language has at least two levels of glossonyms: Oshiwambo

Oshindonga Otshikwambi Oshikwanyama Oshimbaanhu etc.

Diagram 2: Category 3 language in Lusakalalu, “Languages”. See also Diagram 5

In both cases, it is always possible to claim that one of the glossonyms at the lower level (e.g. Oshindonga) is also a language, rather than a variety of the language designated by the glossonym standing alone at the upper level (i.e. Oshiwambo). The most important difference between category 1 and category 3 is that the glossonym standing alone at the upper level (i.e. Oshiwambo) seems to have been ‘forced’ fairly recently as the hyperglossonym (the cover language name) of the glossonyms at the lower level, which appear to be more authentic. For this reason, it is concluded in Lusakalalu (2001) that the number of languages of any country with category 3 languages cannot be a fixed number. This is why there is always a wide margin of error in the counting of languages. A wide margin of error is one that is greater than the minimum count. For example, if Namibia has 10 to 30 languages, then the margin of error is ±20, where 20 is greater than 10, the minimum count. On the other hand, a category 2 language like Umbundu leaves no doubt as to where the language stands, because the morphological structure of the language does not favour a situation where the varieties at the lower level are designated by glossonyms. The varieties of Umbundu, as Diagram 3 indicates, carry the glossonym Umbundu and the name of the Umbundu-speaking area (designated by a toponym) where its speakers are concentrated. Umbundu

Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu wo wo Wambu wo Sambu wo Mbalundu wo Kakonda wo Viye (toponym)

Diagram 3: Category 2 language in Lusakalalu, “Languages”

2. Namibian languages This section assigns the languages of Namibia to the categories of the classification proposed in Lusakalalu (2001), summarised in the previous section.

2.1 Setswana Setswana is a category 1 language, because the glossonyms designating its variants at the lower level (in Diagram 4) hardly ever lay claim to the status of language.

Setswana

Setlhaping Setlharo Sekgalagadi Setawana Sekgatla Serolong etc.

Diagram 4: Setswana as a Category 1 language

The various varieties of Setswana are mainly spoken in Namibia, Botswana and South Africa. The Namibian varieties of Setswana are Setlhaping, Setlharo, Setawana and Sekgala(k)gadi.8 Trewby suggests that Setlhaping and Setlharo are not always seen as two varieties, but as one, referred to as Setlharotlhaping.9 This does not challenge the category 1 status of Setswana, unlike the case of Sekgala(k)gadi, which is usually listed as another language with its own varieties.10 The Sekgala(k)gadi variety of Namibia would be referred to as Sengologa, since the subgroup of the Bakgala(k)gadi that speaks it is referred to as the Bangologa.11 Sengologa will of course be a subvariety if the idea persists that Sekgala(k)gadi is a variety of Setswana rather than a language in its own right. And this idea will remain as long as Sekgala(k)gadi as a language or a variety of language is unwritten, the Bakgala(k)gadi children in Namibia are taught within the Setswana curriculum in lower primary schools in the Omaheke region, and Sekgala(k)gadi is under the influence of Setlharotlhaping.

8 Maho, People . 9 Richard Trewby, “The status of Setswana in education in Namibia”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED, Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998: 82-98, (88). 10 Annah Molosiwa, N. Ratsoma and Joe Tsonope, “A comprehensive report on the use of Setswana at all levels of Botswana’s education system”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED, Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998: 99-134. 11 Maho, People : 53. 88

In addition to influence from Setlharotlhaping, Sekgala(k)gadi, like the standard Setswana used in Namibian schools, is under the influence of Afrikaans and Otjiherero while the standard of South Africa is mainly under the influence of Sepedi and Sesotho.12 Note that, while the standard of Botswana is mainly influenced by English, in Southern Kgala(k)gadi, where Setswana is strongly despised as a language, “Afrikaans is the mother tongue of all the children”.13 The main varieties of Setswana in Botswana are Setawana, Sekwena, Sengwaketse, Sekgatlha, Sengwato, Selete, Setlokwa and Serolong. The varieties of Setswana in South Africa include most of those in Botswana, plus Sehurutshe (Sefurutse in Trewby 1998) and Sebirwa. The latter, according to Molosiwa et al. is also very closely related to Sekgala(k)gadi.14 Amid all this seemingly confusing set of glossonyms that designate the varieties of Setswana, the most important thing is that the glossonym Setswana is what is always used, in typical category 1 fashion. According to Maho there have been two written standards of Setswana since 1982, one used in Botswana and another used in both South Africa and Namibia.15 Neither considered adopting any of the many glossonyms seen above as the name of the language, unlike the Oshikwanyama case mentioned below where, in typical category 3 fashion, it is the official name of a language in Angola, where the hyperglossonym Oshiwambo is not used. In Namibia, as referred to below, Oshikwanyama is a language in education (in schools), while the use of the glossonym ‘Oshiwambo’ in the media suggests that Oshikwanyama is a language variety. Setswana, on the other hand, is a language both in education and in the media, an important feature of category 1 languages. Another important feature of category 1, as the case of Sekgala(k)gadi suggests, is that we have probably not seen the last glossonym. As Vossen and Keuthmann put it, “the emergence of as yet unnamed varieties of Setswana would not come as a surprise”.16 In category 1, glossonym productivity is high, and any toponym (with the prefix ‘Bo-‘) can correlate with an ethnonym with the plural prefix ‘ba-‘ and a glossonym with the prefix ‘Se-‘, as Table 1 shows:

toponym ethnonym glossonym possible level Botswana Batswana Setswana Language Botlhaping Batlhaping Setlhaping Variety Botlharo Batlharo Setlharo Variety Botawana Batawana Setawana Variety

12 Trewby, “Status”: 88. 13 Molosiwa et al., “Report”: 119. 14 Ibid. 15 Maho, People : 54. 16 Rainer Vossen and Klaus Keuthmann, “Linguistic variation and inter-dialect contact in Setswana: a preliminary report on current research”, Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 7, 1995: 32. 89

toponym ethnonym glossonym possible level Bokwena Bakwena Sekwena Variety Bongwaketse Bangwaketse Sengwaketse Variety Bokgathla Bakgathla Sekgathla Variety Botlokwa Batlokwa Setlokwa Variety Bongwato Bangwato Sengwato variety Bofurutse Bafurutse Sefurutse variety Bobirwa Babirwa Sebirwa variety Borolong Barolong Serolong variety Bokgala(k)gadi Bakgala(k)gadi Sekgala(k)gadi language/variety Bongologa Bangologa Sengologa variety/subvariety etc etc etc etc

Table 1: Correlation between toponyms, ethnonyms and glossonyms in Setswana

The term ‘toponym’, as used by Lusakalalu, refers to names of areas, zones, regions, rather than places like villages, towns or cities.17 The most interesting part of the prefixation game played in Table 1 is that some of the words may never have been used by anybody; yet they make sense in their slot. It is a generative game. For example, the tables of varieties and variety forms in Vossen and Keuthmann include “Botletle”, duly placed between inverted commas to show their hesitation to refer to it as ‘Setletle’.18

2.2 Oshiwambo There are four subcategories in category 3.19 The first subcategory consists of languages like Oshiwambo whose varieties are designated by a glossonym the root of which does not sound like any of its varieties. Diagram 5 represents the Oshiwambo case. Oshiwambo

Oshi- Oshi- Otshi- Oshi- Oshi- Oshi- Oshi- Oshi- donga kwanyama kwambi mbaanhu ngandjera kolonkadi kwaludhi unda

Diagram 5: Oshiwambo as a Category 3 language

17 Lusakalalu, “Languages”. 18 Vossen and Keuthmann, “Variation“. 19 Lusakalalu, “Languages”; Pedro Lusakalalu, “What is Rukavango?” The Nordic Journal of African Studies, 12, 1, 2003: 92-104. 90

This diagram assumes that the glossonym which stands alone at one level can be considered as designating the language. However, Oshiwambo is only a language in broadcasting and the written media. NBC radio and television have services, news and features in Oshiwambo. The daily newspaper The Namibian has a section with news and comments in Oshiwambo, and the SWAPO weekly Namibia Today has an Oshiwambo section. According to Maho, from a purely functional view, Namibia can be said to have 13 languages.20 Two of those are Oshindonga and Oshikwanyama, which Diagram 5 presents as varieties of Oshiwambo. Oshindonga and Oshikwanyama are written varieties that “enjoy official status as national languages”, but in the logic of Diagram 5, if Oshindonga and Oshikwanyama are languages, then so should Oshingandjera, Oshimbaanhu, and all the other varieties, since they are at the same level.21 Note also that most of the texts in The Namibian or any other newspaper tend to be in Oshindonga. However, the language name Oshiwambo, the hyperglossonym, leaves open the possibility that Oshikwanyama, or even any other of the not-so-written and still unwritten varieties of Oshiwambo, can always be used. After all, the orthographic rules cater for any form as it is spoken in any variety. The school curriculum, however, requires the students to be consistent – either Oshindonga or Oshikwanyama. And when Maho counts 13 languages, Oshiwambo is not one of them. However, when Maho estimates that the number of Namibian languages is 10 to 30, it is probably Oshiwambo (rather than Oshindonga or Oshikwanyama) that counts in the minimum estimate of 10.22 That is the nature of category 3. Setswana, which is in category 1, on the other hand, tends to count as one language, whether the number of languages in Namibia is 10, 13 or 30.

2.3 Otjiherero Otjiherero is also a category 3 language, but belonging to the second subcategory, where the name of the language is the same as the name of one of its varieties (see Diagram 6). Otjiherero

Otjihimba Otjiherero Otjimanderu Otjizemba etc.

Diagram 6: Otjiherero as a Category 3 language

20 Maho, People . 21 Ibid.: 23. 22 Ibid.: 22. 91

Otjiherero still counts as one language in Namibia, but the fact that the name of the language is the name of the standard variety causes sections of the Ovambanderu to insist that the glossonym ‘Otjimbanderu’ should accompany that of Otjiherero in written documents. Thus, the section of the National Institute for Educational Development (NIED) responsible for Otjiherero should appear as the Otjiherero/Othimbanderu office. This is a feature of category 3, even when there is very little or no significant variation in vocabulary, pronunciation or grammar between the varieties concerned. In Angola, only educated people are aware that the Ovakuvale are a group of Ovaherero. More people are aware of the Ovahimba being Ovaherero. The fact that the varieties spoken by these groups are not standardised or written, and the fact that the name of a variety coincides with that of the language, serves Otjiherero well, so that in Namibia ‘Otjiherero’ is the undisputable language name both in education and in the media. However, because of the latter feature, there has been a tendency towards a study of the language as if it were category 2, i.e. a language whose varieties are not designated by any glossonym, as shows an undated and unsigned dialectological study carried out by the Department of African Languages of the University of Namibia, titled Languages in Kaokoland and Otjiherero Dialects. This is the case, in my view, where the varieties of a language must be referred to as dialects. It appears that rigorous scientific study of a language must place that language in category 2, as it also happens with Khoekhoegowab.

2.4 Khoekhoegowab Haacke, Eiseb and Namaseb present Khoekhoegowab as if it were a category 2 language, identifying its dialects using scientific methods.23 However, the name used by most speakers of the language, as well as the broadcasting media, suggests that it is a category 3 language. It belongs to the third subcategory of category 3 where the name of the language is a compound glossonym made up of the names of two of its perceived ethnolinguistic components, namely Damara and Nama. The name used in the media is Damara-Nama or Nama-Damara. As a category 3 language, its name can always be reduced to one of the components, of course. This is why Namibia Today does not hesitate to have a Damara section. In other words, the editor is sure that the writer is a Damara, rather than a Nama (note that this claim is made without even a double-check; there seems to be no need). On the other hand, on lists of South African languages there is a language called ‘Nama’; not ‘Damara-Nama’, not ‘Nama-Damara’, not ‘Khoekhoegowab’.24 Nama as a language name in this case ignores the idea that Nama speaking South Africans may be speaking a variety of a language the other varieties of which are spoken in Namibia.

23 Wilfrid Haacke, Eliphas Eiseb and Levi Namaseb, “Internal and external relations of Khoekhoe dialects: a preliminary survey”, in: Wilfrid H.G. Haacke and Edward E. Elderkin, (eds.), Namibian Languages: Reports and Papers, Köln, Köppe, 1997: 125-209 24 For example, http://www.cyberserv.co.za/users/~jako/lang/ 92

Interestingly, the international workshop on cross-border languages held at Okahandja, Namibia, in September 1996, and whose contributions were published by Legère, did not discuss Khoekhoegowab.25 While Oshikwanyama, Silozi and Setswana had issues, such as the problematic of the standard (to be) used in the classrooms across the borders, the glossonym ‘Khoekhoegowab’ used in school books was somehow supposed to be solving a problem. By appearing to be a category 2 language, Khoekhoegowab held the possibility of a social variety (a school variety) being engineered, while as a category 1 or 3 the preoccupation might remain whether a regional variety, for example the dialect of Sesfontein, can be the standard. It was also suggested by Lusakalalu that Khoekhoegowab and Damara-Nama (Nama- Damara) may be different ‘glossonymic units’, because the scientific study by Haacke, Eiseb and Namaseb established that Ãkoe and Hai//om are varieties of Khoekhoegowab, while it is unlikely that the glossonym Damara-Nama accommodates those units.26

2.5 Rukavango The glossonym Rukavango is alone at its level in Diagram 7, and so, as explained in Lusakalalu, it can be said to be at the language level.27

Rukavango

Rukwangali Rumanyo Thimbukushu

Rugciriku Rus(h)ambyu

Diagram 7: Rukavango as a Category 3 language

Rukavango belongs to the fourth subcategory of category 3, where the criterion for the coining of the hyperglossonym is geographic. Rukwangali, Rumanyo and Thimbukushu are mainly spoken along the Kavango river, and therefore belong to a certain group (the Kavango languages) or, better, they can be the varieties of a language called

25 Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross- Border Languages, NIED, Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998. 26 Lusakalalu, Linguas ; Hacke, Eiseb and Namabes, “Relations”. 27 Lusakalalu, “Rukavango?”. 93

Rukavango, since it is possible to tag to glossonymic prefix ‘ru-‘ to the toponym/hydronym ‘Kavango’. On NBC radio and TV, as well as in the SWAPO-owned weekly Namibia Today, Rukavango is the glossonym used to designate a language, so that Rukwangali, Rumanyo or Thimbukushu can be used interchangeably in the language slot. As elaborated on by Lusakalalu, in the education system both Rugciriku and Rusambyu are at present considered as subvarieties of Rumanyo.28 In education, of course, Rukavango still counts as three languages, rather than one, even taking the minimum count of 10 estimated by Maho.29 The education system, as typically happens in category 3, considers the standardised forms as languages in their own right.

2.6 The Caprivian languages The Caprivian languages are the proof that an attempt to group languages by using a geographic criterion does not always work out. Firstly, ‘Caprivian language’ does not refer to every language spoken in the Caprivi region, just like ‘Kavango language’ does not necessarily refer to every language spoken in the Kavango region.30 A large number of Thimbukushu speakers are concentrated in Western Caprivi, but this does not seem to make Thimbukushu a ‘Caprivian language’. Many Caprivians are speakers of Setawana (a variety of Setswana). This does not make Setswana (or Setawana) come under the umbrella of ‘Caprivian languages’. Secondly, it may be argued that the word ‘Caprivi’ being a European anthroponym did not easily become the stem of a glossonym in the same manner that ‘Kavango’ has become the stem for the glossonym ‘Rukavango’. However, the word ‘Caprivi’ has been borrowed into the Bantu languages to carry a CVCV-structure stem (i.e. -kapilivi). A ‘si-‘ type glossonymic prefix (shi-, chi-, ci-, si-) could be tagged to this stem. Following the classification of the glossonymic prefixes by Maho, the Caprivian languages are of the si- type, namely Silozi, Chifwe, Chitotela, Shiyeyi and Cisubiya, the variation being mainly orthographic.31 This may give us a hyperglossonym like ‘Sikapilivi’, ‘Shikapilivi’, ‘Chikapilivi’ or ‘Cikapilivi’. This simply has not happened, despite the generative possibility. Moreover, the Caprivi region has a more local name, namely Itenge. A glossonym like ‘Sitenge’, ‘Chitenge’, ‘Shitenge’ or ‘Citenge’ has not been generated, either. Note also that Kavango is the name of a river, like the Zambezi. Yet the river Zambezi, or any local alternative name for it, has not provided a common name for the languages spoken in the Caprivi. Thirdly, the apartheid system with its preoccupation with clear-cut ethnic grouping made sure that the Mayeyi, the Matotela, the Mafwe and the Mambalangwe

28 Ibid. 29 Maho, People . 30 See discussion by Lusakalalu, “Rukavango?”, for example the hesitation over whether Umbundu and Nyemba with so many speakers in the Kavango can be said to be Kavango languages. 31 Jouni F. Maho, A Comparative Study of Bantu Noun Classes, Göteburg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1999. 94

were administratively seen as belonging to a mega-ethnic group called the Mafwe. This means that, artificially, there was a category 3 language of the second subcategory, called Chifwe, with one of the varieties also called Chifwe, along with Shiyeyi, Chitotela and Cimbalangwe. Diagram 8 should for this reason look like Diagram 6 (Otjiherero), which is also an example of the second subcategory of category 3.

Chifwe

Shiyeyi Chifwe Chitotela Cimbalangwe

Diagram 8: Chifwe as a Category 3 language in the second subcategory

The artificial grouping suggested in Diagram 8 is only a reflection of the way the ethnonymic units were classified under the apartheid system. The Mayeyi, the Matotela and the Mambalangwe do not see themselves as subgroups of a mega Mafwe ethnic group; neither do the Mafwe see themselves as a subgroup of a bigger group equally called Mafwe, which include the Mayeyi, the Matotela and the Mambalangwe. Then, although mutual intelligibility is not a scientific criterion in the classification of languages and their varieties, folklore perception in this case would only see the Masubiya as being set apart from the mega Mafwe group if the Mayeyi, the Matotela and the Mambalangwe needed an interpreter to talk to the Masubiya. This is by no means the case. Another attempt to see a grouping lies in the idea that a Mumbalangwe is a Cisubiya speaker living in the Mafwe area.32 It appears that the Mambalangwe would not describe themselves that way and Cimbalangwe should not be seen as a variety of Cisubiya.33 The perception may then have been created by the abovementioned mutual intelligibility among the speakers, which extends also to Shiyeyi and Citotela speakers. In conclusion, each one of the glossonyms in the Caprivi region, apart from the ones designating Kavango languages, a Setswana variety, or a San language (see 2.7 below) designates a language in its own right, because the glossonymic unit cannot be said to be a variety of another language. The Caprivian languages are therefore six, namely Cisubiya, Chifwe, Shiyeyi, Chitotela, Cimbalangwe and Silozi. The first sound in the glossonym prefix depends on the language of the speaker. The media/education dichotomy does not influence the count of the Caprivian languages, because Silozi is the

32 Maho, People : 51. 33 Chuma Mayumbelo, personal communication. 95

only glossonym used both in education and the media. Counting Silozi as the only language in the Caprivi, because it is the one mostly used in a written form, contributes towards the minimum count of the languages of Namibia, while counting six languages obviously contributes towards the maximum count.

2.7 The San languages In this paper the term ‘San languages’ refers to Namibian languages other than Khoekhoegowab (or Damara-Nama) in the Khoesaan family. A fair discussion of the San languages is difficult without a mastery of the sound-letter correlation in the orthography used in the Khoesaan languages. Four San languages can be considered, simply taking the name of the ethnonyms and assuming (like in the case of Damara and Nama) that ethnonyms and glossonyms are homophonous. The first glossonym to designate a language is !Kung, with !’O-!Khung, !Xung, Ju/’hoan and ≠Kx’au//ein designating varieties of the language. !Kung can be said to be a category 3 language because it is the most standardized variety, Ju/’hoan, tends to take its own name rather than the hypername !Kung. So, Ju/’hoan is counted as a language in its own right, where !Kung should be counted instead. However, unless another one of the remaining varieties in Diagram 9 is also highly standardized and used in education, this will in no way affect the count of Namibian languages for now.

!Kung

!’O-!Khung !Xung Ju/’hoan ≠Kx’au//ein

Diagram 9: !Kung as a Category 3 language

The second language is Kxoe. Although it is not used in education or in the media, it is not said to be the variety of another language, nor is it said to contain glossonymic units that can be its varieties. This glossonym can therefore count as one language and contribute towards the maximum count of the languages in Namibia. The third and fourth languages are Naro and !Xóõ, and what is said of Kxoe above holds for them.

2.8 English, Afrikaans and German English, Afrikaans and German can safely be counted as three languages, because they are category 2 languages. The varieties of these languages are not designated by

different glossonyms. Like in Umbundu, to refer to a regional variety of English, Afrikaans or German, one names the part of the country/world where that particular variety is mostly used in addition to the glossonym English, Afrikaans or German. Admittedly, there are words that designate varieties of English or German. Without going into the discussion of how the phenomenon works, glossonyms like Cockney, Geordie, etc. in English tend to carry the weight of the fact that they are not only regional varieties, but especially non-standard social varieties. Similarly, a blend like ‘Namlish’ implies that the speech forms are non-standard, and it is not even clear whether it is a single variety of English, or a cluster of varieties in any given number.

3. Media and education This section briefly attempts to show that use or avoidance of glossonyms in the media and in education relates to the categorisation proposed by Lusakalalu, and to a certain pattern in the counting of the languages of Namibia.34 NBC broadcasts news bulletins and other features in a number of Namibian languages. Invariably, those languages in category 3 have used the hyperglossonyms Oshiwambo and Rukavango. Broadcasting in Oshiwambo means that the newsreader can use any form in any of the varieties in Diagram 5, standardized or not. This also means that Oshiwambo is the language, and Oshindonga, Oshikwanyama and all the other glossonyms are at the same level as varieties of the language. News in Rukavango on NBC TV can be broadcast in Rukwangali, Rugciriku, Rusambyu or Thimbukushu. The use of the glossonym Rukavango implies that its varieties can be seen as part of a single language, just like the use of the glossonym Damara-Nama implies that Damara and Nama are not seen as two different languages. Rukavango is the hypername for its perceived varieties. Otjiherero is unproblematic for the moment, because nobody realises that it designates two glossonymic units, one at the level of the language, and the other at the level of the varieties. We can therefore assume that the Otjiherero service on NBC TV or radio refers to the language, not to the variety of the language. In the print media, there are news and features in Oshiwambo in The Namibian. As mentioned before, the vast bulk of them are written in Oshindonga, but the use of the glossonym Oshiwambo implies that there is space for a variety other than Oshindonga, using vocabulary, idioms and structures different from Oshindonga forms. Namibia Today also uses the glossonyms Oshiwambo and Rukavango. New Era, on the other hand, uses glossonyms as page headings for some languages only. For other languages, the page heading is the word that means ‘news’ in the respective language: Ombuze in Otjiherero and Oonkundana in Oshiwambo. The use of Ombuze at the top of the page, instead of the glossonym Otjiherero, saves New Era from being caught up in the Otjiherero/Otjimbanderu controversy, which only displays

34 Lusakalalu, “Languages”. 97

lack of attention for the dual identity of the glossonym Otjiherero as the name of the language and the name of one of the language varieties. By using Oonkundana, instead of Oshiwambo, Oshindonga or Oshikwanyama, New Era avoids (not necessarily intentionally) being drawn into the discussion on what is a language and what is a variety of a language. Damara-Nama is the glossonym used in New Era. The use of this glossonym confirms the dichotomy media/education, where the media invariably use this glossonym, while educational books use Khoekhoegowab. However, by using a slash (Damara/Nama) instead of a hyphen (Damara-Nama), New Era presents Damara and Nama as alternatives instead of a compound glossonym. Finally, New Era has a Rukwangali page. This means that this page cannot have news or features in a form such as Rugciriku, Rus(h)ambyu or Thimbukushu. This is unlike media practice in Namibia, but the phenomenon has the possibility of being consistent. In true category 3 fashion, it would be unusual to claim that New Era uses a variety of a language called Rukavango. In other words, by using the glossonym Rukwangali, New Era presents Rukwangali as a language. This is what happens in education, where the very form used in school books uses its own glossonym as the language, not as a variety of a language. Instead of Rukavango, the languages in education are Rukwangali, Rumanyo (i.e. Rugciriku or Rus(h)ambyu) and Thimbukushu. Instead of Oshiwambo, the languages in education are Oshindonga and Oshikwanyama.

4. Conclusion The margin of error between the minimum and the maximum count of the languages of Namibia is triggered by Oshiwambo and Rukavango, which are the glossonyms used on NBC radio and TV, and in The Namibian as well as Namibia Today, while the glossonyms designating their standardised varieties (Oshindonga and Oshikwanyama for the former, Rukwangali, Rumanyo and Thimbukushu for the latter) are perceived as languages in their own right in education. This points to two languages in the media against five languages in education. With these languages alone, the margin of error (±3) is already greater than the minimum count of two. These are category 3 languages according to the categorisation presented by Lusakalalu, the former belonging to the first subcategory and the second to the fourth subcategory.35 The varieties of Oshiwambo which are perceived to be at the same level as Oshikwanyama and Oshindonga (i.e. Oshimbaanhu, Oshingandjera, Oshiunda, Oshikolonkadi, Oshikwaludhi and Otshikwambi) are added to the maximum count, and that gives us 2 to 11 languages. Otjiherero is a category 3 language, but it does not contribute to the margin of error, because it belongs to the second subcategory where it is both the name of the language

35 Ibid. 98

and the name of the standardised variety. It is therefore one language in the media, and one language in education. With it, Namibia counts 3 to 12 languages. Damara-Nama is also a category 3 language belonging to the third subcategory, that is, the name of the glossonym is a compound glossonym with the perceived components, namely Damara and Nama. The glossonym ‘Khoekhoegowab’ used in education is an attempt to present the language as if it were a category 2 language. However, it only has a single standard variety, and therefore counts as one language both in the media and in education. With it, Namibia counts 4 to 13 languages. Setswana does not contribute to the widening of the margin of error because it is a category 1 language. However, it is wise to add Kgala(k)gadi as an optional additional language. With these glossonyms, the count becomes 5 to 15. Category 2 languages English, Afrikaans and German are one language each, either in the media or in education. With them the count is 8 to 18 languages. The margin of error is completed by one of the uses of the word ‘language’, namely a speech form that has been standardised and then officially declared a national language. With this definition, the San languages add only one language to the count, namely Ju/’hoan (representing !Kung), either in the media or in education. This puts the count at 9 to 19 languages. However, each of the other three varieties at the same level as Ju/’hoan (in Diagram 9 - !’O-!Khung, !Xung and ≠Kx’au//ein) has the potential of being a language in its own right. This puts the count at 9 to 22. The other three languages, namely Naro, !Xóõ and Kxoe, can only be added to the maximum count, making it 9 to 25. Note that Hai//om is not counted because Haacke, Eiseb and Namaseb (1997) see it as a variety of Khoekhoegowab, or, as can be interpreted from Maho, the situation is that there is no glossonym Hai//om, the Hai//om (i.e. the people (ethnonym)) speaking a dialect of Khoekhoegowab.36 Finally, for the same reason as immediately above, Silozi stands alone as a language in the Caprivi, both in the media and in education, while Chifwe, Shiyeyi, Chitotela, Cimbalangwe and Cisubiya are added to the maximum count. The count of Namibian languages is therefore 10 to 31. Umbundu, Nyemba and Portuguese are spoken by a good number of Namibian citizens of Angolan origin in the Kavango region, but these languages are not counted because they are not used in the media or as mediums of instruction in schools. Table 2 gives an at-a-glance view of all the Namibian languages and how the dichotomy media/education relates to the minimum and maximum counts, which nearly coincide with the counts by Maho (1998), the only other study on the diversity of Namibian languages, which was not arrived at through that dichotomy.

36 Maho, People : 114. 99

Media Education

1 Category 1 Setswana Setswana 1 Setlhaping Stlharo Setawana (Sekgala[k]gadi) 2 2 English English 3 3 Category 2 Afrikaans Afrikaans 4 4 German German 5 Oshindonga 6 Oshikwanyama 7 Otshikwambi 8 5 Category 3 Subc 1 Oshiwambo Oshimbaanhu 9 Oshingandjera 10 Oshinkolonkadi 11 Oshiunda 12 Oshikwaludhi 13 Otjihimba Otjiherero 14 6 Category 3 Subc 2 Otjiherero Otjimbanderu Otjizemba 7 Category 3 Subc 3 Damara-Nama Khoekhoegowab 15 Rukwangali 16 8 Category 3 Subc 4 Rukavango Rumanyo 17 Thimbukushu 18 9 Silozi Silozi 19 Cisubiya 20 Caprivian languages Chifwe 21 Shiyeyi 22 Chitotela 23 Cimbalangwe 24 10 Ju/’hoan (!Kung) 25 !’O-!Khung 26 !Xung 27 San languages ≠Kx’au//ein 28 Naro 29 !Xóõ 30 Kxoe 31

Table 2: Namibian languages

100

Bibliography Francis, William Nelson, Dialectology: an Introduction, London, Longman, 1983. Guthrie, Malcolm, Comparative Bantu: an Introduction to the Comparative linguistics and Prehistory of the Bantu Languages, London, Gregg International, 1971. Haacke, Wilfrid, Eliphas Eiseb and Levi Namaseb, “Internal and external relations of Khoekhoe dialects: a preliminary survey”, in: Wilfrid H.G. Haacke and Edward E. Elderkin, (eds.), Namibian Languages: Reports and Papers, Köln, Köppe, 1997: 125-209. Legère, Karsten, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED, Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998. Lusakalalu, Pedro, “Languages and glossonymic units: contribution to the assessment of the linguistic diversity of Angola and Namibia”, Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, 66, 2001: 47-65. Lusakalalu, Pedro, “What is Rukavango?” The Nordic Journal of African Studies, 12, 1, 2003: 92-104. Lusakalalu, Pedro, Línguas e unidades glossonímicas, Luanda, Editorial Nzila, 2004. Maho, Jouni F., Few people, many tongues. The languages of Namibia, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998. Maho, Jouni F., A Comparative Study of Bantu Noun Classes, Göteburg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1999. Maho, Jouni F., “A referential classification of the Bantu languages: Keeping uthrie’s system updated”, 2006. http://goto.glocalnet.net/maho/downloads/NUGL2.pdf (accessed July 2007) Molosiwa, Annah, N. Ratsoma and Joe Tsonope, “A comprehensive report on the use of Setswana at all levels of Botswana’s education system”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED, Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998: 99-134. Snyman, Jan W., et al., “The current position of Setswana in the Republic of South Africa”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED; Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998: 135-167. Trewby, Richard, “The status of Setswana in education in Namibia”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED, Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998: 82-98. Vossen, Rainer and Klaus Keuthmann, “Linguistic variation and inter-dialect contact in Setswana: a preliminary report on current research”, Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 7, 1995: 31-42.

101