PACIFIC LINGUISTICS Series C - No. 106 Special number FISH NAMES OF EASTERN POLYNESIA Karl H. Rensch Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Rench, K.H. Fish names of Eastern Polynesia. C-106, xiv + 378 pages. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1988. DOI:10.15144/PL-C106.cover ©1988 Pacific Linguistics and/or the author(s). Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative. ... PACIFIC LINGUISTICS is issued through the Linguistic Circle of Canberra and consists of four series: SERIES A: Occasional Papers SERIES C: Books SERIES B: Monographs SERIES D: Special Publications FOUNDING EDITOR: S.A. Wurm EDITORIAL BOARD: T.E. Dutton, D.C. Laycock, M.D. Ross, D.T. Tryon EDITORIAL ADVISERS: B.W. Bender H.P. McKaughan University of Hawaii University of Hawaii David Bradley P. Mllhlhll.usler La Trobe University Linacre College, Oxford Michael G. Clyne G.N. O·Grady Monash University University of Victoria, B.C. S.H. Elbert A.K. Pawley University of Hawaii University of Auckland K.J. Franklin K.L. Pike Summer Institute of Linguistics Summer Institute of Linguistics W.W. Glover E.C. Polome Summer Institute of Linguistics University of Texas G.W. Grace Gillian Sankoff University of Hawaii University of Pennsylvania M.A.K. Halliday W.A.L. Stokhof University of Sydney University of Leiden E. Haugen B.K. T·sou Harvard University City Polytechnic of Hong Kong A. Healey E.M. Uhlenbeck Summer Institute of Linguistics University of Leiden L.A. Hercus J.W.M. Verhaar Australian National University Divine Word Institute, Madang John Lynch C.L. Voorhoeve, University of Papua New Guinea University of Leiden K.A. McElhanon Summer Institute of Linguistics All correspondence concerning PACIFIC LINGUISTICS, including orders and subscriptions, should be addressed to: PACIFIC LINGUISTICS Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies The Australian National University G.P.O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 Australia Copyright © The Author First Published 1988 Typeset by Rosemary Butt Printed by A.N.U. Printing Service Bound by Adriatic Bookbinders Pty Ltd The editors are indebted to the Australian National University for assistance in the production of this series This publication was made possible by an initial grant from the Hunter Douglas Fund. ISSN 0078-7558 ISBN 085883380 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Map iii Introduction v Abbreviations Xl Typical entry XIV Polynesian fish lexicon 1 Latin finderlist 319 Family affiliation of genera 355 Bibliography 360 • [1M) I\IUIIU'HIV� - ... U... HUll" ......... ... U"·f>OU. HIV ..'OA . ,. , ....': TAHUAUe '""orANE .rATU·HIVA .: " MARQUESAS IS TUAMOTU IS '''lAKOTO''.. AHU ...... UIURO" A ... U..... UAU ... G ... '. "'UIIUTIPIP' -... OMQRuAOA ., . � ..... " fANGAfAufA AURUTU .... " , ""A ... C.AAEVA (��;"""fAAA -r: - _ .. " ·--------------�·_:_:_:.----;-U;-.:.----.:.:. :---- ------------�, ...;' , ,« " ./ --AAIVAVA[". GAMBIER IS .... AUSTRAL IS �.- • RAP" INTRODUCTION Fish has always played a major partin the life of Pacificpeople. On the far flung atolls of French Polynesia where Western food is not easily obtainable fish is still a staple diet, and fishing occupies a central place in the subsistence economy of the island community. Although the material culture has changed - the iron fishhook having replaced the one made from pearl shell, the nylon line the twirled string from coconut fiber and the aluminium boat the outrigger canoe - the modem devices are no substitute for the skill and dexterity required to catch a fish. The knowledge about fish and fishing methods, handed down from generation to generation, is still very much alive and never fails to impress the uninitiated visitor. Polynesian fishermen are experts on the idiosyncratic behaviour of each fish species: they know its usual hunting ground, favourite bait and customary time for a feed. If the tide, the phase of the moon and the direction of the wind are right a Polynesian fisherman will lure the most cautious, hook the most cunning and land the most ferocious fish that comes his way. Cultural and linguistic relevance of fish names The economic importance of fish is reflected inthe culture and languages of Polynesia. According to oral tradition Tahiti once formed part of Havai'i (Raiatea) and came to its present location as a huge fish which changed back into land again. In a legend known as "Tahiti, the fish" (Henry, p.433) various Tahitian landmarks are identified in terms of the fish's body: Hitia'a is the left, Papara the right pectoral fin, Mount Orohena the upper hom, Tapahi the heart, etc. Likewise in Moorea we find old district subdivisions metaphorically named: Te'i'oiraro (the under flesh of the fish), Te'i'oinia (the upper flesh of the fish), Tepehauito'erau (the finin the north). In Eastern Polynesia the lexicon regarding fish is of an amazing richness. Not only is there a native name for each fish, but one species can have three, four or even more names depending on the growth stage. In Tahiti the tuna 'a'ahi is called pererau when it is small and as it grows and gains in weight the name changes to 'oputea > tari'a'uri > mapepe > tatumu and finally to araroa. As one might expectthe intimate knowledge of fish, its appearance and behaviour has left traces in the everyday language. Fish names have been and still are an inexhaustible source for metaphors. In Tahitian a restless person used to be called tunahaavaro (an eel species), somebody who is difficult to find ohua (a fish found at the bottom of the rocks), somebody swift on his feet rai (a v vi fast moving cavally fish), etc. A tiny thing or unimportant matter was called ruberube which is the name for a small fresh water fish. The examples are too numerous to be listed here, deserving a separate study. For linguists, Polynesian fish names are of particular interest from a comparative-historical point of view, as they are in general more resistant to lexical replacement through borrowing than the everyday vocabulary. In the wake of rapid Tahitianisation which is leaving its mark on the smaller languages in French Polynesia, they have often become stereotypical markers by which people fromvarious islands assert their separate identity. One frequentlyhears the comment: "we call this fish ..., but in Tahiti it's known as ..... Less stable are those fish names which are morphologically and semantically perspicuous, e.g. mata iti 'small-eye', mata nunui 'big eyes', ngutu kao 'pointed snout', taponi one 'hide in the sand'. They are paraphrastic labels of an ad-hoccharacter and can be applied to any non-lexified species of fish which fits the description. For comparative studies they are not very useful. The relative similarity between the local varieties and Tahitian favours phonological borrowing and fish names are not exempt from this process. In the Tuamotus where many islands had preserved proto-Polynesian *k the local fishname is often pronounced "a la tahitienne", with a glottal stop instead of k: especially by younger people who have attended school in Tahiti or have worked there. The scope of the dictionary In this dictionary we have tried to collate information which will allow a comparative study of Polynesian fish names. One crucial requirement for establishing cognates is identity or near identity of the semantic reference. In the past, linguists have been hampered in their comparative studies because most dictionaries fail to identify the fish which they are listing. Although we are still far from a documentation that would satisfy ichthyologists and linguists alike, the dictionary provides information that will challenge some established views, confirm intuitions and throw light on issues which have remained obscure. Although the naming of fish provides the basic clue to folk taxonomy no efforts in this direction have been made. The mere attempt to equate local names with the established taxonomy of Western science raises fundamental questions on the comparability of cultures; and these questions need a detailed discussion beyond the scope of this work. By no means, however, should one conclude that Western taxonomy is used here as yardstick by which the Polynesian classificatory system of fish is measured or evaluated. For instance, it is often the case that one Polynesian name is used for fishes which are identified as belonging to different species in the Western system. The most vii likely explanation is not that Polynesians fail to see an obvious difference, but that they group fishes together by criteria which they consider as relevant, for example the size of the fish, the quality of the flesh, or the habitat which they share. In a paper that I wrote on fish names in Wallis Island,1 I developed a simple terminological framework to handle the problems arising from a comparison of two dissimilar taxonomical systems. I call monoterm a Polynesian fish name which refers to more than one species of fish. Monoterms arefurther subdividedinto: a) S-type monoterms where the native word denotes two or more fishes belonging to the same species, e.g. tingitingia = Holocentrus sammara and Holocentrus laevis (Paumotu), tero = Lutjanus fulviflamma. Lutjanus monostigmus. Lutjanus gibbus (Paumotu); b) G-type monoterms where the native word refers to species of different genera within the same family, e.g. putiputi Chaetodon ephippium and Heniochus acuminatus CHAETODONTIDAE (paumotu). 'araoe Flammeo sammara. Adioryx tieroides and Holocentrus diademaHOLOCENlRIDAE