MENSA:RUNG LANG SUMNYO KÉ DO:YING

 Leke:lo sumnyo dornyi: ko koje pa:ta ru:yido dungngai.Binyi: apta atí légapé mé:pénamé kamangai.Simín-sirrém pa:ram mangngai.Édémpila bínyi: koje pa:tangém mépakla okolopésin gímangai.Bínyi:kké ame: ame:né ao: dornyikosin dungngai.Ao: kídardé aíé símín matasula dokin mangngada.Édémpila abodé apta gímílo anédé ao: kídardém ka:si: dungngai.

Édé pa:tang kérangké bogum sí:ludo Mensarung adorkosin dungngai.Édé mensaru:dé aipé tengor kanékai.Bikké ao: ommang okkosin kamangai.Bik aíké aki:dok légapé ami ké doruk dopugo:ngngém magola yedungai.

Longékolo mensaru:dé anínké tani: do:lungkolo dopuk dongadém dogongkapé gíla yaggola du:dom tani: íra:dok yuppakla lé:nam bedné du:n kolo pítkepsuto.Du:ndé bíkké línggu:do kíp-kappé pítkepkang.Kapésin pítyuk-sula:tokumang. Apta atíé du:ndok aduddém tadbegmílloi dupagdakku.Odokké do:lu:lo:gom du:ndok bé:namém tadbekmílloi amme: méndak.Édémpila donam tí:nam pangku:ma:la longngém longépé sanpé sana:bomkang.

Longkolo abo sumnyodé aptapé gikang.Édé agomdém mensaru:dé kinna sumnyo anédo:pé gía:la lukang-“Éi,sumny né:ng,nokké milbongé okolopé gíkan? no kindon, nokké milbongé sé ngokké du:nsokki du:nko murkongém nartung.Lomna biyem bigortéiku.Ékéma:mílo nok sé ao: anyi:sok adorko bikupé lagiye.Déma:mílo agomé aimaye.Kindon?Sé koje pa:tasokké nolu gípakkupé lagiye.Sé ngokké ta:to yo:yoké kojebé:dam amo:ngé.So ngokké agomo:lok yeladak.”Mensaru:dok agomdém talla sumnyo ané péso kokki yessé len-go:sukang.Bí ao: kídardok légapé pésoki lukang-“Migoma,atí atídém man-goyobongka. Sé dumsung adín asutko du:ng sém bomna gípongkakubong.Bí gíangkumílo agomdém lumínsulangkupébong.”Édémpé lugelam sumnyo anédé Dumsung adín asutko bitoku.Odo Mensaru:dé aipé aséla bomna gíkangku.Édémípé bí lo:dípé sumnyo anédém morítla adíném bomdakku.

Longékolo do:ying appídém sumnyo abo dém lubitoku.Odo édé longédo sumnyo abo dé séuko ito.Ané sumnyodém ayat yaddopé luto odokké bí sumken kolo aso:pé lé:sila dungkang.Angu longé kídardémpé édé longédo:sin Mensaru:dé morít mokela gía dungngai.Odo Sumnyo abo dé gampé émna sumgaptagai.Mensaru:dé daddo:pé sumpítsuto.Sumnyo abo dé mensaru:dém ménbomkang.Ménbomna gídolo ké:né amíngko ge:setsula dungngai.Édé ké:né amídok porkebdokki Mensaru:dé déngkolola gíkang.Sumnyo abo dé sumkepsula dungkang.Mensaru:dé bérkutsula ka:namé sumnyodé dugmínmang.Émpila gílatsula ka:ngkapé gílattoku.Ka:namé ké:né amído pítkepsula dag.Taying kídardé uying émna dé:pansukang.Édém tatla ya,émna pésoki mensaru:dé lomgésula bérkutsumapé dukkang.Asutko duggela gílatsula ka:namé sila dag.Odo Mensaru:dé asin bottapé mosula Sumnyo anédo:pé gíla lukang-“Éi ,sumnyo né:ng,nokké milbongém ngo ké:né amíngélé oksilge:la paksa:la métak.Ayatpé mé:dakmílo gíla ka:toka.Supak no ngokké né:pé gíyén gíma:n?lutok.Ékémamílo ador adorpé nok ao: dornyi: sém mokeyamye.”Sumnyo anédé ao: dornyi:dok légapé Mensaru:dok lukam lukampéi tatto.Mensaru:dé sumnyo né:dém morít moke:la migomémpé okumo:do du:la dodag.Sumnyo anédé apta gíla dobodag.

Longékolo sumnyo anédé lukang-“Éi,sé si:lu:sé apta atíé kakuma:pé idung.Ngolu angu sí:lu:pé gípé lagiye.”Édémdémpé lula Sumnyo anédé sí:lu:ng angukolo:pé gíboto.Lamtédo bottan asi korongko pa:la ba:ngkopé ito.Odo Sumnyo anédé ao: anyi:dém gordungdo jo:líksuge:la a:né:dém ba:ngkoto.Odokké Mensaru:dé asi siyaddo ji:bu:rutkang.Ngakí ngakíla asi bojeko tí:la ba:butsukang.Odo Sumnyo anédé ao: dornyi:dém tayo:do mégela Mensaru:dém soríksutoku.Témpído mensaru:dé botta bottapé jé:la lukang-“no kapila ngom sosangkaku:n?ngo asisé íddíko o:rí:dakson émnamín síngka:dunga:n.”Édémpé lugela tang émdopé Sumnyo anédém pipaklíkto.Aipé morítmoke  daggom Sumnyo anédé ao:kídardok légapé Mensaru:dé kapéi luyeji édémpéi talla yebosula dungkang.

Longékolo appípagdé lékopé kiruk rugbosukapé gíto.Mensaru:dém símín ménnígdopé mílíkto. Símín kídardé mensaru:dém  péssoika:mang.Édémpila Mensaru:dém símín togabdopé mílíkto. Odokké ao: ané kídardé símín kídardém mén-yet mén-yella ménlíkto. Mensaru:dé yenggappé émna símín adorko sumgapto.Símíndé mensaru:dok aki:dém baddanna batsurlíkto.Odo Mensaru:dé aki: gomgapsula sia:la dungkang.Sumnyo anédé tauto-“kapila símíném adorkosin gamtoma:n?”odo Mensarudé lukang-“ame ame:ya:uné símín kídardém ka:la yirkolok ngok aki:ém yirsursuto.Odo sumnyo anédé:lang ao: kídardé lékola angupé kirugém rukla Dumsung adorko pa:to.Édém bulu orsula doto.

Édé bogum sí:lu:do bojeko Mensaru:ngé dungngai.Yumé ayirém Mensaru:ng kídídé lo:dípé utak uyaksudag.Édém Mensaru:dé talla yumé ayirdé lo:dípé lé:si:la umín kapé gídak.

Longé gítíkang.Sumnyo ao: dornyi:dégom botta:usangkabong.Bínyi:sin aíké yelam kumli:ém kinsusangka:bong.Ngoluké ba:bu bí yumdípé yumrang ara:ngo:lo okkom ikapé gídon émna anédém tauto.Anédé odo atímang,Sisi mokapé gídag émna lubidag.Ao: anyi:dé anédok agom dém aropé mé:ma:la bínyi: abudok me:lam me:lamdo rubbomkang.Yuméko:lo ka:namé Mensaru:ng asumdo gía:mínna uke uye émna umínnadung.Odo bulu kinto ngoluké abumang émna.Sé Mensaru:ngé.Odo anédém gia:langkula tautoku.Odo anédé lukang-“arro. Noluké abuém bí:íng moketo.Odo nolu ajja:udagai.Nolum o:sa:nam légapé ngo bíkké luko lukol talla nolum síddíko bottado:pé o:sa:to.Supak nolu botta:utoném ngokké asinsé aipé mé:po:dung.”Ané do:ying appí:dém kíkurra lungabbito.Anédok agom dém  talla aipé ao: anyi:dé aglíngkang.Odo dornyi:pagdé Mensaru:dém mokepé émna mén-go:bomkang odokké moketo.Édé longédokké anédé:lang ao: kídardé aséngo:pé dungkaku.

Orthographic Modification is Need of the Hour

                                                                   Peter Pegu
(O! My people, do not kid me, I am your mother: Let Mishing Language go beyond Prof. Tabu Tawid)

Mishing language phonetics, as is interpreted today by Prof Tabu Tawid and also inspired Mishing Agom Kebang by him for its propagation, leaves a lot to be desired; inasmuch as, it calls for a full-course review at this stage.. In his “A Dictionary of the Mishing Language” Prof Tawid has elaborately dealt with Mishing language and it phonetics taking its pre-literate colloquies, meekly characterized by the toddler’s spluttering of pre-dental growth. For instance, he said the English ‘president’ would be ‘pesiden’ in Mishing phonetics and accordingly the orthographic constructions of such words would be: like istail, iskul, silipar etc. No doubt, neologism is a process of borrowing words from other speeches by accepting its distorted value; but one has to check the level of phonological corruption in the language. Too much of negativity does not contribute positive growth of anything. It is not prudent to count pre-molar vocabularies as regular lexicon for building a standard language. In his treaties, there is little concern about linguistic evolution totally ignoring the infusion of phonetic wisdom to the community in the wake of widespread literacy. Prof. Tawid is a highly revered person in the community and a prolific writer on versatile subjects. But these do not amount to the sort of linguistic pride the Mishing people could derive from his individual achievements. On the contrary, by his ‘extra-linguistic pursuit’ on the Mishing phonemics, he has pulled up the community to a comical end, where Mishing turns to Mising and then tends to a big Missing. Such caricature of linguistic jargons does not generate any inspiration for sustenance; rather oddly fizzle out within short stints. The Mising Autonomous Council and the NETV’s Mising News have, for instance, now totally become Missing and Mising language classes in primary schools is steadily Missing out. When a person is identified with ‘mising tribe’ (with missing pronunciation), it perceptibly jeopardizes the image of the tribe and on sentimental reason, it causes annoyance. Basically, annoyance is detriment to popularization.

• • Popularization of Mishing language, as is always the case for any vocal speech, usually has two-prong intentions: preservation and glorification. If we stick only to the former, the lexicography to that end could be constructed deploying any given alphabetical symbols in any manner with proper footnotes, as is, it seems, done by the author under reference. On the other hand, if aim for both preservation and glorification of our mother tongue, a graceful orthographic methodology for academic purpose is obviously an imperative need. Prof. Tawid’s unilateral analysis of the Mishing phonetic lacks such refinement. Rather, it has pushed the entire community to linguistic abysmal to say the least - to the realm of mock and joke entertainments. A language cannot grow or gain popularity when people at the receiving end play down with lighter vein.
    
    To bring our point home, we refurbish some of our views which have time and again been expressed in earlier editions of this magazine. As the geographical area broadened due to expansion of literacy and employment of the masses beyond our traditional economic domain, we are comically reduced to mere ‘missing-identity’ out of ‘mising-homonym’, theoretically taken by entire population of the country. Even hundred times corrections, in person and in print, the mising remains as missing. It is excruciatingly humiliating. Such illusory notion of the people undermines even the very existence of our community: that too, at our own choice. We should not leave any scope for falsehood. What advantage we accrue choosing ‘mising’ over Mishing?
    
    Another, ko-kho go-gho English and their alphabetic order is an absurd thing in Indian context. Absurdity can be allowed to happen only in a forest glade; but in the country’s open soil, it turns indeed to a comedy circus. Sadly, we become part of it. Still another theory that Mr. Tawid postulated for the language is: one character corresponds to realize one and only one phoneme. Unless you revert to kiddy colloquia, the ‘one-to-one relation’ rule does not, in principle, go with Roman alphabets. This is because of the fact that there are very many allophonic variants within a single phoneme in any given language which is habitually represented by combinations of letters in the scripts. If we strictly follow this rule, our language will be reduced merely to a quaint dialect with a strangely twang accent - mumbling within two lips. Nobody wants linguistic vulnerability of pre-literate kind from our language. Mother tongue cannot be played with kiddy stuff; in any manner kid her not. We ought to make concerted efforts to give a Standard Language for academic purpose.
    
    Add to the woes, the clumsy diacritical marks or explosive denotations with dashes, colons, hyphens over and alongside the characters are another bottlenecks that would necessitate technological rectification, particularly on typing machines. But, technological modification and creating training centers exclusively for Mishing language will perhaps be next to impossible for us at this stage; even otherwise, it would be a white elephant to the community. Generally Germany, France, Portuguese and some few others deploy such techniques for their languages and made provisions in the key-board accessories. We in India follow the English language key-board. There is no typing institution in the country where typing technique can be trained French or Portuguese ways. We do not think Mishing people have enough resources to create key-board and training facilities separately. The arguments about absence of ligature in the beginning and end of a word, digraph, aspirate, fricative as well as affricative sounds in Mishing language are proved to be linguistic antic – a pre-literate concept and archaic notion; majority people view these as things of the past, which need no sustenance in rigid terms. Mishing masses have rejected such linguistic rigidity on wholesale basis. These and many more speak squarely and loudly that Mishing language should be freed from the hobbles of alphabetic constraints introduced by Prof. Tawid. It is therefore time now to come out from such uncomfortable confinements. Else, to remain static is to become stagnant. Language is never static.
    
    Mishing Society of Mumbai has provided with a fitting option of the Mishing Language Orthography devised on rationalization concept, the salient features of which were highlighted in the previous issue of this publication. We have crafted it scrupulously bearing in mind that it is not debasing the pristine idiosyncrasy of the language. We sincerely invite Mishing Agom Kebang in particular and the linguists and well-wishers of the Mishing language in general to examine the idea in detail, point by point and offer their firm views either ways.
     
    The writer is the editor of Mumbai based annual magazine 'Asinang Onam' and founder of Mishing Society of Mumbai(MSM).