letu:
Pazienza, my explanation don't really mean that I don't believe in the possibility of Egun & Nkalu being Igbo, I'm from Ngwa and there exist similar groups that are now part of the Igbo people know as Ngwa land/people, they're
(1) Ikpu and Ozaa together they are know as Asaa inwhich they are the same with Asaa people of Ukwa West and Obibo.

(2) Ohabelle community and Obohia community this community/ ancient settlement are related to Ndoki people.

(3) Ngboko Ibeme people of Ngwa land, despite the fact that they speak Ngwa language especially the Ibeme people do have their own Igboiod language.

Finally : Pazienza, this is to show that the similarity I'm talking about which I listed are originally Igboiod befor the merged together with Ngwa Ukwu people whom the Ikwerre call Ngwa bakar in which they become the Ngwa people we know today.

What I notice is , in your own write-up there is no evidence to prove that Egu, Nkalu and any other distinct group in Afikpor history are of Igbo origin.

OnoVegasBlog:
Please throw more light...
ChinenyeN I wish for your contribution too.

I will not speak on the Egu/Nkalu topic. I assume that is not why I was mentioned and was instead mentioned regarding Ngwa, Asa, Ibeme and Ikwerre. I will try to not make this too long. Basically, Letu is correct, and I will add more detail.

Let us start with the Asa. According to oral traditions there were two groups known as Ipu and Oza. One of the main trades of the Ipu and Oza was forestry. Originally, the Ipu and Oza did not live in the Ukwa axis. Instead, they have their homeland in Ikwerre (within the P.H./Obigbo axis). The Ipu and Oza would seasonally go to the forests in Ukwa and Obigbo to engage in their forestry trade. When Ngwa people began settling the Ukwa axis, they encountered these Ipu and Oza foresters. Ngwa people learned of their forestry skill and provided them with more and better iron tools in exchange for their forestry services. The Ipu and Oza began providing these services for Ngwa communities settling in the Ukwa and southern Ngwa axis. Ngwa people called the foresters "Ashia Oshishi" or "Asia Osisi" which eventually was shorted to "Asa". In Ngwa parlance "isia osisi" is the process of whittling trees, branches, etc as part of clearing the forest. This was a seasonal thing that they did. Nde Asia Osisi would seasonally come, perform their services and return to their homeland. The relationship was so amicable that eventually, some Ngwa villages began inviting Ipu and Oza foresters to live with them in these new settlements and engage in their forestry full-time as members of that community. From this interaction, a third group emerged known as "Asa". This is basically how the Asa group was established. Communities/village-groups in southern Ngwa and Ukwa that belong to this original definition of Asa or have "Asa" hyphened in their names are a testament of this historic event of Ipu/Oza people going to live with/among their Ngwa patrons. Time passed and the ethnonym "Asa" began to apply to not just the Ngwa + Ipu/Oza villages, but also the Ipu and Oza communities towards Obigbo.

Ibeme is an offshoot of Ipu and Oza communities that expanded into Ukwa. Their oral tradition says they originally migrated from Ohambele axis, and this is evidenced by their dialect which shows a mix of Ngwa and Asa (Ipu/Oza) features. Essentially, all the village-groups in Ndoki (except Umueze) are either of Ipu or Oza or Ngwa extraction, or an admixture of these groups (a.k.a Asa).

Mgboko are also from Ibeme, by extension making them of Ipu/Oza extraction. In fact, the Mgboko story is very similar to Ngwa and Ipu/Oza early interaction. In Ngwaland, Mgboko are reknown as itinerant dibia. They traveled up and down the eastern Ngwa axis performing dibia services. Communities in Ngwaland that answer Mgboko or have "Mgboko" affixed to their names either had significant dibia services provided by the Mgboko or invited Mgboko diviners to settle in the community.

In terms of language, I agree that the Ibeme dialect definitely reflects its Ikwerre (Ipu/Oza) origin, but is has been influenced by both Ndoki (Umueze) and more so Ngwa. As such, I would say Ibeme could probably be classified as its own Igbo speech form. Also, I would definitely say that they (Ipu/Oza and by extension Ibeme and other related Asa communities) are originally Igbo-speaking; at least by the time of the events recorded in oral tradition.

OnoVegasBlog:
What Osu means in other parts of south east is different from what it means in Abia State especially in Ngwa.
Osu people are spiritually affiliated humans.
(An Osu head can never be buried).
Osu is different from Ohu which means slave.
In Ngwa land Osu does not mean outcast.
Wife of Osu is Mmaji.

Take note: in Ngwa, an Osu does not automatically give birth to Osu.
But one can become of an Osu by being qualified to be one.

ChinenyeN i need your contribution please.

Correct. Ngwa has different types of Osu, depending on the "industry", none of which are outcasts. Traditionally, Osu have a sacred status in Ngwa. They often acquire more wealth and fame in the community and have their own unique burial rites. The Mmaji and Njoku cult status and all that comes with it is a great example of the Osu practice in Ngwa culture. This particular Osu status (Mmaji and Njoku) is specific to yam cultivation and the Ihi Njoku yam cult.

As a short summary, families whose industry is yam cultivation can choose to dedicate one or more of their children to Ihi Njoku. A male child dedicated to Ihi Njoku is known as "Njoku" (The Sacred Yam). A female child dedicated to Ihi Njoku is known as "Mmaji" (The Sacred Yam Knife). The Mmaji and the Njoku status receive first portions or rites of certain foods, meals, etc. This sort of ritual authority can even supersede the kindred roles of Opara and Ada within a farming family. Mmaji and Njoku are only allowed to marry each other as a way of further magically increasing the family's farm yield with each generation. Upon death, the heads of the Mmaji and the Njoku are to never touch the ground. Some families will chop off the head before burial. Others may bury the entire body, but keep the head and neck contained in a casket to avoid contact with the ground/earth. Then typically after six months, they will exhume the body and retrieve the head and remove it from the casket. In either case, the heads of both the Mmaji and the Njoku are then placed in the family's Ihinjoku shrine and become part of the effigy itself.

Other traditional "industries" in Ngwa have their own specific rites associated with an Osu in that industry. Overall, Osu are sacred and have a lot of ritual authority in Ngwa culture.

It’s funny how we are still having the same discussion after 100 years. I guess it really is true that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

In any case, I will save my historical analysis of state creation and the Aba State Movement for another thread and simply focus on the cultural/anthropological question for which I was explicitly tagged.

waternogetemeny:
LOL OWERRI PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COPE WITH IKWERRE AND THEIR WE ARE NOT IGBO NONSENSE,


WE NEED MORE SCHOLARLY INPUT HERE, @ ChinenyeN, OfoIgbo, cheruv, Ojiofor:

The details are nuanced, so I will try to simplify it.

Uratta is related to Ohaji and Echie. The primogenitors, Akuru, Ochie, Okani, are supposedly related as brothers. Either that or the names may refer to the same person according to some traditions. In other words, the same autochthonous population.

Ohaji and Echie are related to Ikwerre. The primogenitor, Ochichi, is said to have hailed from Ozuzu. This suggests Echie movements made it to Ikwerre before Ohaji movements pushed south and merged with them to create the core Elele population.

Ngwa is related to Echie. The primogenitors of most Echie village-groups come from the Ngwa cultural complex (a.k.a. Ngwa and Mbaise) predominantly and secondarily from later waves of Uratta and Isu. This is why Echie dialect shows more affinity with the Ngwa than with Uratta despite the Akuru, Ochie, Okani oral traditions.

Ngwa is related to Ikwerre. The primogenitors Ochichi and Iwhnurnuohna are said to be father and son. In Ngwa oral tradition, Iwhnurnuohna is known as Iwhnerneohna. Iwhnerneohna was a population movement of Ngwa people from within Ozuzu to found and people villages in Elele and Isiokpo. The father/son tradition might explain Echie/Ohaji elements arriving earlier (Ochichi) followed by Ngwa elements (Iwhnerneohna). A later wave of Ngwa elements founded Obio (the core community within P.H. and surrounding villages).

RedboneSmith:

How identifiable are these seven clans today? What are their clan names? I imagine that their stories of origin will differ from one group to the other. What do we know about their individual traditions of migration (or even autochthony)?

I know this thread is largely linguistic, so pardon me for asking historical questions.

No worries. Historical questions are good too. It adds context to a rather nuanced discussion.

The seven clans are very identifiable. Ikwerre people today commonly refer to themselves as "Ikwerre Asaa" in reference to this. Notwithstanding recent reauthorizations of oral traditions, they are fully aware of their clanhood, clan names and traditions of origin. I will list them off in no particular order. Someone from Ikwerre should feel free to correct me where I may be wrong or offer additional insight on any of the below.

Elele. When we think of Ikwerre's most prominent tradition of origin (Ochichi by way of Etche), this is the clan where that tradition stems from primarily. This clan dominates much of northern Ikwerre to the point where they are practically synonymous.

Odeegnu. You may see this in older colonial and post-colonial documents as Rumuji. This is the western part of southern Ikwerre. It includes Ndele, Umuekpe (now commonly referred to as Rumuekpne), Ibaa/Obele, etc. When we think of the Akalaka tradition or origin by way of Ekpeye, this is the clan where it primarily stems from.

Isiokpo. You will see this referred to as Nkarahia in older colonial/post-colonial documentation. This includes communities such as Ipo, Omadeeme, Agwa, etc. Basically, eastern Ikwerre. I think there is some cross migration between Isiokpo and Odeegnu mentioned earlier. So some traditions of origin mix between them. This clan also has villages with non-Elele and non-Odeegnu traditions of origin. Most prominently are Aro, Etche, etc.

Emowha. This is the most heterogenous clan. Here you will see the mix of Central Delta (Abua, etc), Ogba, and others from internal cross-migrations from other Ikwerre-speaking communities.

Aluu and Igwuruta. You may see this referred to in older colonial documents as Allua and Igrita. There is cross-migration between this clan and Isiokpo, and also Akpo (mentioned later), I believe. So there is also a mix of traditions of origin here. Geographically, they are between southern Ikwerre and eastern Ikwerre. You can consider them south/south-east Ikwerre.

Obio. You will see this noted as Obia in older colonial/post-colonial documents. This is basically the core community within Port Harcourt and environs. The traditions of origin for this group suggests a similar acknowledgement of Ochichi, but with an Ngwa affiliation. Geographically, they are the southern-most Ikwerre clan.

Akpo. In older colonial text, you may see them listed as Isoba (now commonly referred to as Choba). Choba is one of the 10 villages that constitues Akpo. This community claims autochothony. I am not certain if it originally applied to all 10 communities. Perhaps not, but as time has passed, so has the oral tradition become more generalized to the point you can generally say Akpo is autochothonous. They are southern Ikwerre as well.

Now, I only have cursory knowledge of Izii. I cannot claim to really understand it enough to speak it, but based off the much that I do understand, I believe I can piece together the syntax for this upcoming example.

In my last post, I was explaining how I do not believe Ikwerre is significantly deviated, and I gave the example of "m zee m nu onu nhne i nu oka". Let us look at what that might be when juxtaposing it with Izugbe and Izii. Again, this is based on my limited understanding of Izii grammer. An Izii speaker (or anyone from that axis with more familiarity) should feel free to correct me.

a naghi m anu ihe i na ekwu (Izugbe)
m zee m nu onu nhne i nu okaa (Ikwerre)
mu ta a nu iphe i i pfu (Izii)

Izii has some notable morphological differences here that make it significantly stand out.

1. It's standard negation "te" which takes different forms depending on the verb root and the particular aspect of negation being done.

2. Where Izugbe (as a proxy for most dialects) and Ikwerre utilize a definitive auxiliary (na or nu), Izii makes use of a clitic marker to indicate present progressive. In this case it is the second "i" in "i i kwu". Drastic morphological changes also come with drastic changes in tone structure. See the tone structures below.

a naghi m anu ihe i na ekwu (Izugbe)
L H L   L LH  HH  H L  LH

m zee m nu onu nhne i nu okaa (Ikwerre)
L H L L L  LH  H    H L  LL H

mu ta a nu iphe i i pfu (Izii)
L  H  L H  HH   H L H

I lined the tone markers up per the syllable so hopefully the relationship between the tone and its location in the statement is clear.

Izii shows significant deviation. It is perhaps clearer to see a straight comparison of negation.

o naghi eri (Izugbe)
o to o ri (Izii)

i naghi ekwu (Izugbe)
i ti i pfu (Izii)

o naghi anu (Izugbe)
o to o nu (Izii)

Similar to Ikwerre in which the infitinitive is retroactively impacted by the verb root's +/-ATR value, so also is the negation for Izii. In other words, the vowels harmonize with the verb root throughout the negation clause.

Personally, I feel Izii has a significantly stronger claim to "Igboid" than Ikwerre does. It is true that Ikwerre notably diverges from general Igbo. So if you compare it to the modern idea of what it means to "speak Igbo", then you can easily claim it is Igboid. However, when put Ikwerre in the context of its southern-Igbo peers, it is without a doubt still part of the dialect continuum.

As far as where the rest of the Izii-Ezaa-Ikwo-Mgbo cluster sits, I cannot say. I get the sense that Izii is the most divergent with its morphology and phonology, while its Ezaa, Ikwo, and Mgbo neighbors are much closer to being and sounding "Igbo". One good resource to go to would be Ezza TV https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLJOHiiv9klNH4tcYIGmUHg. They try to do a good job maintaining the language and so you will get to hear it as it is spoken by the natives. You may not fully understand it, but you can at least make out the parts where it shifts in and out of "sounding Igbo".

I do not have a resource for Ikwo and Mgbo.

I am not deeply familiar with the linguistic relationship between Itsekiri and Yoruba. From what I gather, the general consensus seems to be that Itsekiri is a Yoruboid language, thereby making Itsekiri and "Yoruba" as a whole sibling branches.

I do not believe that is the case with Ikwerre, despite how the academia is approaching it, and my reasoning is simple. If you analyze Ikwerre morphology within the context of other southern-most Igbo-speaking communities, you will see evidence of a dialect continuum, and you will see that Ikwerre is 100% a member of this continuum. Both lexically and morphologically, I do not believe Ikwerre has deviated significantly enough that it is no longer a direct member of this continuum.

Let us look at Ogba and my dialect of Ngwa for instance. I choose Ogba and Ngwa, because they are on the complete opposite ends of the southern-most Igbo-speaking axis, and so one might expect the two to be wholly dissimilar linguistically, but that is not the case.

m dii m la inu whne i di la ika (Ngwa)
a diwo m inu hne i di ikwu (Ogba)

Most communities speak somewhat like this, within the stretch of land between Ogba and Ngwa. So we have established a sort of baseline. Now let us look compare southern Ikwerre with the the above two statements. I chose a generalization of southern Ikwerre as it sits roughly halfway between Ogbaland and Ngwaland.

m zee m nu onu nhne i nu oka (Ikwerre)
m dii m la inu whne i di la ika (Ngwa)
a diwo m inu hne i di ikwu (Ogba)

A quick examination of the above statements shows features that help us identify that Ikwerre is wholly a member of this dialect strain and that this strain indicates a dialect continuum.

1. Consistent use of the infinitive. Both Ogba and Ngwa (and practically all speech communities in this axis) use the infinitive in this form. Ikwerre just has different infinitives depending on the verb root.

2. Notice the blend of morphological features that southern Ikwerre has, some parts of it are akin to my dialect of Ngwa and some parts of it are akin to Ogba. The only distinction being again the phonetic shift and also the development of a different auxiliary "nu" that seems very akin to Oratta's "na".

There just is not enough for me to consider Ikwerre a separate Igboid branch.

Izii's case is similar to Ikwerre, except that on top of the phonological shift (which is more intense), it has strong morphological divergence as well. Lexically however, Izii is almost no different from an Oratta/Isu-type dialect. It is almost ironic how high the cognate relationship is between Izii and the Oratta/Isu complex, because they sound nothing alike in actual speech. This is what makes Izii's case different from Ikwerre.

That said, the end result of Ikwerre and Izii's divergence is relatively similar. If you are not from the southern-most stretch of Igbo-speaking communities or you are unfamiliar with some of the language features of this region, encountering Ikwerre language in some random place may initially shock you, but you'll get it. However, if you encounter Izii in some random place, and you are not from the Izii-Ikwo-Mgbo-Ezaa axis and not familiar with that speech pattern, you simply will not recognize it.

Let me pause here for the time being.

Probz:
I wasn’t trying to be rude at all, Chinenye. That’s my apologies. Wrong choice of wording. It sounded more abrupt than how I meant it and I realised as soon as I finished the post but ultimately I was hanging on for you to tell me that yourself. Redbone jumped in not to contribute but to, to point that out on your behalf and I’m not going to lie, I wasn’t cool with that. Now we’ve squared in on it between ourselves, hopefully we can just move on.

No worries. I just wanted clarify. I am nothing if not understanding, and I have no problem moving on from this.

Ikwerre's phonological divergence is more notable when you cross-examine it externally (comparing to other Igbo speech communities) and internally (comapring Ikwerre-speaking communities with each other). Let us take a look at some examples, comparing Ikwerre with Izugbe. Out of the 24 Ikwerre dialects per research done by Roeline Alerechi, I will be using a generalization of the dialects within the southern Ikwerre axis.

The following breaks down a couple of basic/common statements into parts of speech to help make the comparisons.

"O ga-eri nri"
SUBJ   AUXL   PREP   INFT   CONJ    VERB   CMPL
o      ga                   e-      -ri    nri   Izugbe
o      ze            e-             -ri    wiri  Southern Ikwerre

Comparing Southern Ikwerre with Izugbe, we see some morphological changes. Ikwerre uses the infinitive, while Izugbe uses the conjugation. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the lexical divergence here is rather low. The roots -ri (eat) and the nominal wiri (food) are rather easy to identify as cognates of their Izugbe counterparts. You may be tempted to pause and wonder about the "ga" vs "ze" auxiliaries, but recall that the future auxiliary practically has no standard in Igbo. The future auxiliary marker is almost as varied as there are dialects in Igbo (i.e. "ya" in Alayi, "da" and "jne" in Ngwa, "aba" in Ukwuani, "me" in Ogba, etc). So in this regard, Ikwerre is no different from every other Igbo speech community.

Summary: At the basic level, Ikwerre is lexically not divergent in any notable sense.

"I na-ahu m"
SUBJ   AUXL   PREP   INFT   CONJ    VERB   CMPL
i      na                   e-      -hu    m     Izugbe
i      nu            o-             -whnu  m     Southern Ikwerre

Again, the same thing. Slight morphological change, but otherwise the lexical divergence is really low.

But here we begin to see the phonological divergence peeking out. How so? Examine the infinitives. Unlike most other Igbo speech forms that primarily only have one infinitive, being "i/ị-", Ikwerre has three. On top of the +/-ATR influence, the phonology of the infinitive is influenced by backness, so depending on the verb root, you can year any of the following as infinitives, "o/ọ-", "a/e-", and "ẹ-".

"to eat"  |  "to kill"  |  "to dance" |  "to see"   
INFT STEM |  INFT STEM  |  INFT STEM  |  INFT STEM
i-   -ri  |  i-   -gbu  |  ị-   -gba  |  ị-   -hụ     Izugbe
e-   -ri  |  o-   -gbu  |  a-   -gba  |  ọ-   -whnụ   Southern Ikwerre

I am almost 100% certain this is a unique feature of Ikwerre that displays notable divergence from other Igbo speech forms, particularly in the southern Ikwerre axis. Also bear in mind that the phonological tone structure for the infinitive is different. The infinitive marker starts with a low tone. The stem usually a rise (for low tone roots) and high (for high tone roots). Compared to the high-step tonal structure for the "i/ị-" infinitive structure in most other Igbo speech forms, this is a notable divergence.

I'll pause here to try to keep the posts short and out of the greedy hands of the spam bot.

Brief aside: I do hope you were not trying to be rude, Probz, because I have to agree with RedboneSmith that this does seem rude. Especially considering that you and I have interacted and discussed several times over here on NL, over these many years.

That brief aside now concluded, on to the main topic.

There are different ways to assess divergence in linguistics, but for the sake of simplicity here on NL, we will go with the ones most readers can easily wrap their minds around. Lexical and phonological.

Lexical divergence can be thought of simply as speech communities using different words to explain the same item/concept. For instance, "seat/chair" is called "oche" in some dialects, while it is called "agada" in others.

Phonological divergence is essentially speech communities using the same word, but with different pronunciation. For example, "agada" has "ngada" and "agida" as phonological variants across several dialects.

In my opinion, Ikwerre is not that divergent lexically. The core set of terminologies are still largely the same, though every other word might have a "deeper" dialect variant. In other words, Ikwerre's lexical divergence relative to Standard Igbo (Izugbe, not "Central Igbo" ) should be just about the same as it is most other Igbo speech forms, with the exception of Ekpeye.

However, when it comes to phonological divergence, I am of the personal opinion that no other speech community in the Igbo ethnolinguistic region matches the Ikwerre.

For context, Ikwerre canonically consists of seven groups, manifesting 24 dialects, according to some Ikwerre linguists, such as R.I.C. Alerechi (2007). Alerechi is a prominent linguist and an Ikwerre native. According to data collected and analyzed by her and her team, she arrived at a 24 dialects. She names the 24 dialects after certain villages that were considered "characteristic" of the dialect features.

The dialects can be further grouped into three possible dichotomies.

- East / West
- East / West / Exteme North
- East-Central / West-Central / North / South

According to Alerechi, depending on which linguistic features you attempt to prioritize when analying the 24 dialects, you can supposedly come up with one of the above three "dialect distributions" for Ikwerre. The reason for these three different distributions is because there is actually a great deal of phonological variation within the Ikwerre speech community. Take the word for "person" for instance.

Let us start from the southern parts of Ikwerre. Two prominent usages appear here for "person", being "badnu" (Obio, Ogbakiri, Akpo, etc) and "vadnu" (Rumuekpne, Odeegnu, Ndele, etc). As we go to the north the phonology changes notably. Towards the northeast areas, we encounter variations of "gbadnu", "gbadni" or "gbani" (Eleele, Omudiogna, Ubimini, etc). And finally, within the north/northwest/central parts of Ikwerre, the phonology changes yet again and we encounter "madnu" (Aluu, Isiokpo, Omerelu, Omuanwa, etc).

If we just plainly list out the variants, we can easily see how divergent the phonologies can be: madnu, vadnu, badnu, gbadnu, gbadni, gbani.

This phenomenon of phonological divegence is characteristic of a great deal of terminology within the Ikwerre dialect region, and there is a historical reason for this. Unlike what we know today, Ikwerre was never a singular people. The "seven groups" I mentioned earlier were the equivalent of "seven Igbo clans" in the sense that they were highly independent and maintained separate traditions of migratory origin (sometimes even within the same group). Prior to the 1900s, there was no Ikwerre people and the "seven clans" were each their own ethnic and speech community.

All the clans are hetergenous, though some may be notably more heterogenous than others. This includes significant presence and influence of Central and Eastern Delta groups such as Abua, Kalabari, Eleme, etc. which has contributed to the divergent phonology within the Ikwerre speech community.

I will pause here and continue in a different post to avoid being flagged by the spam bot.

dutch84:
Chinenye what are you up to these days? I have created an Instagram account out of your chemical elements. See it here:
https://instagram.com/igbochemistry

I hope that's okay.

That is perfectly fine. It is, after all, the entire reason I undertook this endeavor. The work done in this thread makes no difference if not adopted and adapted by the community at large. So feel free.

https://punchng.com/ikwerres-deny-ancestral-affiliation-with-south-east/?amp

“Akalaka moved down with his family of two wives and children to Elele (Okani-eli). [b]His first wife begat two sons – Ekpeye and Ogba – and the second wife begat Iwhurohna, Etche and Ngwa…[/b]The same incident that led to the Benin revolution reared its ugly head again at Elele. It was to your tents oh Israel. Ekpeye, led by his first son Ehuda, crossed the Sombriero River with Ogba, and the latter moved towards the Orashi area.

And now we have reached a new height of delusion. I knew it would only be a matter of time. I said it years years ago. The only way for the Benin narrative to win is to use propaganda and make it encompass all other narratives.

First it started by ignoring the Ochichi parts of the oral tradition. You all ignored it because you knew that the Ochichi tradition does not support the Benin migration claims. But that was not enough, because without integrating the Ochichi tradition, you would not be able to reconcile the presence of the southern/eastern half of Ikwerre. So Benin propagandists could no longer just ignore the Ochichi oral traditions and in effect came up with the ridiculous idea that Akalaka and Ochichi were half-brothers. But again that was not enough. There is a publicly recognized ancestry between large parts of Ikwerre, Echie and Ngwa in part through Ochichi and through the original Iwhnerneohna narrative. Furthermore, this ancestry does not support the Benin migration claims. So what do the Benin propagandists do? They expand the scope of the Benin tradition yet again to now include Echie and Ngwa. How laughable to include Ngwa especially. This is where it all falls apart. Soon enough, they will see that claiming Ngwa is not enough. Echie has recognized ancestry with Oratta, and Ngwa has recognized ancestry with Mbaise, Obowu, Asa and Ndoki. Benin propagandist will then have no choice but to further expand the scope of this ridiculous Benin tradition yet again to come and encompass these additional groups.

When all is said and done, Benin propagandists will have no choice but to look stupid and claim that the entirety of southern Igbo-speaking communities came from Akalaka.

How much longer until you realize that you are making yourselves out to look stupid like this?

viccy12:
Chinenye, you are still alive ? Longest time ,nwoke Ngwa

Even me I am surprised. E for don reach my turn okemgba make I die, but death no fi collect me yet. I am still waiting patiently for that one. So I dey enjoy myself for the meantime.

Yujin:

https://kalabaritownhalls.files./2019/11/chapter-xi.pdf

Thanks.

Yujin:

Here's what another Ijaw author wrote about the word 'Amanyanabo'. Notice how he spelt it 'Amayanabo'.
This revisionism won't help Ijaws in their quest on Bonny and Opobo.

Please provide the name of the author and the publication. Thank you.

OnoVegasBlog, the answer really depends on who you ask and what part of the Owerri/Mbaitoli/Ikeduru axis they are coming from. Personally, if I were to give my own general opinion, I would say that there are three "cultural complexes" at play here. The Uratta cultural complex, the Ngwa cultural complex and the Isu cultural complex. There is no official name for these complexes. I simply called them as Oratta, Ngwa and Isu based on the dominant groups found in the respective complexes.

The Uratta cultural complex consists of the Uratta clan/meta-group what we might consider as other related communities such as Alaenyi, Ulakwo, Okpuala among others. I might even group in Ohaji and Echie here as well, but that is just me personally.

The Ngwa cultural complex consists of the Ngwa clan/meta-group and what we might consider as other related communities such Mbaise, Obowu, parts of Ngor Okpuala, Nsirimo, etc.

The Isu cultural complex consists of the Isu clan/meta-group and what we might consider as other related communities such as Nkwerre, Okigwe, Mbano communities, Isuikwuato, etc.

These three cultural complexes blend into each other at various points. There is the Mbaise zone, where all three came into contact. The Obowo axis where the Ngwa cultural complex and the Isu cultural complex meet. The Ngor Okpuala and Echie axes where the Uratta cultural complex and the Ngwa cultural complex meet, and there is Ikeduru where the Uratta and Isu cultural complexes blend. The Ngwa cultural complex also bleeds into Ikeduru, but relative to Uratta and Isu, it is somewhat negligible and limited to a specific group of communities.

As you can guess, the village dialects in this area can vary a lot. So what does this mean for Mbaitoli and Ikeduru vs Owerri?

What I would say is that Mbaitoli 100% belongs with the Isu cultural complex as far as their dialect affinity and cultural practices are concerned. Ikeduru is a more blended story. The dialects change in sort of a gradient. The further north you are, the more the gradient sounds like it belongs in the Isu cultural complex. The further south-west you go, the more it sounds like it belongs in the Uratta cultural complex. But you can also see the influence of the Ngwa cultural complex in the dialects in Ikeduru (to varying degrees). That said, I think I am inclined to believe that most of Ikeduru probably leans heavily towards the Isu-complex. So, long story short, don't be surprised if you ever come across Mbaitoli or Ikeduru people distancing their identity from Owerri (i.e. Uratta) and vice versa (Uratta loves to distance their identity from Isu).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGOjrIBGV5M

The above link is labelled as "Asaa", but this is not to be confused with Asa in Abia/Rivers. This is rather another lect from the Enugu/Ebonyi axis, and depending on the response I get for this next bit, it could mean another example.

Aside from things already mentioned earlier, such as:

1. Supposedly being part of the labial "be" (they/them pronoun) group as the southern isogloss
2. Potentially using the same glottal /h/ in thing
3. Use of specific lexical features (i.e. whe, liile, te)

There is this...

Between 0:54 and 0:56 (yet again, just one minute in) of the Asaa Words of Life audio, there is an expression used that sounds to me a lot like "e zhii gala cho madu liile ucho." The specific statement of interest to me here is "e zhii gala."

Again, I do not find these Enugu/Ebonyi lects that intelligible, but my understanding of various lects makes me inclined to believe I am at least hearing/interpreting the high level gist of it correctly. If that is also the case in this instance, then I would like to confirm if my interpretation of "e zhii gala" as "have not yet" is correct or inline with the general gist of the statement.

I do not personally know anyone from this axis that I can call up and ask. So if someone else knows someone who is conversant enough with these lects and willing to listen to 0:54 - 0:56 of the audio clip to either confirm or deny what I believe I've heard, then that would be greatly appreciated.

ChinenyeN:
As we have already noted, "whe" is covered already by much of the south as either "whe" or "he". The "te" used by Ezaa and environs correlates exactly with the "ta" used by Ngwa and Mbaise. Furthermore "ta" has additional variants of "sa" and "cha" without the southern axis. Phonologically, it seems reasonable to conclude that "ta", "sa" and "cha" are cognates.

Sorry, I meant "within the southern axis". Not "without".

I am refraining from editing to prevent the hiding and banning.

That said, I would like to add that I am not exactly considering the Enugu/Ebonyi axis to be part of the southern isogloss. I'm more so addressing the issue of geographic discrepancy and how it relates to this theory of two different etymological /h/ sounds used in the word for "thing" as well as the implication of at least two proto-Igboid branches. I am suggesting that it may not be a discrepancy after all, if we consider an east to west, south to north diffusion of Igbo language features.

Yeah, I'm starting to think there's something to this theory.

I was just listening to some of the Words of Life audio for Ezaa (which is the axis of Okocha and Enugu), and one minute in, I had to pause it. https://globalrecordings.net/en/program/12261

I will admit that Ezaa is not 100% intelligible to me, but I believe I get the rather high-level gist of what is being said in the audio. However, anyone who has a better understanding of Ezaa or is an Ezaa speaker should please feel free to correct me if I misunderstood any of the below.

0:19 - 0:21 "whe liile" (everything), which is "whe liile" in Ngwa, Ahiara, Ehilihitta, etc, except this axis maintains nasalization on the "whe".

0:25 - 0:27 "te he le anyi mara" (so that they and us can know) which is also "ta we la anyi mara" in Ngwa.

I note these specifically, because even though it is a small portion of the vocabulary, it reveals both phonological/lexical (whe) and grammatical/syntactical (te/ta) features. As we have already noted, "whe" is covered already by much of the south as either "whe" or "he". The "te" used by Ezaa and environs correlates exactly with the "ta" used by Ngwa and Mbaise. Furthermore "ta" has additional variants of "sa" and "cha" without the southern axis. Phonologically, it seems reasonable to conclude that "ta", "sa" and "cha" are cognates.

Again, I did not go through the entirety of the Words of Life audio. This is just what I immediately noted within the first 1 minute of audio, suggesting that these are core grammatical and lexical features of their lects. Please let me know if this is a reach, but it seems highly unlikely to me that such core lexical and grammatical features were independently innovated. One is a coincidence. Two invites suspicion, and I suspect if we dig deeper, we might find, three, four or more that might suggest a pattern; a pattern suggesting that a notable degree of affinity or continuity between the southern axis and the Ebonyi/Enugu axis.

By the way, by "southern axis", I am referring to our earlier conversation about the Ogba - Ahiara axis that I mentioned in our discussion of the southern entry hypothesis.

In the meantime, while we wait for the moderators to unhide my previous post, I want to touch on one of your concerns, AjaanaOka. I will make this short, so as to avoid another spam bot hammer.

AjaanaOka:
Perhaps one of the reasons why I am skeptical is that I have used iye (which according to your theory is descended from *iṅe) for thing all my life. This was how it was said in Enugu where I was raised. I only use "ifve" when I'm speaking Awka, and even then it feels strange on my tongue and I always find myself going back to the more-familiar Township Enugu 'iye'.

Geographically, Enugu is quite a long way from the area one would expect to be within the 'isogloss' of your path #2, at least based on my understanding of how you explained the path #2.

To begin with, for the time being (with respect to the word for "thing" that is), I am labeling this isogloss as the "glottal isogloss".

Now, moving on. I did not think about this until a few days ago, but in any case, I'm sure you remember years ago our conversation about the potential theory of proto-Igbo speakers entering from the south. As part of that theory, it holds that the diffusion of Igbo-type linguistic features would have taken a general east to west + south to north pattern. You may refer to this post: https://www.nairaland.com/6408262/what-proto-igboid-speakers-entered-igboland/1#99337370

In the post I've linked I drew some haphazard arrows on a map to conceptualize of the southern entry hypothesis. NL seems to be struggling to show it, but the links are there towards the middle of the post.

Anyhow, the lack of geographical continuity for my proposed "glottal isogloss" (that is, between the southern Igbo axis and the Enugu axis) might seem like a disparity at first, but can we possibly reconcile it against the backdrop of a south to north dispersal pattern for the southern entry hypothesis?

Fulaman198, odumchi, bigfrancis21

My comment above was hidden. Can we unhide it? Thanks.

RedboneSmith:
Hmm.

Don’t hold back. Kanu m what you’re thinking. I’d like to hear it even if it’s in direct opposition.

Let's look at a more obvious example to contextualize what I mean. We will examine the third-person plural pronoun across lects. For the purpose of demonstration, I will be applying the logic from Ngwa's phonological system. This is only for the purposes of demonstration, because a true analysis would require for us to examine the phonological system of multiple dialects to paint a real picture.

That said, Ngwa constitutes a representative sample of at least the sourthern Igbo-speaking stretch. It's not that much of an outlier (at least, not in my opinion). So this demonstration may be considered relatively applicable, with a grain of salt.

Now, let's recall the phonological system in question.

We have a labial category /m/, a dental category /n/ and a glottal category /ṅ/. These categorizations often come with associated regular sound changes. For example, in the labial category, we can witness a /b/ to /f/ or /v/.

Now, onto the third-person plural pronoun. We are all very familiar with the (in layman's terms) "Anambra Igbo" variant of "fa" and the "Imo Igbo" variant of "ha". They're so popular, but more words exist for the third-person plural and they seemingly show no observable etymological relationship. Let's examine these terms with respect to the labial, dental and glottal categorizations.

The various terms that exist in the Igbo-speaking region for "they/them" are as follows, "ha", "fa", "wa", "we", "ve", "be", "hwe", "epfe" or "ephe", "uwe", "he", "wọ", "wo", "ṅṅwo", "ṅwo" and "kwe". Yes, such beautiful diversity. Anyhow, anyone can feel free to contest this (in fact, I'd be open to hearing people's thoughts and opinions), but if I examine these and group them by the aforementioned categories, I see the following.

Labial - "fa", "ha", "wa" (we can call this the "fa" group)

Also labial - "be", "ve", "epfe", "ephe", "we", "uwe", "he" (we can call this the "be" group)

Glottal - "ṅṅwo", "ṅwo", "kwe" (we can call this the "ṅṅwo" group)

And finally two outliers:

1. "wọ". If I were to provide a hypothesis with respect to this categorization demonstration, I might say this could represent the effects of some contact between the "be" and "fa" groups.

2. "wo". If I were to provide a hypothesis with respect to this categorization demonstration, I might say this is the "be" group coming into contact with the "ṅṅwo" group, or some other example of sporadic sound change.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but when I look at this (having applied Ngwa's phonological system), I see three groups that likely share no etymological relationship and so are not cognates with any other term outside their group. For example, "be" and "we" are most certainly cognates. "ṅṅwo" and "kwe" might very well be cognates, but show a sporadic sound shift in the vowel. However, "be" and "fa" are certainly not cognates. Likewise "be" and "ṅṅwo".

With this we see three different phonological patterns. Potentially signifying three different phonological systems (at least with respect to this). Which in turn (along with the lack of a provable etymological relationship) potentially signifies three different dialects in pre-history.

Interestingly, they are not all contiguous. As in the speech communities that use these terms don't all occupy the same, unbroken stretch of land. We have communities like Ekpeye, Ngwa, Ikwerre, Ndoki, Asa, Echie in the "be" group, but yet Ezaa and Izii all the way in Ebonyi are also part of this "be" group. There could be any number of explanations for this. Perhaps "be" was the more prevalent term at one point in time (judging by the sheer number of variants) and a lexical and phonological shift occurred (perhaps evidence of language branching creating the "fa" group). Despite the "fa" group having fewer variants, it boasts many more speakers. Maybe something significant might have been happening at that time the branch was diverging (maybe agriculture, technology, name it) that might have allowed for the "fa" group of speakers to quickly outnumber the "be" group. Again, just supposition, but as a demonstration to drive home a point.

This is effectively what I am suggesting in the context of "thing" (or something similar). With "thing", it may be far less apparent due to a couple of factors that I can hypothetically suppose.

1. Applying Ngwa's phonological system, we see that it is possible to have two different etymological /h/ sounds. Both *ipe and *ŋŋe can claim /h/ sound variants. So the presence of this obscures the etymological differences, similar to how modern day Igbo might try to explain "isi" (head) and "isi" (source) as being the same word.

2. A likely overwhelming population of *ipe speakers relative to *ŋŋe speakers. Speech communities that I might consider as part of the *ŋŋe group, yet having an initial /i-/ vowel in the word could be evidence of the sort of sporadic sound shift that might occur from dialect mixing. We can be relatively confident of it as a sound shift, because it does not affect the entire phonological system of *ŋŋe speakers, just those speech communities we can perhaps surmise had some impactful contact with *ipe speakers.

I'll stop here to avoid having too long of a post and to re-read and gather my thoughts. Who knows, maybe I might find some holes in my own thought process.

To begin, I'd like to first revise my hypothetical reconstructions, based off a few things I've just recollected. The overwhelming majority of lects that I might consider part of the "glottal" isogloss (i.e. path #2) do not include an initial vowel in the word for thing. In place of that initial vowel is either nothing or an initial nasal. So my revised reconstructions are as such.

*ipe for path #1, i.e. the /p/ -> /f/ -> /v/ -> /h/

*ŋŋe or maybe a *ŋŋ^we for path #2, i.e. the /ṅ/ -> /g/k/ -> /h/ -> /y/

Now, AjaanaOka, I am personally of the school of thought that the vast majority of our words are cognates, so I am not exactly proposing branches that are not cognates. Well, in a way yes, in a way no. What I am proposing is that certain reconstruction patterns by Williamson et al need to be revisited, if we end up finding phonological structures in other lects analogous to Ngwa. Which might in turn mean we end up with less true cognates overall. So yes, not exactly no cognates, but less cognates.

Like you, I considered the idea of a sporadic sound change, but it was unsatisfactory for me. A sporadic sound change would not account for the regularity we see in Ngwa's phonological system. This instead suggests a regular sound change, and a regular sound change in turn suggests dialects. When I reflect on a sporadic sound change, I end up considering two things:

1. Dialect mixing. Regular sound changes in one lect and regular sound changes in another lect are unevenly inherited by future speakers of the two lects when they make contact.

2. Something social (like a class system) impacting how some members of a speech community simply choose to pronounce things to distinguish themselves from other members of said speech community.

I'm sure the academia has noted others, but these are the main two that come to mind and these would often cause abrupt changes in speech, and only in certain linguistic environment. In this sense, the sporadic sound change does not spread in the same way a regular sound change would. The sporadic sound change may impact some words or a subset of words, but not the entire phonological system.

This is why I felt dissatisfied thinking of this as a sporadic sound change. The phonological system that I'm highlighting for Ngwa isn't just on some words. It's the entire lexicon. So my line of thinking is simply this:

If analogous phonological systems from other lects can be shown to have parity with that of Ngwa (with respect to this discussion), then it opens the door for the possibility that modern Igbo reflects two (or more) proto-Igboid phonological systems, which in turn would suggest more than on proto-Igboid lect in the region.

Allow me to see if I can find some additional things that might buttress my point. I'll share in my next post.

-- continued --

So finally, what does this mean for my hypothesis.

I'll simplify it. If my hypothesis holds merit, then it means that perhaps a few (or at worst, many) of the words we believe are cognates across the various lect, may turn out to not be cognates at all. And in fact, our linguistic situation might just be a case of there having been two (or more) proto-Igboid branches and with one (or a few) being overwhelmingly large in number, thereby influencing the other(s). Or perhaps, a prehistoric dialect leveling as multiple proto-Igboid branches made there way into what is now known as "Igboland".

We then ultimately are presented with this dynamic picture of phonology and morphology within the Igbo region. Such high amounts of diversity, packed in here.

Again, just a preliminary hypothesis. I might explore this further, and of course, I'm willing to accept if it goes nowhere.

But in attempting to finalize this writing system for Ngwa, I saw this and just could not ignore it. If any academic Igbo linguists are searching for a thesis to explore, they can feel free to use this one.

-- continued --

Everyone is familiar with the variants "ife" and "ihe" for "thing". In layman's terms we would say the "Anambra Igbo" or the "Imo Igbo" variants. An examination of this word shows a clear (and believable) phonological etyomology of /p/ -> /f/ in the "Anambra Igbo" case. But if we take a look at Ngwa as a case in point, the "Imo Igbo", which Kay Williamson, Roger Blench and Chinyere Ohiri-Aniche all suggest also have a /p/ -> /f/ -> /h/, now becomes questionable.

We are faced with the following questions:

1. Are the "Imo Igbo" variants using /h/ because of a /p/ -> /f/ or /v/ -> /h/ etymological path?

or

2. Are the "Imo Igbo" variants using /h/ because of an /ṅ/ -> /g/ or /k/ -> /h/ etymological path?

If #1 is the truth across all lects, then it means all words for "thing" are cognates, and my hypothesis can be refuted. It likely leads nowhere. However, if #2 is the truth, then it suggests that the words for "thing" (no matter how similar they look), may have two different etymologies. And in fact, if we are to use the Ngwa lects as a case-in-point, it seems that #2 is our observable truth.

Some Ngwa lects labialize the /h/ for "thing". In other words, we get "hwe", and recall what I said earlier that for Ngwa, /hw/ and /h/ can be interchanged, but /hy/ and /hw/ cannot. In that same vein, we only see "hwe" and "he" variants in Ngwa for "thing", never "hye". If the thread I'm unraveling holds any merit, then it suggests that Ngwa falls into path #2.

In other words, for lects like Ngwa that show evidence of labialization on the word for "thing", we can perhaps propose a completely separate etymology for the word.

I believe Kay Williamson, Roger Blench and Chinyere Ohiri-Aniche likely battled with this same realization. If you examine the reconstruction for the word for "thing" (ipuye), we see an attempt to compromise by suggesting a reconstruction that includes all the core sound, along with the explanation of an original /-y-/ being absorbed and transformed into labialization in some lects. Even if we wanted to take this explanation seriously (which I admit I did at one point), a study of Ngwa phonology shows that this rule of /-y-/ to /-w/ can almost be completely ignored for lects like Ngwa. In other words, their explanation is at best inconsistent, at worse, a shot in the dark.

Now, any curious person (who may also be familiar with other lects might be inclined to ask this question): How come we have "ife", "ive" and "iphe" that showcase different phonological transformations for the word for "thing" along the /p/ -> /f/ or /v/ -> /h/ path, but we don't have "ige" or "ike" or "iye", showcasing different phonological transformations along the /ṅ/ -> /g/ or /k/ -> /h/ path?

That is where I would respond and say, "oh, but we potentially do."

Ekpeye - iye
Okocha - ikwe
Ngwa - hwe

All mean "thing".

Now, as I mentioned, this is all just a preliminary thought process and would require contextualizing the phonology of these various lects.

That said, if a phonological pattern in Ekpeye and Okocha shows parity with what is obtained in Ngwa, then we can almost definitely say that Ekpeye, Okocha and Ngwa (among other lects) fall into path #2. In other words, showing a potential transformative path from /ṅ/ -> /kw/ or /hw/ or /y/. Meaning, if we reconstruct potential candidates for proto-Igboid words for "thing" across these two paths, we get something along the lines of "ipe" and "iṅe".

I believe Kay Williamson, Roger Blench and Chinyere Ohiri-Aniche might have seen this and attempted to reconcile with "ipuye". They suggest that in the process of derivation over time, a lect like Okocha dropped the /u/, absorbed the /y/ into the /p/ and resulted in a reflex of /k/ and /w/. Basically "ipuye" -> "ip'ye" -> "ik'we" -> "ikwe".

In that same vein a lect like Ngwa would have to have absorbed dropped the same /u/, absorbed the same /p/ and /y/, but instead get an /h/ and /w/, thereby giving us "ipuye" -> "ip'ye" -> "ih'we" -> "ihwe" -> "hwe".

But Ngwa phonology constraints almost invalidate the above assertion.

It would instead make sense for Ngwa, a lect that acknowledges a palatalized /hy/ and a labialized /hw/ to use "hye" in speech for "thing" based on the logic of Kay Williamson, et al. After all, there are surviving Igbo lects today that do in fact use "ihye" in speech, so there shouldn't be any reason why Ngwa would not. Yet, the phonological pattern of the Ngwa lect is so consistent that in the case of the word for "thing", it calls into question the "ipuye" reconstruction.

So how many more reconstructions can we then, in fact, say are questionable? This is where deeper linguistic research and analysis is required.

-- Continuing in next post to prevent NL spam bot from blocking and hiding this post --

-- continued --

Well, perhaps I should not be so bold. Rather, let me say that 'til date, I have yet to encounter an instance in Ngwa where /hy/ and /hw/ can be interchanged without impacting the meaning. Instead, we have the following:

/hy/ can be interchanged with /h/ in some Ngwa lects (i.e. the palatalization is dropped) and the meaning is retained, showing that they are synonyms or cognates. For example, "ihye" (to come from) and "ihe" (to come from).

/hw/ can be interchanged with /h/ in some Ngwa lects (i.e. the labialization is dropped) and the meaning is retained, showing that they are synonyms or cognates. For example, "ihwe" (to search/look for) and "ihe" (to search/look for).

You will never see an instance (or at least, 'til date, I have not seen an instance) where "ihwe" can be said as "ihye" and it means the same thing, or "ihye" said as "ihwe" and the meaning is retained. In other words, two different phonological etymologies. But again you may ask, how did we arrive here to begin with?

Let's go back to the phonological structure of Ngwa.

An interesting thing about Ngwa phonological structure (as I've mentioned earlier) is that palatalization and labialization are exclusive phenomenon, and it turns out we have a definitive pattern for that.

Only glottals are labialized in Ngwa. Glottals are never palatalized. While labials (primarily) and dentals (secondarily) are palatalized. There is no known occurrence of labialization with labials or dentals. Let me make this picture clearer.

ChinenyeN:

m:        p/b       kp/gb     f/v       h         w
n:        t/d       s/z       l/r       ch/j
ṅ:        g/k       gh        h         y

Conventionally, labialization uses a "-w" modifier and palatalization uses a "-y" modifier in orthography.

The labial /m/ category above has the following palatalized variants in Ngwa, /py/, /by/, /fy/, /vy/, /hy/ (as I've already touched on).

The dental /n/ category above has the following palatalized variants in Ngwa, /ny/, /sy/, /ly/, /ry/, /jy/.

The glottal /ṅ/ category above has the following labialized variants in Ngwa, /ṅw/, /gw/, /kw/, /hw/ (as I've already touched on).

These cannot be switched around in Ngwa. There's no /gy/. There's no /pw/. There's no /vw/. There's no /ky/, etc. etc.

In other words, using Ngwa as a case-in-point, we can see clear lines of drastically different etymologies. In other words again, if we find any words that render an /hy/ or an /hw/, then we can almost positively discount any sort of cognate or etymological relationship. What does that mean exactly?

Potentially, every /hy/ that exists in Ngwa, may have once been a /vy/ or a /by/. Likewise, any /hw/ that exists in Ngwa, may have once been a /gw/ or a /kw/ or even an /ṅw/.

So now back to proto-Igboid. How does this tie in? I'll show you. Let's take the word "thing" for example.

-- Continuing in next post to prevent NL spam bot from blocking and hiding this post --

M ma m la ili na nka nka. That said, I just came across something that I felt may be worth sharing. It's still preliminary thoughts, but this is the basic hypothesis...

Hypothesis: Kay Williamson, Roger Blench and Chinyere Ohiri-Aniche's reconstruction work is flawed under the assumption that there was a single proto-Igboid phonology (we can grossly summarize this as a single proto-Igboid branch), when in fact there may have been perhaps two (at least) proto-Igboid branches. Effectively, their reconstructions may need to be revisited in light of this.

I know. This is a bold hypothesis. If what I've come across is any evidence to a potential truth, then this information is shocking (and revealing). So let me contextualize and explain this.

Among my many projects over the years, there is one that I have recently been revisiting in hopes to finalize. I'm essentially creating a new writing system for Ngwa. Well, it's not entirely new (as in, it doesn't come from nothing). My system is an extension and modernization of the "agwagwa ulo" inscription system in my hometown (and other parts of eastern Ngwa). Basically, "agwagwa ulo" is a mixed pictographic/ideographic system. I essentially took a subset of agwagwa ulo ideographs and adapted it into a featural writing system. In the process of finalizing the glyphs earlier this week, I stumbled across this phonetic structure in Ngwa.

m:        p/b       kp/gb     f/v       h         w
n:        t/d       s/z       l/r       ch/j
ṅ:        g/k       gh        h         y

Basically, Ngwa phonology can be neatly grouped into these three categories, "m" (labial), "n" (dental) and "ṅ" (glottal). This categorization is clean with the exception of "h" appearing both in the labial and glottal categories--a discrepancy that immediately caught my attention. How is this a discrepancy? Basically...

We have a "labial h", suggesting the "h" sound to have been derived from perhaps a "b" -> "v" -> "h" path (as a case-in-point).

We then also have a "glottal h", suggesting the "h" sound to have been derived from perhaps a "g/k" -> "gh" -> "h" path (as a case-in-point).

The question might then come up, how and why am I even considering the existence of two different "h" sounds? Simple, Ngwa lect has both palatalization and labialization, and an interesting pattern arises in that palatalization and labialization is an exclusive phenomenon in Ngwa. In other words, a palatalized phoneme in Ngwa is never labialized and vice versa (a labialized phoneme in Ngwa is never palatalized). That is how we got the outlier "h".

Ngwa has both a palatalized "h" /hy/ and a labialized "h" /hw/, but they never co-occur. In other words, there is no instance in which we have a word like "ahya" and "ahwa" and they are synonyms, much less cognates. This discrepancy, the exclusive phenomenon of it and the lack of co-occurrence began to unravel a thread in my mind.

-- Continuing in next post to prevent NL spam bot from blocking and hiding this post --

It’s like we’re so close to getting it, yet so far.

Maazieze:


Idk how to send Dm on nairaland so ill just send you the link here
https://discord./zj97T4Xd

My tag is "Iwe eri"

I will send you a DM there once I join.

Maazieze:
Actually could i also get the info on the isuama cultural complex aswell?

Yes, I am on Discord, though I don’t visit it often. Perhaps I have yet to find the right Discord server.

No problem. Give me a few days to collect what I have on the Isuama cultural complex and I will update you once their in the DropBox.

In fact, feel free to check the DropBox periodically, I will just simply endeavor to continue adding Isuama-related content as I encounter them.

BentizilL, Gajagojo. The two of you must be relatively new to NL.

First Ikwerre, now Ndoki.
I laugh in Ngwa.

Anyhow, seeing as the two of you are relatively recent to NL, as a courtesy, I will just let you know that this topic has been spoken on and flogged to the point of fatigue. Many of us have little interest in rehashing this. If you still have an itch to scratch, please go to the politics section or just search old threads on NL.

I really have zero interest in saying more on this beyond this point. Thanks.