Comments on ‘Notes on Zoukam and Zoulai by David Lalpi’

Commentator &Critic: (2005)

Philip Thanglienmâng,

B.E.(Civil),M.A(Linguistic IstYr),DANICS

4. Informed Language Policy
I find it very interesting to discuss any linguistic/language discussions relating to any of the Tibeto-Burman languages in a special manner the so called “semantic squabbles and Grammar mania”the term used by David Vumlallian Zou,among the Zous of Lamka.

The issue concerning the antiquity of language over art of writing had been debated by various linguists and anthropologists. Most of them,came to the conclusion that before any form of writings existed there were human groups,alongwith their speech. From a speech community there developed a dialect from a group of dialects emerges a language and so on. Literature alone has no meaning or value of its existence without a speech community or linguistic groups. Hence,these discussions are not squabbles or haggling exercises on the semantics and grammar mania etc. but they are processes of evolution of a speech community in this modern world. They are problems caused by constant comparisons between an Asymetrical language [English and others]andTonal language[Zokam].
Now,let us discuss critically Mr. David Lalpi’s statement as given below:- “As a pioneer, Thangkhanlal had sensibly advocated a middle path that uses both the Paite-Tedim and the Thado spelling system. He first articulated this idea in his popular booklet, Naupangte Zolai Patna (published in 1967). Note that he used “Zolai” instead of “Zoulai” which would appear more familiar today. In principle, this is compatible with Paite-Tedim Chin spelling conventions. Then he also advocated a compromise between the two language blocks when he differentiated the words “siam” (bawl; to create) from “siem” (pil; skillful, intelligent). In this vein, he differentiated “sie” (hoilou; bad) from Sea (Teacher) on the basis of tonal variation. This system was further developed by Nehkhojang, chief translator of Zo Holy Bible. Most of our Bible translators incidentally hailed from Thadou speaking area, including Semkhopau and Nehkhojang. Bro. Nehkhojang had to learn literally Zoukam before he embarked upon his task of translation that, of course, he performed amazingly well.”

The status of assigning pioneer to Pu.Thangkhanlal is quite debatable topic which I will not delve into it in this article. It occurs to me, that there is no such term as middle path in literature and linguistic terminlogy. Instead we could employ the terms like; Borrowing of words or loaning of words, Assimiliation instead of it. Either,one can borrow words from a larger realm or get assimilated into it vice-versa.
According to the anthropologists,Zo belongs to the Tibeto-Burman group of languages,Kuki-Chin family,sub-family of Northern Chin like its cognate languages-Thado,Paite,Tedim-Chin and others.

Objectively speaking,the classification into the Paite-Tedim-Chin Block, and the Thadou-Kuki Block is very arbitrary, misleading and vague devoid of any substantial bases. We must note that both,Tedim-Chin,or Paite and Thado languages are cognate languages belong to Kuki-Chin family of languages as described by anthropologists. We are also all aware that there is no common Paite and Tedim-Chin spellings conventions, both these spellings conventions are quite distinct from each other;especially in the usages of ‘o’ and ‘ou’and also‘c’and ‘ch’. Therefore,there can be no distinct language classification such as Paite-Tedim Block or Thado Block or any other blocks for these group of cognate languages in linguistics studies. The White Rulers must had perhaps, deliberately sowed the seeds of orthographic cacophonies (system of writings/spellings in Roman script) during the last century into various regions of our motherland land to create fragments of cultural divides and hues,knowing fully well the future implications. Since then, most of these languages and dialects each have adopted the spelling conventions/orthography based on Roman alphabets as given by the then White Rulers or as developed independently by themselves. Now,basing on these,I may take the liberty of classifying them on the basis of



Linguistic realms(Biel) and sub-realms(bawng) as the case my be (Dec, 2005,Zotongdam),ins -tead of categorizing them as Blocks. Today,we are reeling under the impacts of the White Rulers agenda(mischiefs) far and deep. One example I must give is within the same A,AW,B,CHAW system of orthography as in Tedim-Chin and Mizo(Lushai) one is taught to write ‘c’ in place of ‘ch’ also the phonemes ‘o’ instead of ‘ou’ vice-versa.

The ‘Zouham Zahdan(Grammar & Composition;Ist March 2001) by the Zou Literature Society Manipur(ZLSM) spelling convention prescribes that both phonemes‘o’ and ‘ou’ can be used in literary writings. Most of us,have the bad habit of creating differentiations and dissimilarities rather than amalgamating them. In fact,the terms Zo and Zou, are one and the same thing,having same semantic;their only difference is in spelling convention.

Prior to the 1950s(in India),as most of us,are aware of the fact that Zos were illiterates.There was no written form of Zo language as we know it today. Every tale or song was passed on to next generation orally by our elders;Oral tradition.The J.H.Cope’s orthography adopted by Tedim-Chin and Zo community of Burma; had the advantages and disadvantages of an early start. It influenced the religious sphere as well as the secular life of the people. The Zos were totally dependent upon either Tedim or Paite literature for their secular as well as religious purposes. The Church readings were invariably done either in Tedim-Chin or Paite language from Lai Siangtho(Tedim-Chin) and Lai Siang thou(in Paite) as the case may be. The early literate Zos were quite well-versed in Tedim-Chin spellings conventions and others were influencd by the Paite spellings. Therefore, it is not a surprise to find Pu.Lal,wavering or oscillating in his path at an attempt to codify spelling usages (orthography). Even so,on the other hand,if one reads between the lines,on the contrary Pu. Thangkhanlal seems to have regretfully remarked certain influences of the Tedim and Paite spellings/usages and above all the under development of Zo language and Zo songs/poetries by new generation of youth,as it evident from his writings of an article titled- Zokam and Zola(Zotongdam, dec,05).

Pu.Thangkhanlal also seemed to have borrowed Pu. J.H.Cope’s spelling convention of ‘o’ usage.Generally,speak-ing a person who does not possess any linguistics background would definitely, struggle inorder to achieve meaningful spellings usages(orthography) and semantics in his/her endeavour to put together an unwritten speech for the first time ever to fit phonic patterns of his mother tongue,often oscillating between several choices to represent the many inflections found within enigmatic Zo language(remember his poem on Zokam and Zola). That might have been Pu.Thangkhanlal’s dilemma!; not an act of advocating middle path.
If that were not true,he could had very well adopted the Tedim-Chin spellings in toto,thus,becoming the same victim of assimiliation or a culprit of words borrowing as Pu.A.Nêhkhojâng and other translators are made out to be guilty of such acts!. The moot point is,obviously neither Pu.Thangkhanlal nor Pu.Nêhkhojâng, was a copycat,who are,not at all,blatantly influenced by any of these systems.

The present ‘Holy Bible in Zo’(1983) is in fact a combination of Thangkhâl, Hâidawi, Khuongnung,Khodâi dialects which is today known as Zo language. The arguments that the Spelling system of the Holy Bible in Zo was further developed and modified by a single person-Pu.A.Nêhkhojâng from the Spelling sys-tem supposedly developed by Pu.Thangkhanlal do not stand on bases of solid evidences. As mentioned in earlier discussions,the Zos are fortunate to have a person like Pu.A.Nêhkhojâng-highly educated,well-trained person with long years(10-12 years) of philosophy and theology trainings,also in the fields of Education and English literature as;their Chief Bible translator and deviser of modern Zo orthography(spellings convention).Therefore,it will be unfair to categorize him as a copycat of Pu.Thangkhanlal’s or somebody else spellings convention or system of spellings. The system of spellings(orthography) devised by Pu.A.Nêhkhojâng in ‘the Holy Bible in Zo’ is found to be very systematic,linguistically and technically sound.
The orthography(phonetic transcription)/con
ventions invented and given to us by Pu.J.H.Cope has been found to be incongruent i.e do not represent the phonological/phonetic patterns of Zo speaker; the phonic patterns of original Zo tongue and its phonetics. There are several regular and irregular inflections found within the Zo language. If one examines those inflections with Cope’s convention-the Tedim-Chin spellings conventions technically then,it is found to be an imperfect tool for solving the multitude of enigmatic manifold inflections encountered or found within the Zo language,and also found within other cognate languages; in short it has inherent imperfections to a degree. Of course, if one simply adopts it for the sake of traditional spelling conventions, i have nothing to comment about it.Perhaps,due to its inherent imperfections present within the Tedim-Chin Spellings conventions,it was unabale to penetrate deep into its sphere of influence; ipso facto it was unable to amalgamate with other cognate langua-ges to form larger language horizontally or areally. Since then,it could not be considered or taken up as the role model for spellings convention or orthography to be followed permanently,by some cognate languages such as Gangte,Hmar,Zo,also even Paite to a degree. Pu.Aloysius Nêhkhojâng,grew up in his native village Thingkangphai;but the Chief and his villagers were Zo speakers!(I don’t know now). He joined Seminary early for priesthood training at Bangalore. During his holidays he used to visit us at Sugnu when I was a boy. As far as, I remember he was fully,Zo speaker and not a Thado speaker as claimed by David Lalpi. Pu.A. Nêhkhojâng had sacrificed his precious 7(seven) years of his youth for the ‘Holy Bible in Zo’ from 1977 to 1983. Doesn’t he deserve the title of ‘the Great Pioneer of Zo literature’ if not the Greatest?.We could also give befit-ting tributes to good souls like(L)Rev.S.K.Samte,Rev.L.Taithul,Pu.Thawng-hâng and others who had contributed in developing Zo literature in India since 1954 to 1967?.
Pu.Semkhopau Samte also grew up in Thado areas if I am not mistaken,in the Thingkangphai village.
Pu.L.Taithul the translator the Holy Bible in Zomi(1995) was born in the Zo village,in Zo speaking areas of Chandel District, Manipur(India).
Brief genesis of Zo Holy Bible
To understand the origin of the present orthography,let us go through brief genesis of Zo Holy Bible. In the early 70s with the emergence newly educated Zos there were desires to have Holy Bible in their own mother tongue. The Catholic Church as well as other Christian churches such as ABM,Presbyterian Churchesetc.,played crucial roles in developing Zo Holy Bible in India. In the early 70s the non-Catholic Zos of Churachandpur were constantly struggling to print a Bible in their own Zo language. After arduous struggles, hardships,prayers and petitions accompanied with several failures and disappointments as well, there arose; the movement to have the Holy Bible in Zo in Churachandpur and Sugnu areas,the Zo Catholics as well as non-Catholic Zos of both districts took keen and active parts. After several confabulations amongst the Zos,the Zomi Inter-Confessional Bible Translation Committee(ZOMICBTC) was establish-ed at Dâijâng in the year 1977 under the Chairmanship of Pu.Aloysius Nêhkhojâng,B.A,B.D. Translations started soon after. They camped for several years. The members of the ZOMICBTC were drawn from various speech communities. It had combinations of various Zo language sub-realms that were spoken in those days such Thangkhâl,Hâidawi,Khodâi,Khuongnung etc. The Zos of Sugnu in Chandel district and of Churachandpur district took active part in convincing the then,Bishop of Manipur and Nagaland Rt.Rev.A.M. Abraham D.D, to finance the Holy Bible project which they managed well. The saddest part was that when it came out in 1983 A.D,some vested interests manouvred splits in the main Church of the Zos of Manipur vertically and horizontally on doctrinal grounds.
Coming to the point of immense influences of Thado-Kuki due to historical circumstances,also others influences,let us take for an instance,the word ‘ha’ has been lavishly employed in both Bibles,totally ignoring the word ‘hla’ which sounds very much close to Mizo(Lushei) or Hmar word ‘thla’ and also Thado word ‘lha’; which is commonly used by the Zo(Hâidawi) speech communities of Sugnu areas (of India) and Northern Chin Hills of Burma as their pure original root-word of Zo language. It is not,at all,borrowed from Thado-Kuki language or any other cognate languages,as many people presume and understand it to be otherwise. We do not know the reasons why it was totally ignored in the present Holy Bible in Zo. Had it,been incorporated in the Bible then the usual Thado-Kuki labelling followed by criticism of it,would have been more intense and vicious. Again, the words ‘OM’,tunou etc are also widely used by Zo(Hâidawi) speakers,were totally omitted in the both Bibles,we do not know the reasons yet for their omissions,instead the word ‘UM’,kelnguoi are employed lavishly all throughout the Holy Bibles. Now, would you say that ‘OM’ is of Tedim-Chin or Paite spelling convention,and ‘UM’ as true,we know that this word ‘UM’ is also used by Simte or Thado-Kuki Spelling convention,therefore,it amounts to adoption of Simte or Thado-Kuki Spelling convention. The use of the word ‘UM’ in the Holy Bibles must have been either borrowed from Khuongnung
(Simte) linguistic sub-realm or must have been directly borrowed from Thado-Kuki system. Except for this negligible aberration,I don’t see any rational explanations to classify the ‘Holy Bible in Zo/Zomi are immensely influen-ced by Thado-Kuki spellings due to historical circumstances. The moot point is that; if the Thado-Kuki system had immense influence on ‘Holy Bible in Zo’due to historical circumstances,we would be using many Thado-Kuki words in the literary writings today. In fact,inorder to reinforce my arguments
let us sift through the early Thado-Kuki literature,also,the present Thado-Kuki literature we find that they employ phonemes ‘E/O’ system instead of phonemes ‘IE/UO’sytem. For example,the Lathah Bu(Pa Lal Labu) revised and enlarged printed in 2000A.D, still uses phonemes ‘E/O’,meaning thereby it uses ‘LEN’ instead of ‘LIEN’. SOPI instead of Suopi. NOM in place of NUOM.

The School Chapang Dictionary ( 1972 A.D) in Thado-Kuki employs the phonemes ‘IE’/’UO’, also double vowels,instead of ‘E’/‘O’ which is not widely adopted and employed even today,what to talk about influencing the Zo Bibles. Suongmantam Dictionary which uses IE/UO system, is of recent origin coming many years after the publication of ‘Holy Bible in Zo’. Whereas,the Holy Bible in Zo,ZLSM, Gangte Literature and Hmar Literature all of them use IE/UO system of spellings to fit the phonic patterns of their mother tongues. The usage of IE/UO system of spellings cannot be said to have been copied from Thado-Kuki system or any other. Instead,they are the natural results of our original phonetics,tones and semantics of our elders who spoke their own pure (chaste) mother tongues; as opposed to the Conventions given by the Whitemen(like Hon’ble J.H.Cope). The IA and UA phonemes put forward by Pu.Lamkhothawng (ZSP:1995-96) do not represent the original Zo sounds(phonetics) at all. Pu.Lamkho-thawng must have been an enthusiastic propounder more concerned with following those prevaling older conventions(of Tedim/Paite i.e IA/UA system),trying to accomodate the Zo language with those older conventionswhich had sufferd drastic phonic transformations since the time of adoption of the same. I think he missed to account for the original phonetics,tonal and semantic aspects of Zo kam.Without these preserving the original phonetics,truly speaking, Zo language,surely ,will undergo drastic transformations further it will split into more dialects and its phonetics will become corrupted totally.

Our brethren in Burma also have realised the inherent imperfections of the older conventions.
Zo,Vâiphei,Gângte,Simte,Paite,Tedim and Thado-Kuki languages are all cognate languages and their degree of mutual intelligibility is very high. It is seen that so far, very few literature societies have really bother about the symbols for tone,sound structure; phonetics amongst the many tonal languages of the Kuki-Chin family of languages.There have been some attempt by Gangte literature,SuongmantamDictionary(@
Thado-Kuki Literature) and Mizo literature which used the inverted ‘^’ to denote long/gliding vowels. They have not yet,given a thought to the descending or ascending or level tones or other diacritics of transcriptions..
The orthography devised by Pu.A.Nêhkhojâng in ‘the Holy Bible in Zo’is found to be very systematic,linguistically and technically sound.
As for the informations passed on by Pu.L.Taithul to David Lalpi regarding the presumed resentments of Zo speech community of Myanmar to the Thado-Kuki influence on spelling system in the Bible Translations historically is found to be utterlly baseless. In fact,today both the Holy Bible in Zo and The Holy Bible in Zomi are widely read by the Zo community of Myanmar in their religious affairs since then. The Holy Bible in Zo is bringing about slow and silent Renaissance in the literature of the people. The second version of the Bible ‘The Holy Bible in Zomi’ by L.Taithul, was the first book to adopt the new orthography devised by Pu.A.Nehkhojâng, followed by the Gospel Tângkou,the Khristian Tângkou,Zou Literature Society Manipur(India),Zopatong(Lamka,Ccpur), Zokuawmthawn@Zokuomthawn (ZOD,Delhi),Upzie Kantelna Part II (by Mang Kho Lien, Myanmar,),A.D. 2000,‘ZoMagazine’
(byZ.B.A,Kalaymyo) and PuZo News (Yangon), Zotongdam (New Delhi) etc are the torchbearers and evidences of the acceptances o fthis system devised by Pu.A.Nêhkhojâng.
Where is the question of resentments from the reading audience- Zo speakers of Myanmar and India?. Does he not deserve laurel or epithet!.Now,Zou Literaure is all set to surge ahead with this new system in future.


With the invention of printing press in 1475 A.D by William Caxton the Holy Bible in English was printed and it became available cheaply to th common people.This helped in developing and standardizing the system of spellings.It arrested further developments of dialectitcal differences by combining all existing dialects. Today,we know that English language is spoken by about a billion of the world’s population.
Today,with the fast pace of modernization and changes,speech communities are at cross-roads. Therefore,an informed language policy must not be based on the number of people who understands or not but one must take into accounts the linguistic aspects of Zo language,more than anything else(like market forces etc). more accurate orthography could be further devised in black and white as our beacons for future posterity instead of propounding new changes in each new generation and backsliding.Who knows a day may come when Zokam also will be known far and wide!.
Our motto could be first ‘Seek first correct Zokam,speak correct Zokam and Write correct Zokam,and the rest will follow. I hope this is more sensible.