I have recently been having some fun with bibliographical data. Specifically, I have tried to determine a simple way to calculate the "descriptional density" for various African languages, especially with regard to grammar descriptions.

Descriptional density (a concept I’ve invented myself, I think) aims to determine how well-described any given language is in terms of existing grammar books and dictionaries. For instance, if a given language has only one grammar book written about it, and another language has fourteen grammar books written about it, then obviously the latter language is more well-described than the former. In other words, it’s descriptional density is higher.

There are no doubt many factors that should be taken into account when calculating something like descriptional density, such as number of publications or titles, size of description, number of authors involved, number of varieties described, availability of the grammar(s), and so on. However, many such factors are difficult to operationalize in simple ways. For instance, the size of a grammar book is not always related to its inherent usefulness, quality or even comprehensiveness. The availability of an item is difficult to determine easily (at least as a numerical value). Indeed, there are seemingly only two factors that can be handled without stumblig onto major difficulties, and still get a reasonably informative result: number of titles or works (W) and time span (T). These can be worked into a formula as follows:

In general, one grammar book equals a W value of 1. However, many grammar books appear in second, third, fourth, etc., editions. It seems unintuitive to give a second edition the same weight as a first edition. After all, it is still essentially the same book, albeit with some minor or major revisions. Hence it seems convenient to distinguish primary works (W1) from secondary works (W2). While primary works are given a value of 1, secondary works are given a value of 1/3 (a third).

T (time span) represents the number of years spanning between the publication of the first and the latest grammar. For instance, my bibliography includes 135 primary works (grammar books) for Swahili. The earliest of these was published in 1850, and the latest in 2006. This gives a time span of 156 years. In order for this number not to inflate the calculations unnecessarily, it needs to be whittled down a bit, which is why I use the square root of the actual time span in the formula.

By adding the total number of primary works (W1), with a third of the total number of secondary works (W2), and the square root of the time span (T), we get a total index value representing the descriptional density (DD) for any given particular language.

Here, then, is a list of fifteen of the largest Bantu languages spoken in Africa, ranked according to their DD (descriptional density) values:

Notice how the ranking only roughly corresponds to the actual number of grammar descriptions (whether we look at primary works only or primary and secondary works jointly). By taking time span into account, we get a bit more sophisticated picture of how well-described any given language is. As already mentioned, I have only looked at grammar descriptions. For a more comprehensive look, I need to look also at dictionaries, but that is a project for another sleepless night.

You can read more details about this here.

There are many ways in which one can read literary texts. One can interpret them at face value, or one can read various things into them. For instance, did you know that the stories about Winnie-the-Pooh and his friends comprise an allegory of male sexuality; in fact, a very old-fashioned one. With the exception of Kanga, all characters are male, and they each represent different aspects of male sexuality and associated desires, inhibitions, fears, prejudices, etc. The stories also include a typically male (albeit ancient) bipolar view of female sexuality: the caring Madonna (Kanga) and the always-accessible whore (the honey pot).

1. Winnie-the-Pooh is the personification of male (adolescent) sexuality. He is not quite sure what he wants, or even who he is. His actions are often hampered by his fears or his ignorance. Winnie-the-Pooh is in fact a symbol for the penis.

2. The Honey Pot, Winnie-the-Pooh’s favourite thing, represents the male fantasy of a vagina. It is the ultimate objectification of female sexuality. It is passive, will-less, and locked up in a safe place until male lust (i.e. Winnie-the-Pooh) wants a piece of it. As such, the Honey Pot is also a symbol for the whore.

3. Piglet is the unwilling virgin. He is the little kid who wants to be a big kid, like all his friends. Piglet represents the young adolescent’s frustrations and insecurities about never being sure if the others think he’s a grown-up or if they know he’s just a kid pretending to be a grown-up.

4. The Owl represents pretence. He wants to be wise. He tries very hard to appear wise. In fact, he has come to live the image he has created for himself. He is the guy who wants wants everyone else to think he knows all about what to do with the girls, but in reality he is just the same fumbling fool as the rest of us.

5. Eeyore is downbeat, cautious, self-pitying. He is always holding himself back, never allowing himself to enjoy things. He wants new experiences (i.e. date girls), but he is never likely to do so, because he fears what it might lead to. Eeyore is the personification of repressed sexuality.

6. Rabbit is that annoying acquaintance we all know, who is convinced that he is more experienced and mature than anyone else. He is different from the Owl, who knows his limitations but hides them, while Rabbit has no self-awareness at all. He wants to be in charge of all things around him, because he knows best, even when he doesn’t. In the bedroom, Rabbit is the one with the whip, always in fear of loosing control.

7. The Heffalump represents everything that our mothers warned us about, such as bad company, unhealthy living, strangers in cars, etc., as well as their consequences, like unwanted pregnancies, naughty diseases, and so on. Still, we’re all curious animals, and we’re strangely drawn to the Heffalump, perhaps because it is so taboo. The irony of the Heffalump is, of course, that it is no independent danger at all, but a part of our own beings. In fact, the search for the Heffalump represents all those trials and errors we make as young adolescents looking for love, identity, and adulthood. Hence the Heffalump is a symbol of puberty, or more specifically, an escalating awareness of our own sexuality.

8. Kanga represents the teenage mother. (Roo is her child.) Kanga is a mother because she wasn’t afraid of the Heffalump, or at least not afraid enough. But even so, she is a responsible mother. In fact, Kanga is a symbol for the Madonna. Her main role in the story is to control Roo’s unlimited lust for life, clearly in a vain attempt to stop him from repeating her mistake(s).

9. Roo, Kanga’s baby, is the fearless, life-enjoying optimist. He is totally without inhibitions and fears. He represents all our desires for constant adventure and joy. He is like a stereotypical hippie advocating free, boundless sex. He is always willing to jump into anything, as long as it looks fun. And if it doesn’t look fun, he’ll jump into it anyway.

10. Tigger is a wannabee adventurer who wants to enjoy life, but is too dumb to understand what or why things happen the way they do. As he lacks Roo’s naive self-confidence, he also lacks the courage to go all the way. He is the insecure boy who wants to hit on the pretty girls, but always gets cold feet in the last moment (eminently exemplified in stories by Tigger climbing into the tree and freezing). Tigger represents unfulfilled sexual desires, which makes him the eternal masturbator (symbolised by his constant bouncing up and down).

11. Christopher Robin is the only genuinely asexual character in the story. In a way, he is God. He gave life to all the characters. He is the moderator of their lives. He feels for them and cares for them. He is the benevolent, respectful leader we all wish we had.

I hope you can still enjoy Winnie-the-Pooh.

(Apologies to Bruno Bettelheim.)

Why is it that people persist in labelling African conflicts “ethnic”?

Virtually any African conflict is immediately labelled “ethnic” (or worse, “tribal”) without any deeper consideration of the actualities involved. The rioting in Kenya following the elections in late 2007 were referred to as ethnic. The Rwandan Genocide is still often referred to as an ethnic conflict, even though there were no ethnic groups involved. But hey, it’s Africans. And they’re fighting. Ergo it must be ethnic/tribal.

It is true, of course, that some people invoke ethnicity as some sort of justification when making decisions (political or otherwise), or when applying simplistic (often post-hoc) explanations to otherwise complex social issues. Politicians are usually guilty of the former, journalists of the latter.

But, the fact that there are ethnic groups in Africa (like anywhere else in the world, incl. Europe) does not justify labelling African conflicts ethnic. Ethnicity is/was not a causing (or even relevant) factor in Rwanda, nor in Kenya, nor in Sudan, nor anywhere else in Africa. When it comes to conflicts, ethnicity is, and always has been, a pseudo-issue.

Conflicts in Africa, just like everywhere else in the world, have their roots in issues dealing with access to power and resources, not people’s ethnicities. It would be much more apt to use labels like “political” or even “social” instead, in as much as any single label can be valid.

Labelling African conflicts ethnic is not only wrong. It is evil. It perpetuates harmful misconceptions about African conflicts in particular, and Africa and Africans in general. It makes most people think of African conflicts as if they are some sort of spontaneous, inexplicable outbursts of violence born out of age-old “ethnic rivalries”. This image stems from old colonial desires to impose “proper” law and order in Africa. Fighting is just something they do down there. They can’t help it. It’s part of their culture. Why else would people refer to the conflicts as “ethnic”?

By comparison, the different sides in the Northern Ireland conflict divide themselves (largely) along religious lines. You have the Protestant on one side, and you have the Catholics on the other. Does that make the Northern Ireland conflict a religious conflict? Is religion a key factor in the conflict? Is religion a causing factor? Does the Northern Ireland conflict become more understandable if we think of it as a religious conflict? No, of course it doesn’t. There are religious components involved, sure, but religion is not causing the conflict, nor is it a particularly important factor. It would be simplistic and irresponsible to reduce the Northern Ireland conflict to a matter of religion.

Similarly, African conflicts cannot be reduced to a matter of ethnicity. Ethnicity is not a causing factor. It’s intellectually irresponsible to single out ethnicity as an all-important factor in African conflicts. It’s not. It’s about politics, power, resources. Referring to African conflicts as ethnic is just as inaccurate and irresponsible as labelling the Northern Ireland conflict religious.

Welcome to Blogala Maho, my own private cyber outlet; me being Jouni Maho. This is my first blog, so please bear with me.

I will be using this mainly for ranting against various things, such as inappropriate use of language, the hype about endangered languages, blind faith (be it religious or secular), and other things.

I will also be raving about things that happen to fancy me at the moment, be it books, movies, TV shows, food, whatever.

Blogala Maho has no pronounced focus other than that, at least for the moment. At some remote, unspecified future time, this blog could well find a more focused purpose of existence. Only time can tell.