| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| wcerto |
Posted - 07/08/2012 : 04:05:22 AM
Boy oh boy, my face is red.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Sep/05/ln/ln52a.html
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ricdoug |
Posted - 07/11/2012 : 2:57:00 PM
After studying the language for 7 months, I've learned that many from Hawai'i speak different dialects. American missionaries assembled a common dialect and simplified the language. Here it is from Wehehe:
http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?a=q&r=1&hs=1&e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home---00031-0000escapewin-00&q=paniolo&j=pm&hdid=0&hdds=0 :
pani.olo
nvs.
1. Cowboy (sometimes called paniolo pipi to distinguish from paniolo 2. hoʻo.pani.olo To be like a cowboy or pretend to be a cowboy.
2. (Cap.) Spaniard, Spain; Spanish. (Spanish, españnol.)
http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?a=q&r=1&hs=1&e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home---00031-0000escapewin-00&q=paniola&j=pm&hdid=0&hdds=0 :
pani.ola
Late var. of paniolo, cowboy.
So, "paniola" is the "New School" version of trying to mimick a Spanish word. Maybe our good friend Steven "Paniola" will chime in with more insight:
http://www.stevenespaniola.com/ |
| hwnmusiclives |
Posted - 07/11/2012 : 04:03:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ypochris
As a side note, just because a word can be broken into two parts and appear to be two words with an entirely different meaning does not mean that the single word holds the meaning of those two words.
So true! Thanks for pointing this out. It's almost become a pastime to take Hawaiian words and dissect them this way. But that is an unfair and inappropriate practice when the word is clearly a cognate borrowed from another language.
I never thought twice about "paniolo." It sounds like "espaniol." Because Hawaiian words never end in a consonant, they could have chosen to end the word with an "o" or an "a" or even a "u." It does not change the meaning of the word because the components of the cognate do not need to mean anything in and of themselves.
I mean... If Cyril Pahinui were any smaller a man, we wouldn't call him Cyril Pahi, would we? It's just his name!
|
| ypochris |
Posted - 07/10/2012 : 5:33:22 PM
I go with the evolving language group. I lived for thirty years within a few miles of the Parker Ranch, and never once did I hear anyone, young or old, use the term "paniola". My daughter is a paniolo, her boyfriend is a paniolo, she makes her living riding horses, riding six days a week and every Hawaiian cowboy and cowgirl she works, plays, or does rodeo with says paniolo. And I doubt any of them have ever looked at Pukui and Elbert's dictionary. They learned it from their kupuna.
As a side note, just because a word can be broken into two parts and appear to be two words with an entirely different meaning does not mean that the single word holds the meaning of those two words.
|
| TerryLiberty |
Posted - 07/10/2012 : 11:37:16 AM
Sussi:
Interesting about "Waialua" and "Wahiawa". I'm a haole with no Hawaiian background except having been stationed there with the navy for a little over three years in the early 70's. I do remember then that the locals I knew pronounced both those words with four syllables. Perhaps the common usage of the language has evolved in that respect over these 40 years? It certainly has with English. I also remember that people used to pronounce "probably" as "prob-a-bly", not "prolly". We all get a bit lazy perhaps?
Aloha. |
| malihini |
Posted - 07/10/2012 : 10:11:09 AM
While being respectful to and preserving history, one might also accept that nothing in life is static. It's a fact of nature that everything evolves including language. As for trying to pronounce things correctly as stated above, what to do when everyone you know pronounces a word incorrectly? Do you come off as a smart aleck haole or do you just go with the flow. Examples I have in mind: Waialua and Wahiawa. I have to date never heard any of my local friends pronounce it Wa-hi-a-wa or Wai-a-lua, but as 'Wai-lua and Wa-hiwa', yet I'm pretty sure the former is the correct pronunciation.
Sussi |
| Retro |
Posted - 07/09/2012 : 4:25:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TerryLiberty
So now all we have to do is settle on the plural. I vote for panioli.
Sounds like a dessert option. I'll have two, please. |
| Admin |
Posted - 07/09/2012 : 3:55:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by hwnmusiclives
What you cannot do is let these issues discourage you into completely giving up - a place I have been far too many times.
Agreed. Better to do than not do at all. If everyone stopped, then we all lose. |
| TerryLiberty |
Posted - 07/09/2012 : 2:25:33 PM
So now all we have to do is settle on the plural. I vote for panioli. |
| wcerto |
Posted - 07/09/2012 : 11:35:33 AM
I do remember discussing the onaona issue with Kihei de Silva and his esteemed scholar daughter, Kahikina. They both said that there is evidence that the old timers, the Hawaiian speakers who were no scholars in the language but who were speakers long before many of these scholars ever were twinkles in their daddies' eyes were saying ona`ona not o-now-na. Me, I would sing the song the way I have heard someone sing that I consider very knowledgeable about both the language and thte mo`olelo of a mele.
Just for the resons that Bill and Russell say -- I have butchered the language plenty with my West Virginia twang -- just like in English, drawing out my vowels just because, well, that's the way I was "drawn" to quote the Roger Rabbit movie.. People have no trouble telling me when I am mispronouncing something or even when I choose the wrong word. I am sure in something as "big" as this, I would have been corrected.
And plus.... Uncle Kihei says "paniolo" and if he was wrong, Aunty Mapu would give him the raised eyebrow or even the stink eye and NO ONE wants that, believe you me!
|
| hwnmusiclives |
Posted - 07/09/2012 : 10:18:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
quote:
As an outsider to the culture, I need to be considerably more careful as a practitioner of Hawaiian things.
Very true. We all try our hardest to do what is respectful and right.
As I see it, most of the time, you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. Is it Molokaʻi or Molokai? 
Ask two kumu and you might get two different answers. Uh oh. There is no hard and fast way to KNOW what is correct.
Would this be a bad time to raise the "onaona" and "umauma" issue again?
If not, then I wonder if instead somebody could help me pronounce "Mä'ili," the town on the leeward coast of O'ahu? 
You are "damned if you, damned if you don't." What you cannot do is let these issues discourage you into completely giving up - a place I have been far too many times.
As a native speaker (and lifelong student) of English, I don't know many people who have perfected it either. We simply aren't as protective of it.
|
| Admin |
Posted - 07/09/2012 : 09:05:48 AM
quote:
As an outsider to the culture, I need to be considerably more careful as a practitioner of Hawaiian things.
Very true. We all try our hardest to do what is respectful and right.
As I see it, most of the time, you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. Is it Molokaʻi or Molokai?
Ask two kumu and you might get two different answers. Uh oh. There is no hard and fast way to KNOW what is correct.
Generally, I can only do things as I was taught. If kumu told me to do it a certain way, I will do it. After that, if enough evidence says to do otherwise, I need to carefully consider that and make a decision. Do you listen to your kumu? Do you follow the latest research (or newspaper article)? Do you do whatever the audience is used to hearing? Well, even then, the direction you take must be evaluated on a case by case basis and ultimately comes down to a personal choice. |
| hwnmusiclives |
Posted - 07/09/2012 : 07:27:53 AM
I found the article interesting but by no means gospel - for the reasons Russell so eloquently elucidates as well as for strongly held beliefs of my own.
I have referred to "insider/outsider theory" here before, and it applies here. As an outsider to the culture, I need to be considerably more careful as a practitioner of Hawaiian things. If there is a long established practice - even if it can be proven wrong - it is but for the outsider to go along with it. All of the academic approach in the world that you can muster when learning a Hawaiian song will not endear you to your audience when they say "you're singing it wrong." For example, since Keola Donaghy's masters thesis on John Almeida and the subsequent release of the Almeida CD on Cord, I have understood - thanks to Keola - that in the song "'A'oia," Johnny had intended for the line to be sung, "Na'u 'oe, na'u no e lei ha'aheo." For decades prior to this, Hawaiians had heard - and sung - "Na'u 'oe, na'u 'oe e lei ha'aheo" - simply repeating the phrase "na'u 'oe." I have stopped trying to sing it correctly for whenever I did, one of the beloved kupuna - usually an entertainer - exclaimed that I was singing it wrong. What is one supposed to do? Get into a spitting contest over recent developments and research? All of the data in the world mean nothing when the audience is prone to confirmation bias. And correcting the kupuna will earn you nothing but a kick in the elemu.
So this is a go-along-to-get-along situation. I am not going to start singing "paniola" because I am going to get creamed every time I do.
But as long as we're dispelling long-held misconceptions (or trying to), I would love for musicians to stop using "pa'ani" to mean an instrumental solo and use instead the appropriate "ho'okani." "Pa'ani" means to play with as a toy, ball, or game. "Ho'okani" means to play an instrument. Musicians instinctively know this. You have never heard anyone say, "Come to the pa'ani ka pila!"
|
| thumbstruck |
Posted - 07/08/2012 : 1:31:21 PM
The more we learn the less we know.
Human speech is, at best, inadequate to document the human experience. Language changes incrimentally, words lost, pronunciations changed, stories barely remembered. When a language is exchanged, even more worse! |
| Russell Letson |
Posted - 07/08/2012 : 10:08:53 AM
This is why reporters (and any researchers) ignore the multiple-source rule at their peril. (Second-sourcing is for reporters on daily deadline; all others need to take the time to quadruple-check.) When I brought up the link to the article, I noticed that while it had appeared nine years ago, I had not come across its central assertion anywhere else before or since. And while I'm not an expert on Hawaiian language matters, I did put in a few years teaching undergrad courses that dealt with linguistics, lexicography, patterns of usage, and things like folk etymology, so alarm bells went off.
|
| wcerto |
Posted - 07/08/2012 : 09:31:56 AM
I consulted Keola Donaghy who said:
From the newspaper Ka Lama Hawai‘i, May 9, 1834, page 4:
ka nehiwa, o ka okoleke, o ka olelo haole, o ka olelo paniolo, o ka olelo…
It's a shame that Lee didn't bother to talk to people who could have provided a counter point to her contention. The earliest reference to "paniola" I found was 1876. There are just over 500 instances of "paniolo" in the text of the newspapers that is available, only 3 to "paniola", but it appears they are reprints of the same letter by the same gentleman, from O‘ahu.
Sad they chose to blame this on Dr. Elbert.
|
|
|
