Narrow Bantu classification

Print

Narrow Bantu classification

Linda Jordan, Wed, 2022-11-02 17:31
Regarding: 
Classification
State
Closed
ISO 639-3: 
olu

While taking a closer look at the classification of Kuvale [olu] and related languages, I noticed there is a major difference between the way Narrow Bantu classification is presented in Ethnologue and Glottolog. Specifically, Ethnologue seems to follow Maho (2009) for classifying the Bantu Zone R languages, while Glottolog seems to follow Vansina (2004). Maho provides a useful update of Guthrie's (1971) original list, but comparative studies have been done that are not restricted by the framework of the Guthrie zones, which were geographically defined. For the languages with which I'm familiar, Vansina's classification scheme makes more sense linguistically and appears to be more current in the literature among Bantuists. It might be helpful to revisit Ethnologue's classification of Narrow Bantu languages in general.   

Editorial Action

We will pass this on to the Ethnologue Language Classification Editor for her response.

Comments

Chuck Fennig, Wed, 2022-11-09 14:40

Dear Linda,

Thanks for your thoughts on Guthrie's comparative model and what Glottolog has, specifically for the Bantu Zone R languages.

I will pass this on to Colleen Ahland, Ethnologue's Language Classification Editor, and she can respond to you.

Blessings,

Chuck Fennig
Managing Editor, Ethnologue

colleen_ahland, Wed, 2022-11-09 16:44

Hi Linda,

Linda, I whole-heartedly agree. The Guthrie classifications were used because there was nothing better at the time. But geographical classifications are not the ideal. We will look into Vansina 2004 and see if that is more the consensus classification these days.

Thanks for directing us to this issue.

Best,

Colleen Ahland
Classifications Editor

Add new comment

View the Discussion