Talk:Mbunda language

People
Extensive ethnographic info belongs in a separate article on the people. However, the huge text that was added appears to have been plagiarized, so I simply deleted it. — kwami (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency?
@Kwami: there is an article on Mbunda language in pt:WP as well. However, in the template there the "classification tree" differs slightly from the one here. Most strikingly, the category "Chokwe-Luchaz" (which you may have introduced in en:WP) is lacking there. Any explanation or comment? -- Aflis (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like they simply didn't bother with the details. Check out their other articles: Lunda, for example, isn't classified any more closely than "Bantu".


 * Mbunda has been classified as K10 (Chokwe–Luchazi/Ciokwe-Luchazi) since Guthrie (1948), continuing through Maho's update in 2009 and even in Ethnologue. Our classification comes specifically from Nurse & Philippson (2003), who state these languages form a valid node. Other taxons have come and gone, but it would seem this one is so obvious that no-one has challenged it. — kwami (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

kwami (talk) I have reinstated the previous version of Mbunda language which was a contribution of Aflis (talk). It has all the references and I do not think there was need to revise it the way you did without a consensus Libingi (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The references were not WP:Reliable sources. In particular, chekechambunda.org says that the Bantu languages come from Sudan, which is nonsense. If they are wrong about that, they are likely to be wrong about other things. There were also unencyclopedic statements such as the "Mbunda language is lazy". The preceding sentence apparently meant that Zambian Mbunda has the sound /θ/, but we'd need a reference to be sure. (As it was stated, it didn't make much sense.) — kwami (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the whole article has yet to be ironed out. The Cheke Cha Mbunda website is based on a rich oral history of the Mbunda, and contains a wealth of interesting information, but commits the fundamental error of taking the oral narratives at face value, instead of systematically checking them with the help of other kind of sources. Still, a basic article is in my view fully justified at this stage, hoping that others will improve and develop it later. -- Aflis (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's more than oral narrative. You couldn't locate a place in Sudan from oral narratives in Angola. Rather, the author presumably took oral narratives and reinterpreted them based on his own understanding of history, which means that we're not even crediting oral history, but relying on the quality of his personal education. How reliable oral history is a matter of debate (some seems to be remarkably accurate, but how far back can you go?), but you end up with all sorts of nonsense when you start reinterpreting it based on what you want to be true: Did you know that there are Ewe inscriptions on the pyramids? etc. There are hundreds of ridiculous claims like that, which is why it's important to stick to RSs. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@kwami (talk) and Aflis (talk), Kwamikagami might argue about Sudan but to conclusively state that "if they were wrong about Sudan, 'in his opion' then they are likely to be wrong about other things" cannot be sustained. Look at the empirical evidence of the Mbunda migration from KOLA to the confluence of Kwilu and Kasai rivers, and then the now Angola, he is trying to destroy and have deleted as a consequence! In his recent edit of Mbunda language, he accepts that "Ethnologue lists Yauma as "unclassified", an apparent error, as it also notes that it is "part of the Ngangela subgroup" of the Chokwe–Luchazi (K.10) Bantu languages. Nkangala, Not to be confused with the Ngangela language". Why not equally agree that Ethnologue errored in coding Mbunda of Angola and Zambia different from Mbunda of DRC Congo at Bandundu (confluence of Kwilu and Kasai rivers}? The Sudan research is based on a hard working collective responsibility of an Association, not an individual author as he has put it. Even a Bible can be termed an oral narrative if you like. He cannot tell me that all people in Angola or Europe originated from where they exist, when the Bible says people originated from the Garden of Eden in the Middle East and spread to all parts of the World. I therefore question the credibility of his statement that Bantu languages did not originate from Sudan. Sudan is one of the migration routes of the Bantu languages after the separation of languages by God at the Tower of Babel, spreading to all parts of the World (the Bible narrates). Yes I agree with him that "How reliable oral history is a matter of debate (some seems to be remarkably accurate, but how far back can you go?)" obviously to the creation of man for those that work hard to do so, but calling other people's contributions as "nonsence" without a debate is rediculous. Look how porous the Wikipedia's accepted reference at Bantu is that "Bantu languages are believed to have originated in what is now Cameroon in West Africa.Philip J. Adler, Randall L. Pouwels, World Civilizations: To 1700 Volume 1 of World Civilizations, (Cengage Learning: 2007), p.169. An estimated 2500–3000 years ago, speakers of the proto-Bantu language began a series of migrations eastward and southward, carrying agriculture with them. This Bantu expansion came to dominate Sub-Saharan Africa east of Cameroon, an area where Bantu peoples now constitute nearly the entire population. name="Adler" name="Falola">Toyin Falola, Aribidesi Adisa Usman, Movements, borders, and identities in Africa, (University Rochester Press: 2009), p.4". This is clearly in opposition to what the Bible teaches. Excessive power destroys, lets us debate on what others contribute to reach a consensus, rather than a spirit of all knowing. We are there to correct the misconcerptions created by those that are trying to write the Mbunda History, for instance; the Katavola and Ciyengele dialects given at Bantu-Languages.com, citing Maniacky 1997, which is prefered dispite it being the only reference, is a misconcerption, because Katavolas were the nineteen and twentieth Mbunda Monarchs (King Katavola I Mwechela and King Katavola II Muthangu), the dialect is Mbunda Mathzi. Ciyengele was the fifteenth Mbunda Monarch who left Mbundaland to Barotseland in 1795, shortly after succeeding his father, the fourteenth Mbunda Monarch. This chieftainship still exists in Mongu, Zambia. The dialect that developed as a result of that migration is known as "Mbunda Shamuka or simply Shamuka". We will not allow deliberate distortion of the Mbunda History, no matter from who. It might result in serious litigation consequences, if not properly handled. He warns others "Please don't edit war over the articles. Discuss them on the talk page, and follow the consensus there, per "BOLD", but is he not "war edting" without a talk page consensus?. Libingi (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Libingi: We are reaching a point where I begin to have serious doubts whether it makes sense to continue the discussion. Kwamigakami and myself are working and arguing as scholars, although we apparently belong to different communities (he seems to be a linguist, while I myself am a social scientist). We are both acutely aware of the logic of an "open encyclopedia" like Wikipedia. All this has led on your side to misunderstandings of which you visibly are not aware, and which in turn have given rise to emotional and other reactions that have been detrimental to constructive communication. My impression by now is that these misunderstandings cannot be overcome by a discussion in writing, on Wikipedia. The only way out I can see would be a lengthy face to face discussion, for which we unfortunately shall not have the opportunity. In this situation, I really don't know what conclusion to draw. Maybe it is best to simply suspend the discussion for some time. -- Aflis (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Aflis (talk) Please I request you to take time to read this. I like your approach to these issues, your age and vast experience is obviously a great contributing factor. I am 59 year and 7 months. I indeed have a lot of respect for you and scholars in general. If Wikipedia administrators were appointed by a vote, you would definately get mine. However, your doubts about the continuity of our discussion should not discourage you. The fact that the opportunity to have a length face to face discussion is remote, that is why there is this talk page opportunity. Like I indicated in our previous discussions, people should tone down and respect other contributors by not using remarks that raise emotions in others. I am not the only one, I have read many others contributors on Wikipedia getting emotional because of other editors deleting their edits without consensus. If Wikipedia is to have improved articles with consensus, powers to delete, warn and block editors should be limited to administrator because "they are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved"  administrator.

A recap on our previous consensus discussions: 1) Oral history is no doubt a fundamental source, but like all other sources, it has its limitations and risks. The only way out of this dilemma is to combine sources and methods - and the "look from within" with the "look from the outside" Aflis (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC) PS: I found the exact reference of the book you mention above. 2)  I have by now discovered that it is (apparently) in two university libraries in the UK, but have not found out where it might be on sale. As a provisional solution, I have added a few lines plus a reference to your book & website to the "Ganguela" articles to the English as well as to the Portuguese Wikipedia. NB: I think I shall transfer this discussion of the Mbunda to your personal talk page. -- Aflis (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC). 3) That is why I drew interest in coversing with you, so that Wikipedia gets authentic by contact with the ethnic groups appearing on its documents. For instance the tribal map appearing on Wikipedia, classifying southeast Angola as Ngangela is quetionable and not even debatable. It doen't depict the official position. Remember my earlier question: Who is to check the Mbunda history, if not the Mbunda themselves? This is the reason we are exposing the Mbunda history and sharing it with the world, so that those that feel they are masters of history can challenge us, if they know it otherwise.Libingi (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC). 4)  PS: It seems that the language spoken by the people called Mbunda in the Democratic Republic of Congo has nothing to do with the language spoken by the Mbunda of Angola/Zambia: see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=mck. That would then mean this is a different people. Also see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=zmp. -- Aflis (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC). 5) There is a slight complication: I just rediscovered that there is an article Bunda people which is exclusively on the Mbunda who remained in the DR Congo. Maybe it is best to maintain this article for the time being, write the article on the Mbunda as a whole, and decide then whether the two articles should be merged, or then maintained as separate but interlinked pieces. -- Aflis (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC). 6)  In the meantime, let me draw your attention to the article on Mbunda language where a user - whom I know to be a linguist - has eliminated the whole text not referred to language. As a consequence, only one line of text plus the template have survived. I wonder whether you yourself, or somebody you know, can add some more information (on language, not people). -- Aflis (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC). 7) As indicated earlier, the unfortunate part of our (Mbunda) history is that it has been decimated by the Wars in Angola and a deliberate Colonialist policy of divide and rule. When you will get our history book, you will see that a lot of information on the Mbunda has been suppressed. However, I conquer with http://www.bantu-languages.com/fr/zonek.html it shows clearly that; Yauma, Nkangala, Mbalango, Ndundu, and Sango langueges of Angola are all dialects of Mbunda language. That is in agreement with our research in the Mbunda History Book. Even the language map they show is acceptable to a larger extent.Libingi (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC). 8)  @Libingi: In order to avoid problems, I copy-edited the whole article, giving it a wording & structure in line with the nature of an encyclopedia (which you apparently have not yet fully understood!). I have maintained a short summary of the historical trajectory of the Mbunda - just the information necessary for understanding the information on the language. This information (text & template together) is for the time being satisfactory, so that I have deleted the classification of the article as a stub. However, what is still lacking, and what I am not capable of furnishing, is a modicum of linguistic information as you find it in articles on other languages (e.g. Khoekhoe language) Aflis (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC). 9) Thanks, to me the article looks reasonably balanced. However, the Mbunda coding as a subgroup of Chokwe-Luchazi is erroneous. On 11 November 2011, @Kwamikagami edited it to "Chokwe-Luchazi. At Chokwe–Luchazi, it clearly shows that "With the exception of Chokwe, the Angolan government refers to these languages as Mbunda or Ngangela". Why then, not editing it as Chokwe-Mbunda or simply Mbunda, since "Nganguela" is one of these ethnographical classification categories invented during colonial times (in a series of African countries) which do not correspond to one people held together by a common social identity?". Or is it still "a wrong understanding of what a linguistic classification category is, as to do with (economic, social, political or other) relations between peoples"! Libingi (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC).

For me the above was a constructive debate and if someone followed it, the result would not have been termed noncense. My respect for scholars is that they know the theory of it, but practical is something else. If I say Mbunda language is spoken lazily in Angola, a linquisit will take it a unencyclopedic statements, but as a Mbunda I know the attributes of this language because I speak it. To say "the author presumably took oral narratives and reinterpreted them based on his own understanding of history" is not strange because Mbundas are reinterpreting oral narratives as given by their forefathers to write their history and not theories or information picked from websites and books written by foreighners as references. Therefore your statement: "combine sources and methods - and the "look from within" with the "look from the outside" is more reasonable. Remember the "Darwin Theory" acclaimed by the World scholars which has turned out to be a fraud but still being taught.

I suggest we continue to discuss this topic, by way of "look from within" with the "look from the outside" to find a consensus, as long as we respect other people's views. Libingi (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edits are not acceptable, at least as they currently stand. Please read WP:OR and WP:RS to see why. (Although since you obviously never read WP:BOLD, I don't really expect you to read these either.) — kwami (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read them all and thanks. I hope we will all continue to work together to find WP:RS to improve this article and complete the Mbunda migration as the owners know it. Libingi (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you could read WP:BOLD again? Your comments above suggest that you did not understand it. If you're the one proposing the material, you're the one who needs to get consensus, not the person reverting you. — kwami (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits are better. However, I still reverted them because: (1) much of them are about the people, and so belong at Mbunda people; (2) some of the sources are not RS's, such as Duffy claiming Mbunda is spoken in Congo; (3) some of the references do not support the claims they are used for, such as Bantu.com; (4) or are contradicted by our sources (Mpuono/Bunda). — kwami (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am beginning to really love this. My main problem has been to separate language from people. Aflis (talk) had indicated this to me earlier, when he created a Mbunda people page from Mbunda language which is still being worked on. I believe some of these references will be useful. I will continue sourcing. Libingi (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Libingi and Kwami: Ok, I am back, although struggling with health problems. I am glad to see that in this article things are being sorted out thanks to the dialogue between the two of you. I shall thus refrain from interfering here, but hope to, in the next days, be able to turn to "Mbunda people". Aflis (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

References: 1). It seems that these groups can be traces back to a distinct population of Early Bantu speakers who immigrated into the area some time during the first millenium A.D. from a northerly directionTerms of Trade and Terms of Trust: The History and Context of pre-colonial market production around Upper Zambezi and Kasai, pg 103: by Achim von Oppen, - Münster, Hamburg: Lit (Studien zur Afrikanischen Geschichte, Bb6) ISBN 3-89473-246-6; Oliver, 1978; 401. 2). ''Although the history of Bantu migration is still the subject of a longstanding debate, linguists and archaeologists now seem to agree that grain cultivattion was invented somewhere in the Central Sudan zone and transported to South Central Africa by Bantu speakers through the Savannahs east of the equatorial rain forest during the first half of the first millenium A.D. . Libingi (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

kwami (talk) Why (rv) again when the source used is a Social Science material and qualify on Wikipedia policy, as Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources and Identifying reliable sources check item 2.1 - Scholarship according to Wikipedia policy and not reliable linguistic sources as you put it? I suggest we leave it for others to contribute on the talk page too, instead of undoing it, I believe that is what consesus is. Libingi (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the RS policy again, and you'll see why I ask for linguistic sources. Those are obviously two different languages. — kwami (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), this is healthy and at least your objection tone is acceptable. I once mentioned that I value your linguistic expertise as we research and expand these articles. However the latter part of vocabulary concerning months and seasons of the year, which have also been removed seem acceptable in Lozi than Mbunda language! Ndandulalibingi (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that we have other bad articles in not an argument that we should make more of them. Word lists belong at Wiktionary, not here, unless the words themselves are the topic.
 * I did use the ref to add the sound inventory to Luchazi, though I fear that it's incomplete. (E.g., they say that Mbunda dental t is equivalent to Luchazi ts, but there is no Luchazi ts.)  It would be interesting to have the inventory for Mbunda, but I can't figure it out.  Is thz supposed to be the th sound in "then"?  Etc. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok @kwami (talk), here it is; Mbunda inventory is as follows: ndthz, th, ths, thz. These are the ones difficult and different from other languages. In spoken comparison to Luchazi; ndthzita (Mbunda) - Nzita (Luchazi) meaning, war; thala (Mbunda) - sala (Luchazi) meaning, remain; kuthsa (Mbunda) - kutsa (Luchazi) meaning, dying; thzala (Mbunda) - zala (Luchazi) meaning, dress up. Pronounciation of them is similar except for the dental stress. I hope this will help you to come up with something linguistically. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing, based on the description in the text, that those would be . That is, that there is no th or s sound in kuthsa, but only a t sound. And similarly, maybe, ndthzita has no th or z sound in it.  Is that right?  — kwami (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), interesting but no indeed. You have to listen to a Mbunda original (not what is commonly spoken in Angola today) and a Luchazi speaking. the th or z are unique in all instances. If you leave them out, you will be speaking Luchazi. Here is how it goes: ndthz is sounded by, as though you are biting your tongue and suddenly and forcebly releasing it. ths is sounded by as though you are biting your tongue and suddenly releasing the air gently. thz is sounded by touching below your up teeth with the tongue and releasing the air gently. th is sounded by passing the air between the upper teeth and the tongue. No wonder Emil Pearson quickly concluded that Mbunda and Luchazi are the same, but not. We have to differentiate otherwise one language will be distinct depending on one's choice. And in this case Emil Pearson chose to promote Luchazi by creating Ngangela and made Mbunda subject of Ngangela. http://www.mbundakingdom.org/News11.htm Anyway, I didn't want you to that detail, but for your information only. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, such descriptions are not enough for people to understand. If we can't describe the sounds intelligibly, then we really can't include them in the article.  — kwami (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), here are further indicators that can shed more light on my descriptions above: th as in thela meaning beewax; the sounds as in thesis in English. thz as in thzanga meaning love; thza sounds as in that in English. These sounds therefore change uniquely as we add on nd to thz for ndthz and s instead of z to thz for ths. Unfortunately, I cannot find corresponding sounds for those in English. Does this make any sense? Ndandulalibingi (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I figure one of them might be like tenth. But what's the difference between th and ths?  According to the reference that you used, ths is a t sound, not a th sound.
 * If you can't explain them, you could try posting sound clips. — kwami (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), yes I agree th is like tenth. For thz is like tha in that. The rest, I hope the sound clips as suggested may help. If the clips are not clear, I can re-do them. Mbunda language sounds tha, thza, thsa, ndthza. The Mbunda language sounds ndthza, thza, thsa. The Mbunda language sounds ndthzita, thala, kuthsa, thzala. The last sound meant for Luchazi sounds better for Mbunda. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that sounds very much like the description in your ref. The 3rd recording seems pretty clear:  ndthzita, thzala , kuthsa , thala .  (With the 2nd, I can't tell if it's ndthzita  or .)


 * What would be interesting for the article is if you could give a contrast between ndthita and ndita, kuthsa and kuta, because that's what native English speakers would have a hard time with. I think sound files would be a nice addition to the article. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), if it is linguistically accepted I have no problem. However, the contrast between kuthsa and kuta is that the latter means something else in Mbunda, it means setting a trap. As for ndthzita and ndita there happens to be no word that I no to contrast, accept I agree, adding sound files would make the reader get the grasp of the sound, if in doubt and perhaps writing them with those signs bellow will make a difference. You have been very helpful; I feel we have come to understand each other better. I suggest you make additions to the article yourself professionally. Please keep up the good work. Note also, as you may know already that Mbunda also has five vowels as any other language southeast of Angola and Zambia. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), check the "vocabulary" section above, I have added sound files to all difficult Mbunda consonants and words and uploaded to the article. I hope this will help you to polish up professionally. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for that. I've tried to clean it up.  I removed the sound files from the first table because it wasn't clear what they showed, and they were duplicated in the second table, where they were clear.  I changed the first table to a contrast of prenasalized stops.  I relied on the description of Luchazi for part of it, and I don't know that all of those sounds actually exist in Mbunda.  If you could give sample words for the first consonant table, that would be a big help.  (also, you had n alternating with d.  Does that mean that n appears where one would expect nt?  I deleted that line, since I couldn't understand it.)  In the alphabet table, I have no idea what "c" is.  Also, if you could give sound files for the other words illustrating the alphabet, that would also be useful.  It's a big job, though, so I think "t" and "d" (and maybe "c") would be priorities.  Once we've established which consonants occur in Mbunda, we could create a simple IPA chart for all of them.
 * Are any of the sounds only found in loan words? — kwami (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), thank you, thank you, and thank you again for your time and good work. I am already receiving appreciative messages from informed Mbundas all over the world. Be assured, you have friends in Mbundas. Yes, your reliance on the description of Luchazi is acceptable, it is indeed similar. I can confirm all of those sounds exist in Mbunda except the th, ths, thz and ndthz, which we have covered before. Agreed, "n" appears where one would expect "nt". We have words like "tanta" meaning dip the morsel of food in soup. You will notice there is "c" and "ch", the two have the same sound, except that "ch" is only used for nouns whereas "c" is for ordinary words. As for your last question, no any sounds that I know of, only found in loan words. I will work on your suggestions. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), I am done with all the assignments. Have I left out anything? Ndandulalibingi (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good! I wish we had this much coverage for all our languages.
 * Examples for the aspirated prenasalized consonants would be nice, in case some don't actually occur.
 * So, are c and ch pronounced exactly the same, or is there some slight difference, such as aspiration? Is it possible to have a minimal pair, say cala vs chala, or would those be pronounced the same?  — kwami (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@kwami (talk), I will give examples for the aspirated prenasalized consonants. Cala and chala are pronounced the same way. Since there is already a noun "Chiyambi" in the table, that is why I have removed "cala" from the table because it is supposed to be spelt as "chala" and not "cala". Even "ciyambi" or "chiyambi" are pronounced the same way, without any slightest difference. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Do some people like to write "c" and some like "ch", or is there a functional difference?
 * Those are the voiced consonants. I was thinking of the voiceless ones mp, nths, nt, nch, nk, where we don't even have written examples.
 * Does ndthz always occur before the vowel "i"? — kwami (talk)

@kwami (talk), sorry I didn't get you right. In Mbunda there are following voiceless consonants:
 * "kw" for 'kwata' meaning 'take',
 * "ly" for 'lyambayi' meaning 'zambezi' or 'for Mbayi',
 * "mb" for 'mbati' meaning 'tortoise',
 * "mp" for 'mpako' meaning 'hole in a tree trunk',
 * "mw" for 'mwaka' meaning 'year',
 * "ng" for 'ngoco' meaning 'free',
 * "nk" for 'nkoma' meaning 'tobacco snuff container',
 * "nt" for 'ntakwithzi' stock bowrer',
 * "ntw" for 'ntwama' meaning 'first'
 * "ndthz" for 'ndthzalya' meaning 'beat' (musculine),
 * "th" for 'thata' meaning 'paste',
 * "ths", for 'thseka' meaning 'grind',
 * "thz" for 'thzangama' meaning 'be clever',
 * "tw" for 'twala' meaning 'deliver'
 * In mbunda there are no words starting with "nths" or "nch".
 * Yes, ndthz covers all vowels: ndthza, ndthze, ndthzi, ndthzo, ndthzu.

I hope I got you right this time. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those that do not know the functional difference of a noun write anyhow and the majority do not bother to check them out because the pronounciation is the same. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I removed nch from our list.
 * I think part of the problem might be terminology. Most of those sounds are voiced.  You might find it useful to read voice (phonetics). — kwami (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref, I get it. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Mbunda as a national language
I have searched the internet extensively, including all the relevant Angolan sites, I have consulted all the sources supplied by the other editor(s) and nowhere I found any evidence that Mbunda was ever one of the "six national languages" selected by the Angolan authorities. The search used various spellings of the search terms in Portugues and English to ensure that nothing escaped under the radar. There are numerous mentions of a number of languages, Mbunbda being one of them, being studied by the authorities with a view to being promoted as a national language in the future, some at this stage still at the phase of preparation of spelling rules, others already in trial phase being taught at schools. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New source presentend
Hi Ndandula Libingi. Please note that whereas I welcome this new source as valuable and interesting - and will be looking into it to gather information -, nowhere does it say that Mbunda was selected as one of the so-called "six national languages". What the source says is this: I cite the case of Luchazi because that is the ONLY mention of direct attribution of the term "national language" to a specific language in the text. The remainder of the text is about the development of orthography. Developing an orthography for a language is not the same as that language being accorded the status of a national language. I would also remind you that before independence a number of languages already had orthographies. I clearly remember as a child going to school I used to read letters written in cuanhama for people who could not read. Consult any works by Estermann et al, and you will see that quite a few languages were already written, as you yourself have prove by repeatedly citing in your efforts to discredit Nganguela that it was the invention of a missionary (on this score too, you fail to read and adequaltely interpret what it says. I look forward to work with you once you start using sources as evidence for editions, but not if you abuse source to mask over the absence of proof that will bear out what you have set out to achieve. In suma, we still have no evindence that Mbunda was once one of the "six national languages". Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A number of languages were classified as national languages, including Ganguela;
 * Orthographies were developed for six languages, one of these being Mbunda
 * Unlike in Zambia, in Angola Luchazi was not chosen among those considered national languages.
 * Ok Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk), let us leave it there. I have hard copy documents to that effect including the pulled down site document, but off course I can't use them as sources. I thank you for your contribution. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

More New Sources
Hi! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) I don't know the difference in the method I use to search the internet to yours, but the sources I give below and used in my current edit all show that the selection of Mbunda among the six National languages was the first of its kind after independence for creation of alphabets, as shown under the Angola paragraph in this article [here on page 3] and the other one even giving Ngangela as a substitute to Mbunda as Mbunda-Ngangela [here]. I am equally including the pulled down site in English, but now in Portuguese [here] and a Presidential decree [here] and other Angolan Embassy sites [here], [here] and [here]. Of late there has been similar pronouncements from the authorities like; [here] and [here]. I can assure you, I am not Mbunda - centric and I am certain that the sources I have given above prove that I am not using sources to mask over the absence of proof that will bear out what I have set out to achieve but give evindence that Mbunda was once one of the "six national languages", according to what is written and giving more light on my edits. Copied to Nyttend (talk)

Ndandulalibingi ([[User:Ndandulalibingi|Ndandulalibingi (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)talk]]) 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ndandulalibingi. I have had only a cursory look at some of the links that you provided and they certainly look exciting. I have not yet had the time to see how they support the claim re national languages and will do so soon. However, for now I see that you have put back Papstein, which, I pointed out before does not say anything on the matter of the "six national lamguages", which is why I had removed it. Please remove that. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk), Papstein was not put there to support the "six national languages" but to support the claim that; "Pearson created Ngangela language by mixing Mbunda, Luchazi, Luvale and Lwimbe". This is how we agreed with Kwami, ref. Ngangela subject on 30 August, 2013 [here], leading to Kwami phrasing the latter part the way it is on Ngangela and made redirects as they were before you made your redirect to Nganguela. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Papstein
Please refrain from using or referring to Papstein, it is not an independent work, it was commissioned by your organisation, compiled by your organisation. It does not meet the criteria for independent sources and put you at risk of being investigated again for COI. Wikipedia is being very liberal and generous with you editing despite the clear COI, so please, collaborate and drop references to Papstein. Thank you. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I entirely disagree with you on this point. I think there is absolutely nothing wront if a group of preople with limited academic training, but perfectly capable to profuce texts in the line of oral history asks a professsional academic to edit their vollection of texts. I happen to possoss a copy of the booklet which has resulted from this work, and I find it quite useful, especially as it is on an underresearches subject area. Quite oviously it would be desirable if there was more research on that area. -- Aflis (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Aflis, you yourself have had issues with this editor and you know that he will stop at nothing to push the Mbunda angle as far as he can and where he can. So far far this has happened because the articles have low visibility, but if properly analysed nmost will not pass muster. You clearly say that "you think" that there is nothing wrong, but there is. You know Angola as I do and you are familiar with many aspects of the country. If you allow this editor any latitude he will not stop until he has accomplished hi goal of using the WP to perpetuate the myth of this superior Mbunda culture and the Mbunda people that came from Sudan. If you can live with this type of prostitution of the project, I cannot. Take a reality check and really ask yourself what is the rightful and proportionate place of things Mbunda in the WP. So, if hear you right, then it is okay for Microsoft to pay an outside consultant to right about them, because it is then no longer Microsoft saying what the work says, is that correct? Another question: if there are hundreds of thousands of Mbundas out there, why are they not here as independent people editing the WP? Why must we have the spokesperson of the organisation editing? Oh, if you are interested, I can point out where exactly this editor lied to you and led you along. I think for me the right thing is to leave all this and take it to the adminsitratord to decide - I don't have the time to keep monitoring this guy's daydreaming. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And another questoin, Aflis, have you actually opened the sources that the editor claims support this or that fact? In most cases these are blatant lies - Sudan, for example: the sources say that the Mbundas came "from the north" or "migrated southwards". He uses this as evidence that they came from Sudan. Give me a break! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Uhhhh! Really steaming hot. However, for your information Rui, the organisation I belong to neither compiled nor commissioned Papstern's work. It is an independent project that has helped the Luvale, Chokwe, Lunda, Luchazi and others as it says [here]. ISBN for the quoted Papstein source is [here], as opposed to the Mbunda history book edited by Papstein [here]. The latter source, Cheke - Mbunda history book, if you like does not mention Ngangela to have been created by Emil Pearson in the entirety of its pages. So how could the source used be said to have been compiled and commissioned by the organisation I belong to? For your information, Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association, the authors of this book is the spokes organ of the Mbunda people not me. I even ceased to be the National Chairman of the association on 23rd February 2013 at an AGM, after serving from August 2007, thirteen years after the publication of this book. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)