Bend your long legs against the sofa In the Dorchester you can get your all bran I'm not into hard sports. Oh I haven't got a clue what to do with you Jesus all the things my head is going through God what am I gonna do with this crush Just whack the the old man out and get it up against your tush. Run It Wild. Go Mental. Stayt also concentrated upon special facets of the problem, attempting, for example, to explain the fact that WB and WBS are classified as malume. He explains this identification by postulating various marriages, including "marriages" with a son's wife.
The argument is illustrated by Figure 1. Ego's wife's brother A is "really" his mother's brother, because Ego's wife a is "really" the wife of his father, X. Ego's son, Y , follows the rules and marries his MBD, b. However, b "really" becomes the wife of her husband's father, Ego.
Stayt's argument breaks off at this point. However, there is no apparent reason for the classification of B now as Ego's mother's brother — unless we are asked to assume that poor b ends up as the "real" wife of Ego's father! Moreover, Stayt makes no attempt to account for the fact, which he records, that WBSS is also classified as malume. The makhulu are then related to the malume as wife-givers and their husbands, and women in the bride's female line are the true wife-givers, representing the "matri- lineal" or "feminine" principle.
These hypotheses are directly contradicted by the facts, for makhulu means any grandparent, and WF is termed makhulu. Like Stayt, she derives terminological consequences from the supposed marriage of a woman to her husband's father, and she further invokes the rule of matrilateral cross- cousin marriage.
Browse By Tag
On her argument, these two rules partly coincide, since in the ideal case of a dzekiso marriage with a MBD, a man marries his MBD while his wife really marries her husband's father. First of all, Alter is "really" married to X, her husband's. X's daughter, y, although apparently married to Ego her FZS is "really" married to Ego's father, and is thus, in a manner of speaking, Ego's mother.
If y is Ego's mother, then clearly X is Ego's mother's father rather than mother's brother. Therefore X calls Ego "child's child". Alter, as X's wife, will follow suit. Unfortunately for the argument, Ego will stubbornly call X malutne and not makhulu. This argument has various weaknesses. By Occam's Razor, the purist will object, this is a trifle elaborate. Secondly, even if one swallows the elaborate hypothesis, it will not serve to account for other elements of the terminology.
Thirdly, the attempt to link terminology and marriage patterns is made without reference to the purely affinal categories used by the Venda. If her argument were to be sustained she would have to explain why the purely affinal categories mukwasha and mazwale, which, following Stayt, she identifies as wife-givers and wife-takers, order affines in a way which differs from the classification of affines as makhulu and muduhulu, i.
Compare Tables 1 and 2. There is, however, a difficulty with this argument. The Venda classify cross-cousins as muzwala, and do not "skew" them, as in Omaha systems. A man has a "droit matrimonial secondaire" over his WBD, and in any cases is the real husband of his son's wife. The argument's impossibility is, however, neatly demonstrated by accepting Adler's challenge and considering what happens over three generations.
A coffee shop where you pay for your time? How peculiar - Telegraph
On Adler's argument, no longer novel to us, Ego "really" marries his WBD, y, who may also be the wife of his son. However, by the same argument, Ego's wife, x, is "really" married to his father. In consequence y is his "real" MBD, and we are still left to explain why her brothers should be called malumel. Adler also suggests that an Omaha principle is to be discerned in the Venda rule that if two unrelated men marry a pair of sisters, then their children cannot marry each other. This is, however, simply another way of saying that one cannot marry mother's sisters' children, a rule which applies among many peoples who favour matrilateral cross-cousin marriage.
To sum up, all these authors have concentrated on a limited range of terminological equations, in the main those by which certain kin of a wife are classified with "mother's brother" and "grandparent". All are vulnerable to the same basic criticisms:. They do not attempt to account for the system as a whole, or to explain particular features in relation to the system as a whole; and they ignore kin-types which might contradict their arguments.
Their "explanations", even of these restricted features of the terminological system, all require them to postulate "marriages" which, though fictitious or exceptional, are supposed to cause the features they are trying to explain. The whole theoretical effort may be summed up as the "explanation" of three kin categories makhulu, malume and muduhulu as the products — at least in part — of three marriage prescriptions, with the MBD, SW and WBD, two of which have, to say the least, a dubious ethnographic status. The shortcomings of these analyses are perhaps most apparent if one asks, what did the authors think that they were explaining?
The answer seems to be, either what they took to be intrinsic peculiarities, or features which contradicted theoretical expectations, or, most commonly, traits which appeared to be unusual when their neighbours, the Lovedu and the Tsonga, were taken to represent a. Yet I am sure that all these writers would agree that in principle one cannot explain or compare isolated traits! The Heath Robinson contraptions we have been examining are perhaps the inescapable consequence of trying to solve ad hoc, probably spurious "problems" with reference to one or two hastily selected pieces of ethnographic bric a brae, which, for some reason, have caught the analyst's eye.
I shall briefly compare the Venda with the Lovedu, and, in particular, compare their kinship terminologies, in order to indicate the very different sort of perspective presented even by a preliminary but more ordered comparison of systems. Both the Venda and Lovedu tribes were formed by off-shoots of Shona tribes who imposed themselves as ruling sections upon local Sotho-speaking majorities.
The Lovedu now speak a Sotho language.
The Venda retain a Karanga grammatical structure, but Sotho is the main source of their vocabulary Kruger ; Lestrade One might well identify a Venda-Lovedu culture area in the North-Eastern Transvaal, incorporating other, less well-documented peoples; and, indeed, J. Krige has stressed the "intimate and age-long relationships between Venda and Lobedu".
Both peoples incorporate Tsonga minorities with whom they do not intermarry, and upon whom they look down. I shall concentrate here on a comparison of the kinship terminologies, since it is the apparent difficulty of the Venda kinship terminology which has provoked most discussion. Table 1 and 2 set out the Venda and Lovedu terminologies and referents so far as they have been documented.
The divergences will be discussed later, but I shall first present an analysis of the two systems using the methods developed by Lounsbury a and b. This will show that the two systems can be accounted for almost completely by the same, basically Iroquois, system of reduction rules. The few kin-types which cannot be accounted for by these rules will be discussed separately.
The first two rules are the well-known "half -sibling" and "same-sex sibling" merging rules see Lounsbury a: There is also an ancestor merging rule, very close to that described as "Hawaian" by Scheffler The classification of man-speaking sister's child with child's child raises certain problems, which will be discussed later.
For the moment I treat these two kin-types as alternative foci of muduhulu. The debate has concerned mainly the reduction of affinal kin-types to consan- guineal kin-types. Four rules are used.
The first, which deals with the complications raised by serial or polygynous marriages, is unproblematic and applies to all Southern Bantu kinship terminologies. It follows from this that a mother's other husbands are father's brothers, and one's father's co-wives are mother's sisters. The other three rules are more interesting, and serve to crystallise the debate about the Venda terminology. All are "skewing rules". These rules, then, "skew" affines, demoting husband's kin a generation and promoting wife's kin a generation.
Let us now examine the working of these rules, with reference to the kin-types documented in table i. Beginning with sibling terms, it is easy to show that parallel cousins are reduced to siblings by rules i and 2. Reductions to FB and MZ follow a similar pattern, the "polygamy rule" 4 again being crucial. Thus, for example, we have:. The reductions to makhulu have caused so much trouble that they deserve a closer look. By rule 4 a parent's spouse is equivalent to a parent's sibling of the same sex, so parents' parent's spouse becomes parent's parent's sibling, and, by rule 3 again, parent's parent.
Turning now to muduhulu, "child's child":. Reductions to muduhulu in the sense of man-speaking sister's child affect mainly the children of female parallel cousins see discussion of sibling terms above. However, Junod also recorded:. It may be that another rule should be posited to account for this, but in fact the terms in the Southern Bantu systems for great grandparents and grandchildren tend to be used only for lineal kin in these categories, and even then they are often lumped together with grandparents and grandchildren.
Finally, let us look at the reductions to malume, mother's brother:. There are, however, certain difficulties with the analysis proposed:. By the rules these should be reduced as follows:. In fact these rules are not always applied. The Venda classification of WyZ is not known.