DigitalResources Electronic Working Paper 2018-002

Linguistic ChecksThe Missing Link in Modern Language Development

Timothy M Stirtz

Linguistic Checks

The Missing Link in Modern Language Development

Timothy M Stirtz

SIL Internationalreg 2018

SIL Electronic Working Paper 2018-002 October 2018 copy 2018 SIL Internationalreg All rights reserved Data and materials collected by researchers in an era before documentation of permission was standardized may be included in this publication SIL makes diligent efforts to identify and acknowledge sources and to obtain appropriate permissions wherever possible acting in good faith and on the best information available at the time of publication

Abstract

In the past several decades the expediency of translated Scripture has taken center stage in Bible translation organizations sometimes even at the expense of a quality product This paper suggests that writing inconsistency is a side effect of modern language projects when there is no overseer with an in-depth knowledge of the language to train mother-tongue language developers in writing Just because a well-chosen writing system has been accepted by the language community doesnrsquot guarantee it will be consistently followed Sometimes writers simply forget the rules of writing agreed to or need to be taught how to use them Linguistic checks are a growing movement in language development to rectify this situation As the basic equivalent of translation checks they give on-going feedback to writers of how to correctly apply grammar in consistent spelling word breaks and other aspects of the agreed-upon writing system At later stages of language development they also promote natural translation by checking appropriate application of discourse grammar

This paper demonstrates with specific details how the writing of eight beginning translation teams in South Sudan drastically improved in a relatively short time by receiving on-going linguistic checks It discusses the benefits of linguistic checks as well as the problems and ethical issues of not training writers in consistent writing Finally it gives best practice statements with time requirements for how to do linguistic checks in any modern language development project

iii

Contents

1 Introduction 2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim 22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams 23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams 24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies 242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools 26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem 31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages 32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers 33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension 34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers 35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages 36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning 37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency 41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their

language 42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system 43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without

training 44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short

time 45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a

language to evolve naturally 46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to

occur naturally 47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach 6 Conclusion Appendix References

1

1 Introduction

In many respects the quality of translated Scripture has remained the same or even improved through the years despite the faster pace of production In the early years of Bible translation the traditional approach of one or two expatriates working with one or more speakers of the same language took twenty to thirty years to produce a New Testament along with supporting reading materials In recent decades the modern translation project has emerged reducing the time to ten to twenty years1 By the modern translation project I mean a team of mother-tongue translators and language developers (MTLDs) assisted by those trained in specific domains of language development (literacy Scripture engagement translation etc) and given on-going training by a translation assistant (TA) in the initial years of the project As in a traditional translation project Scripture drafts receive exegetical checks community checks verse-by-verse consultant checks and key terms consistency checks For the most part the quality of Scripture has not suffered with this new approach

Yet there is one area where the traditional approach is superior to the modern translation approachmdashtraining MTLDs to consistently use their writing system2 Spelling word-breaks tone marks etc are not automatically followed once they have been agreed-upon3 Even when MTLDs have been well-educated in another language they need on-going training in how to write consistently in their own language

Overseers of traditional projects have4 an in-depth understanding of the language They often learn to speak the language They internalize the grammar and and have a feel for what is allowable and what is not They often make dictionaries and grammar write-ups that inform the writing system But even when the language is not well-documented their knowledge can guide MTLDs in how to use the writing system consistently Although consistent writing is not directly a part of the materials produced in any particular domain of language development but fundamental to the materials of all domains overseers of traditional translation projects assume it is important and make sure it gets done After all there is no one else to do it And their knowledge is the link that ensures materials produced in all domains of the language will consistently use the writing system

In my experience the modern translation approach produces materials in various domains of language development each with excellent wording formatting and appropriate content but which often fail to consistently use the writing system even when the writing system has previously been agreed-upon and well-documented Not only is the writing inconsistent from one domain to the next it is even inconsistent in the same books of each domain Non-speakers trained in translation literacy and Scripture engagement often lack the in-depth understanding of the language needed to assist with making writing consistent or see this task as beyond their responsibilities Often it is assumed that

1 There are a number of factors contributing to the speed of the modern approach which were not present for the early years of the traditional approach such as improved technology innovative strategies and better relationships between partner organizations In certain parts of the world today the traditional translation approach is still the best option and because of these factors which increase the pace of translation these present-day traditional projects now approach the same time frame as modern projects 2 In this paper I use the term lsquowriting systemrsquo to mean the orthographic symbols marks spelling rules word break rules tone-marking rules and all other rules for writing That is a writing system includes not just the symbols for representing sounds that distinguish meaning but also the rules for writing sound changes at morpheme boundaries and the rules for marking syntactic constructions 3 In this paper I use the term lsquoagreed-uponrsquo when referring to a writing system to mean the orthographic symbols and writing rules most recently decided by MTLDs which may or may not yet have the complete approval of the language community Such decisions may be tentative as in the beginning of a language project and not necessarily be well established as the standard for the writing system 4 Although I refer to the traditional translation approach in this paper as the approach used in the early years of Bible translation out of respect for projects that are still using the traditional approach I use the present tense for this approach

2

MTLDs will correct each otherrsquos mistakes or that computer tools will help MTLDs arrive at consistent writing or that training MTLDs in consistent writing is the responsibility of others Linguists assume that their grammar write-ups documenting each language will be understood by language developers and used to make writing consistent in all materials but do not see training MTLDs in this writing process as their responsibility The TAs may be in the best position to give on-going training in writing since they work the most hours with MTLDs But translation is their primary responsibility and often there is little time for writing consistency even in translated materials

The overseers of a traditional translation project are responsible for work in all domains and use their knowledge to train MTLDS in consistent writing for materials in all domains By contrast in the modern translation project because there is no strong link between the domains training in consistent writing is neglected and although materials can have excellent content they have inferior quality in writing consistency

This paper5 discusses the extent of the inconsistency in writing language materials in the context of South Sudan why inconsistent writing is a problem why it is justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLD in writing consistency and how to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach It claims that linguistic checksmdashthat is the equivalent of translation consultant checks but by linguists checking spelling tone marking word-breaks naturalness etcmdashtrain MTLDs in consistently using their writing system significantly improve the writing consistency of language development materials and enable improved reading fluency and understanding These claims are based on improvements in writing of eight translation teams as a result of regular linguistic checks the specific details of which are documented in sections 2 and 4 of this paper

2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim

In 2009 a few years after civil war in Sudan and South Sudan had ended and SIL personnel had renewed work in Juba I was asked to help Laarim [loh] speakers develop a writing system for their language From previous experience I knew it was important to gather enough data for deciding the alphabet and how to represent tone word breaks and sound changes at morpheme boundaries Through participant methods in two 2-week rapid grammar collection (RGC) workshops described in (Stirtz 2015) Laarim

5 This paper resulted from a discussion in the Anglo-Lusophone Linguistics group led by Oliver Stegen which meets regularly via Skype to discuss relevant issues and to encourage each other in our respective linguistic roles with SIL On January 10 2018 as we discussed the interaction between the linguistics and literacy domains of language development my eyes were opened to the fact that linguistic checks were not being practiced in all SIL entities and that not all SIL linguists are in favor of linguistic checks I am thankful for the challenging questions of my friends in this group which helped me to think more precisely about why I believe not just all SIL entities but all Bible translation organizations can and should benefit from linguistic checks I write this paper based on the data I collected from my linguistic-checking experience with the hope that it will be useful to others I am indebted to all who took the time to read and give thoughtful comments on a previous version of this paper especially Mike Cahill (SIL International Orthography Services Coordinator) who thoroughly understands the linguistic issues affecting reading and writing as well as Leila Schroeder (Literacy amp Education Consultant in SIL Africa-Ango-Lusophone) who has had many years of experience in training MTLDs in writing consistency as well as Helen Eaton (Linguistics Consultant and Coordinator of Uganda-Tanzania Branch) who has done even more linguistic checks than I have and has challenged my thinking about the best way to do linguistic checks Special thanks to my SIL South Sudan administrators and colleagues who have allowed me the freedom to make mistakes in order to learn from them I want to especially thank all the TAs who spent endless hours ensuring my written comments were understood and applied by MTLDs since I was not in South Sudan to do this I also want to thank Pioneer Bible Translators for inviting me to work with language teams they support through which the opportunity for me to learn the benefits and costs of linguistic checks was greatly extended

3

speakers made informed decisions for all these aspects of their writing system Considerable time was spent comparing and contrasting vowel qualities and length in word lists so as to train MTLDs in consistent writing of these sounds Afterwards I documented all writing decisions and the grammar learned in books written for MTLDs and I recorded the agreed-upon spelling of 1000 words in a beginning dictionary6

However when Laarim MTLDs began producing literacy materials with the help of SIL literacy personnel I was surprised by how many words had different spelling than what was agreed to in the RGC workshops just a few months before The majority of the inconsistencies were not in following the agreed-upon writing rules but in writing the same words or roots with more than one spelling Thinking my role as a linguistics consultant was to document and train teams in grammarmdashnot to be their spelling police I chose to ignore the writing inconsistency that was developing hoping the MTLDs would arrive at better consistency in time Now with more than half of the New Testament drafted and an extensive number of supporting reading materials published MTLDs are still writing many of the same words or roots with multiple spellings not always agreeing with each other as to which is correct and sometimes changing their mind from one day to the next Because of the high number of case suffixes and verb prefixes and suffixes each with some irregularities correcting these inconsistencies will not be quick using computer tools such as the word list generated in Paratext even if MTLDs could now agree on correct spelling

From this experience with Laarim I realized that even the best writing system chosen by a language community along with the best documentation of its grammar can be virtually worthless if the language community does not learn to consistently use its writing system After learning this lesson the hard way all language teams I later helped develop a writing system I also trained in how to consistently use that writing system7mdashby giving linguistic comments in all materials produced in their language For nearly all MTLDs I have worked with learning the grammar by participatory discovery methods in RGC workshops and understanding its description in grammar books afterwards is not sufficient training Rather consistently applying the grammar to writing is a high level skill only learned by watching others and then doing it yourself through on-going guidance

22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams

As each new vernacular book is drafted by a language team I check the spelling of each word and how each writing rule is followed throughout making written comments for any difference in what MTLDs previously agreed to in a recent RGC workshop and what is written in the book at hand My comments are mere reminders of what MTLDs previously agreed to rather than comments about wording or correct grammatical agreement I always encourage MTLDs to have the final say in all writing issues as long as they explain their reason consistently write according to their decision throughout all language materials and have the approval of the language community Section 5 gives other details of the checking process I follow

Table 1 lists the results of linguistic checks for nine language teams of South Sudan It gives the number of comments made per verse in the first chapter of Scripture drafted8 the percentage of

6 All mentioned Laarim materials are available for download from the links in the appendix of (Stirtz 2015) 7 The Beta language team is one exception as explained in section 22 8 In this paper I use the phrase lsquofirst chapter draftedrsquo loosely to mean the verses first drafted until there were 50ndash60 comments This is in order to make a consistent comparison between the languages regardless of how many comments per verse were made For example in Belanda Bor there were 50 comments in the first 8 verses of Genesis chapter 22 and in Mundari there were 50 comments in the first 40 verses of Genesis chapters 22 and 15 If I only counted the number of comments in the first 8 verses drafted by the Mundari there would be few Mundari comments to compare with the numerous Belanda Bor comments So I counted comments until there were 50ndash60 Then in both languages I divided the relevant number of verses by about the same number of comments so as to make a more equal comparison of comments per verse between the languages

4

comments accepted by MTLDs the most common types of errors the percentage of errors not found by computer tools and the percentage of errors that likely have ambiguity in meaning All language teams drafted Scripture in Paratext Most linguistic checking comments were made using the notes tool in Paratext from a location other than that of the translation team The comments were read by MTLDs and orally explained as needed by TAs in the same location Linguistic checking comments were given after the first draft and team revision of chapters then again after an exegetical check on the chapters and a third time after the translation consultant check The comments of each subsequent linguistic check were mostly for words changed since the previous check All comments given in the first chapter drafted were counted in table 1 regardless of when the comments were made9 I made no comments in Beta language materials after helping this team develop a writing system because one team member is better than I at finding writing errors and is doing the linguistic checks for that team

9 However repeated comments such as for a word spelled incorrectly multiple times or a comment that was not sufficiently dealt with by MTLDs in the first linguistic check and restated in the second check were only counted once unless the comment was for an error that cannot be found by computer checks and only known from context (ie vowel consonant or tone minimal pairs)

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

Linguistic Checks

The Missing Link in Modern Language Development

Timothy M Stirtz

SIL Internationalreg 2018

SIL Electronic Working Paper 2018-002 October 2018 copy 2018 SIL Internationalreg All rights reserved Data and materials collected by researchers in an era before documentation of permission was standardized may be included in this publication SIL makes diligent efforts to identify and acknowledge sources and to obtain appropriate permissions wherever possible acting in good faith and on the best information available at the time of publication

Abstract

In the past several decades the expediency of translated Scripture has taken center stage in Bible translation organizations sometimes even at the expense of a quality product This paper suggests that writing inconsistency is a side effect of modern language projects when there is no overseer with an in-depth knowledge of the language to train mother-tongue language developers in writing Just because a well-chosen writing system has been accepted by the language community doesnrsquot guarantee it will be consistently followed Sometimes writers simply forget the rules of writing agreed to or need to be taught how to use them Linguistic checks are a growing movement in language development to rectify this situation As the basic equivalent of translation checks they give on-going feedback to writers of how to correctly apply grammar in consistent spelling word breaks and other aspects of the agreed-upon writing system At later stages of language development they also promote natural translation by checking appropriate application of discourse grammar

This paper demonstrates with specific details how the writing of eight beginning translation teams in South Sudan drastically improved in a relatively short time by receiving on-going linguistic checks It discusses the benefits of linguistic checks as well as the problems and ethical issues of not training writers in consistent writing Finally it gives best practice statements with time requirements for how to do linguistic checks in any modern language development project

iii

Contents

1 Introduction 2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim 22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams 23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams 24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies 242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools 26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem 31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages 32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers 33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension 34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers 35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages 36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning 37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency 41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their

language 42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system 43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without

training 44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short

time 45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a

language to evolve naturally 46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to

occur naturally 47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach 6 Conclusion Appendix References

1

1 Introduction

In many respects the quality of translated Scripture has remained the same or even improved through the years despite the faster pace of production In the early years of Bible translation the traditional approach of one or two expatriates working with one or more speakers of the same language took twenty to thirty years to produce a New Testament along with supporting reading materials In recent decades the modern translation project has emerged reducing the time to ten to twenty years1 By the modern translation project I mean a team of mother-tongue translators and language developers (MTLDs) assisted by those trained in specific domains of language development (literacy Scripture engagement translation etc) and given on-going training by a translation assistant (TA) in the initial years of the project As in a traditional translation project Scripture drafts receive exegetical checks community checks verse-by-verse consultant checks and key terms consistency checks For the most part the quality of Scripture has not suffered with this new approach

Yet there is one area where the traditional approach is superior to the modern translation approachmdashtraining MTLDs to consistently use their writing system2 Spelling word-breaks tone marks etc are not automatically followed once they have been agreed-upon3 Even when MTLDs have been well-educated in another language they need on-going training in how to write consistently in their own language

Overseers of traditional projects have4 an in-depth understanding of the language They often learn to speak the language They internalize the grammar and and have a feel for what is allowable and what is not They often make dictionaries and grammar write-ups that inform the writing system But even when the language is not well-documented their knowledge can guide MTLDs in how to use the writing system consistently Although consistent writing is not directly a part of the materials produced in any particular domain of language development but fundamental to the materials of all domains overseers of traditional translation projects assume it is important and make sure it gets done After all there is no one else to do it And their knowledge is the link that ensures materials produced in all domains of the language will consistently use the writing system

In my experience the modern translation approach produces materials in various domains of language development each with excellent wording formatting and appropriate content but which often fail to consistently use the writing system even when the writing system has previously been agreed-upon and well-documented Not only is the writing inconsistent from one domain to the next it is even inconsistent in the same books of each domain Non-speakers trained in translation literacy and Scripture engagement often lack the in-depth understanding of the language needed to assist with making writing consistent or see this task as beyond their responsibilities Often it is assumed that

1 There are a number of factors contributing to the speed of the modern approach which were not present for the early years of the traditional approach such as improved technology innovative strategies and better relationships between partner organizations In certain parts of the world today the traditional translation approach is still the best option and because of these factors which increase the pace of translation these present-day traditional projects now approach the same time frame as modern projects 2 In this paper I use the term lsquowriting systemrsquo to mean the orthographic symbols marks spelling rules word break rules tone-marking rules and all other rules for writing That is a writing system includes not just the symbols for representing sounds that distinguish meaning but also the rules for writing sound changes at morpheme boundaries and the rules for marking syntactic constructions 3 In this paper I use the term lsquoagreed-uponrsquo when referring to a writing system to mean the orthographic symbols and writing rules most recently decided by MTLDs which may or may not yet have the complete approval of the language community Such decisions may be tentative as in the beginning of a language project and not necessarily be well established as the standard for the writing system 4 Although I refer to the traditional translation approach in this paper as the approach used in the early years of Bible translation out of respect for projects that are still using the traditional approach I use the present tense for this approach

2

MTLDs will correct each otherrsquos mistakes or that computer tools will help MTLDs arrive at consistent writing or that training MTLDs in consistent writing is the responsibility of others Linguists assume that their grammar write-ups documenting each language will be understood by language developers and used to make writing consistent in all materials but do not see training MTLDs in this writing process as their responsibility The TAs may be in the best position to give on-going training in writing since they work the most hours with MTLDs But translation is their primary responsibility and often there is little time for writing consistency even in translated materials

The overseers of a traditional translation project are responsible for work in all domains and use their knowledge to train MTLDS in consistent writing for materials in all domains By contrast in the modern translation project because there is no strong link between the domains training in consistent writing is neglected and although materials can have excellent content they have inferior quality in writing consistency

This paper5 discusses the extent of the inconsistency in writing language materials in the context of South Sudan why inconsistent writing is a problem why it is justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLD in writing consistency and how to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach It claims that linguistic checksmdashthat is the equivalent of translation consultant checks but by linguists checking spelling tone marking word-breaks naturalness etcmdashtrain MTLDs in consistently using their writing system significantly improve the writing consistency of language development materials and enable improved reading fluency and understanding These claims are based on improvements in writing of eight translation teams as a result of regular linguistic checks the specific details of which are documented in sections 2 and 4 of this paper

2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim

In 2009 a few years after civil war in Sudan and South Sudan had ended and SIL personnel had renewed work in Juba I was asked to help Laarim [loh] speakers develop a writing system for their language From previous experience I knew it was important to gather enough data for deciding the alphabet and how to represent tone word breaks and sound changes at morpheme boundaries Through participant methods in two 2-week rapid grammar collection (RGC) workshops described in (Stirtz 2015) Laarim

5 This paper resulted from a discussion in the Anglo-Lusophone Linguistics group led by Oliver Stegen which meets regularly via Skype to discuss relevant issues and to encourage each other in our respective linguistic roles with SIL On January 10 2018 as we discussed the interaction between the linguistics and literacy domains of language development my eyes were opened to the fact that linguistic checks were not being practiced in all SIL entities and that not all SIL linguists are in favor of linguistic checks I am thankful for the challenging questions of my friends in this group which helped me to think more precisely about why I believe not just all SIL entities but all Bible translation organizations can and should benefit from linguistic checks I write this paper based on the data I collected from my linguistic-checking experience with the hope that it will be useful to others I am indebted to all who took the time to read and give thoughtful comments on a previous version of this paper especially Mike Cahill (SIL International Orthography Services Coordinator) who thoroughly understands the linguistic issues affecting reading and writing as well as Leila Schroeder (Literacy amp Education Consultant in SIL Africa-Ango-Lusophone) who has had many years of experience in training MTLDs in writing consistency as well as Helen Eaton (Linguistics Consultant and Coordinator of Uganda-Tanzania Branch) who has done even more linguistic checks than I have and has challenged my thinking about the best way to do linguistic checks Special thanks to my SIL South Sudan administrators and colleagues who have allowed me the freedom to make mistakes in order to learn from them I want to especially thank all the TAs who spent endless hours ensuring my written comments were understood and applied by MTLDs since I was not in South Sudan to do this I also want to thank Pioneer Bible Translators for inviting me to work with language teams they support through which the opportunity for me to learn the benefits and costs of linguistic checks was greatly extended

3

speakers made informed decisions for all these aspects of their writing system Considerable time was spent comparing and contrasting vowel qualities and length in word lists so as to train MTLDs in consistent writing of these sounds Afterwards I documented all writing decisions and the grammar learned in books written for MTLDs and I recorded the agreed-upon spelling of 1000 words in a beginning dictionary6

However when Laarim MTLDs began producing literacy materials with the help of SIL literacy personnel I was surprised by how many words had different spelling than what was agreed to in the RGC workshops just a few months before The majority of the inconsistencies were not in following the agreed-upon writing rules but in writing the same words or roots with more than one spelling Thinking my role as a linguistics consultant was to document and train teams in grammarmdashnot to be their spelling police I chose to ignore the writing inconsistency that was developing hoping the MTLDs would arrive at better consistency in time Now with more than half of the New Testament drafted and an extensive number of supporting reading materials published MTLDs are still writing many of the same words or roots with multiple spellings not always agreeing with each other as to which is correct and sometimes changing their mind from one day to the next Because of the high number of case suffixes and verb prefixes and suffixes each with some irregularities correcting these inconsistencies will not be quick using computer tools such as the word list generated in Paratext even if MTLDs could now agree on correct spelling

From this experience with Laarim I realized that even the best writing system chosen by a language community along with the best documentation of its grammar can be virtually worthless if the language community does not learn to consistently use its writing system After learning this lesson the hard way all language teams I later helped develop a writing system I also trained in how to consistently use that writing system7mdashby giving linguistic comments in all materials produced in their language For nearly all MTLDs I have worked with learning the grammar by participatory discovery methods in RGC workshops and understanding its description in grammar books afterwards is not sufficient training Rather consistently applying the grammar to writing is a high level skill only learned by watching others and then doing it yourself through on-going guidance

22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams

As each new vernacular book is drafted by a language team I check the spelling of each word and how each writing rule is followed throughout making written comments for any difference in what MTLDs previously agreed to in a recent RGC workshop and what is written in the book at hand My comments are mere reminders of what MTLDs previously agreed to rather than comments about wording or correct grammatical agreement I always encourage MTLDs to have the final say in all writing issues as long as they explain their reason consistently write according to their decision throughout all language materials and have the approval of the language community Section 5 gives other details of the checking process I follow

Table 1 lists the results of linguistic checks for nine language teams of South Sudan It gives the number of comments made per verse in the first chapter of Scripture drafted8 the percentage of

6 All mentioned Laarim materials are available for download from the links in the appendix of (Stirtz 2015) 7 The Beta language team is one exception as explained in section 22 8 In this paper I use the phrase lsquofirst chapter draftedrsquo loosely to mean the verses first drafted until there were 50ndash60 comments This is in order to make a consistent comparison between the languages regardless of how many comments per verse were made For example in Belanda Bor there were 50 comments in the first 8 verses of Genesis chapter 22 and in Mundari there were 50 comments in the first 40 verses of Genesis chapters 22 and 15 If I only counted the number of comments in the first 8 verses drafted by the Mundari there would be few Mundari comments to compare with the numerous Belanda Bor comments So I counted comments until there were 50ndash60 Then in both languages I divided the relevant number of verses by about the same number of comments so as to make a more equal comparison of comments per verse between the languages

4

comments accepted by MTLDs the most common types of errors the percentage of errors not found by computer tools and the percentage of errors that likely have ambiguity in meaning All language teams drafted Scripture in Paratext Most linguistic checking comments were made using the notes tool in Paratext from a location other than that of the translation team The comments were read by MTLDs and orally explained as needed by TAs in the same location Linguistic checking comments were given after the first draft and team revision of chapters then again after an exegetical check on the chapters and a third time after the translation consultant check The comments of each subsequent linguistic check were mostly for words changed since the previous check All comments given in the first chapter drafted were counted in table 1 regardless of when the comments were made9 I made no comments in Beta language materials after helping this team develop a writing system because one team member is better than I at finding writing errors and is doing the linguistic checks for that team

9 However repeated comments such as for a word spelled incorrectly multiple times or a comment that was not sufficiently dealt with by MTLDs in the first linguistic check and restated in the second check were only counted once unless the comment was for an error that cannot be found by computer checks and only known from context (ie vowel consonant or tone minimal pairs)

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

Abstract

In the past several decades the expediency of translated Scripture has taken center stage in Bible translation organizations sometimes even at the expense of a quality product This paper suggests that writing inconsistency is a side effect of modern language projects when there is no overseer with an in-depth knowledge of the language to train mother-tongue language developers in writing Just because a well-chosen writing system has been accepted by the language community doesnrsquot guarantee it will be consistently followed Sometimes writers simply forget the rules of writing agreed to or need to be taught how to use them Linguistic checks are a growing movement in language development to rectify this situation As the basic equivalent of translation checks they give on-going feedback to writers of how to correctly apply grammar in consistent spelling word breaks and other aspects of the agreed-upon writing system At later stages of language development they also promote natural translation by checking appropriate application of discourse grammar

This paper demonstrates with specific details how the writing of eight beginning translation teams in South Sudan drastically improved in a relatively short time by receiving on-going linguistic checks It discusses the benefits of linguistic checks as well as the problems and ethical issues of not training writers in consistent writing Finally it gives best practice statements with time requirements for how to do linguistic checks in any modern language development project

iii

Contents

1 Introduction 2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim 22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams 23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams 24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies 242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools 26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem 31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages 32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers 33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension 34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers 35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages 36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning 37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency 41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their

language 42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system 43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without

training 44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short

time 45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a

language to evolve naturally 46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to

occur naturally 47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach 6 Conclusion Appendix References

1

1 Introduction

In many respects the quality of translated Scripture has remained the same or even improved through the years despite the faster pace of production In the early years of Bible translation the traditional approach of one or two expatriates working with one or more speakers of the same language took twenty to thirty years to produce a New Testament along with supporting reading materials In recent decades the modern translation project has emerged reducing the time to ten to twenty years1 By the modern translation project I mean a team of mother-tongue translators and language developers (MTLDs) assisted by those trained in specific domains of language development (literacy Scripture engagement translation etc) and given on-going training by a translation assistant (TA) in the initial years of the project As in a traditional translation project Scripture drafts receive exegetical checks community checks verse-by-verse consultant checks and key terms consistency checks For the most part the quality of Scripture has not suffered with this new approach

Yet there is one area where the traditional approach is superior to the modern translation approachmdashtraining MTLDs to consistently use their writing system2 Spelling word-breaks tone marks etc are not automatically followed once they have been agreed-upon3 Even when MTLDs have been well-educated in another language they need on-going training in how to write consistently in their own language

Overseers of traditional projects have4 an in-depth understanding of the language They often learn to speak the language They internalize the grammar and and have a feel for what is allowable and what is not They often make dictionaries and grammar write-ups that inform the writing system But even when the language is not well-documented their knowledge can guide MTLDs in how to use the writing system consistently Although consistent writing is not directly a part of the materials produced in any particular domain of language development but fundamental to the materials of all domains overseers of traditional translation projects assume it is important and make sure it gets done After all there is no one else to do it And their knowledge is the link that ensures materials produced in all domains of the language will consistently use the writing system

In my experience the modern translation approach produces materials in various domains of language development each with excellent wording formatting and appropriate content but which often fail to consistently use the writing system even when the writing system has previously been agreed-upon and well-documented Not only is the writing inconsistent from one domain to the next it is even inconsistent in the same books of each domain Non-speakers trained in translation literacy and Scripture engagement often lack the in-depth understanding of the language needed to assist with making writing consistent or see this task as beyond their responsibilities Often it is assumed that

1 There are a number of factors contributing to the speed of the modern approach which were not present for the early years of the traditional approach such as improved technology innovative strategies and better relationships between partner organizations In certain parts of the world today the traditional translation approach is still the best option and because of these factors which increase the pace of translation these present-day traditional projects now approach the same time frame as modern projects 2 In this paper I use the term lsquowriting systemrsquo to mean the orthographic symbols marks spelling rules word break rules tone-marking rules and all other rules for writing That is a writing system includes not just the symbols for representing sounds that distinguish meaning but also the rules for writing sound changes at morpheme boundaries and the rules for marking syntactic constructions 3 In this paper I use the term lsquoagreed-uponrsquo when referring to a writing system to mean the orthographic symbols and writing rules most recently decided by MTLDs which may or may not yet have the complete approval of the language community Such decisions may be tentative as in the beginning of a language project and not necessarily be well established as the standard for the writing system 4 Although I refer to the traditional translation approach in this paper as the approach used in the early years of Bible translation out of respect for projects that are still using the traditional approach I use the present tense for this approach

2

MTLDs will correct each otherrsquos mistakes or that computer tools will help MTLDs arrive at consistent writing or that training MTLDs in consistent writing is the responsibility of others Linguists assume that their grammar write-ups documenting each language will be understood by language developers and used to make writing consistent in all materials but do not see training MTLDs in this writing process as their responsibility The TAs may be in the best position to give on-going training in writing since they work the most hours with MTLDs But translation is their primary responsibility and often there is little time for writing consistency even in translated materials

The overseers of a traditional translation project are responsible for work in all domains and use their knowledge to train MTLDS in consistent writing for materials in all domains By contrast in the modern translation project because there is no strong link between the domains training in consistent writing is neglected and although materials can have excellent content they have inferior quality in writing consistency

This paper5 discusses the extent of the inconsistency in writing language materials in the context of South Sudan why inconsistent writing is a problem why it is justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLD in writing consistency and how to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach It claims that linguistic checksmdashthat is the equivalent of translation consultant checks but by linguists checking spelling tone marking word-breaks naturalness etcmdashtrain MTLDs in consistently using their writing system significantly improve the writing consistency of language development materials and enable improved reading fluency and understanding These claims are based on improvements in writing of eight translation teams as a result of regular linguistic checks the specific details of which are documented in sections 2 and 4 of this paper

2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim

In 2009 a few years after civil war in Sudan and South Sudan had ended and SIL personnel had renewed work in Juba I was asked to help Laarim [loh] speakers develop a writing system for their language From previous experience I knew it was important to gather enough data for deciding the alphabet and how to represent tone word breaks and sound changes at morpheme boundaries Through participant methods in two 2-week rapid grammar collection (RGC) workshops described in (Stirtz 2015) Laarim

5 This paper resulted from a discussion in the Anglo-Lusophone Linguistics group led by Oliver Stegen which meets regularly via Skype to discuss relevant issues and to encourage each other in our respective linguistic roles with SIL On January 10 2018 as we discussed the interaction between the linguistics and literacy domains of language development my eyes were opened to the fact that linguistic checks were not being practiced in all SIL entities and that not all SIL linguists are in favor of linguistic checks I am thankful for the challenging questions of my friends in this group which helped me to think more precisely about why I believe not just all SIL entities but all Bible translation organizations can and should benefit from linguistic checks I write this paper based on the data I collected from my linguistic-checking experience with the hope that it will be useful to others I am indebted to all who took the time to read and give thoughtful comments on a previous version of this paper especially Mike Cahill (SIL International Orthography Services Coordinator) who thoroughly understands the linguistic issues affecting reading and writing as well as Leila Schroeder (Literacy amp Education Consultant in SIL Africa-Ango-Lusophone) who has had many years of experience in training MTLDs in writing consistency as well as Helen Eaton (Linguistics Consultant and Coordinator of Uganda-Tanzania Branch) who has done even more linguistic checks than I have and has challenged my thinking about the best way to do linguistic checks Special thanks to my SIL South Sudan administrators and colleagues who have allowed me the freedom to make mistakes in order to learn from them I want to especially thank all the TAs who spent endless hours ensuring my written comments were understood and applied by MTLDs since I was not in South Sudan to do this I also want to thank Pioneer Bible Translators for inviting me to work with language teams they support through which the opportunity for me to learn the benefits and costs of linguistic checks was greatly extended

3

speakers made informed decisions for all these aspects of their writing system Considerable time was spent comparing and contrasting vowel qualities and length in word lists so as to train MTLDs in consistent writing of these sounds Afterwards I documented all writing decisions and the grammar learned in books written for MTLDs and I recorded the agreed-upon spelling of 1000 words in a beginning dictionary6

However when Laarim MTLDs began producing literacy materials with the help of SIL literacy personnel I was surprised by how many words had different spelling than what was agreed to in the RGC workshops just a few months before The majority of the inconsistencies were not in following the agreed-upon writing rules but in writing the same words or roots with more than one spelling Thinking my role as a linguistics consultant was to document and train teams in grammarmdashnot to be their spelling police I chose to ignore the writing inconsistency that was developing hoping the MTLDs would arrive at better consistency in time Now with more than half of the New Testament drafted and an extensive number of supporting reading materials published MTLDs are still writing many of the same words or roots with multiple spellings not always agreeing with each other as to which is correct and sometimes changing their mind from one day to the next Because of the high number of case suffixes and verb prefixes and suffixes each with some irregularities correcting these inconsistencies will not be quick using computer tools such as the word list generated in Paratext even if MTLDs could now agree on correct spelling

From this experience with Laarim I realized that even the best writing system chosen by a language community along with the best documentation of its grammar can be virtually worthless if the language community does not learn to consistently use its writing system After learning this lesson the hard way all language teams I later helped develop a writing system I also trained in how to consistently use that writing system7mdashby giving linguistic comments in all materials produced in their language For nearly all MTLDs I have worked with learning the grammar by participatory discovery methods in RGC workshops and understanding its description in grammar books afterwards is not sufficient training Rather consistently applying the grammar to writing is a high level skill only learned by watching others and then doing it yourself through on-going guidance

22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams

As each new vernacular book is drafted by a language team I check the spelling of each word and how each writing rule is followed throughout making written comments for any difference in what MTLDs previously agreed to in a recent RGC workshop and what is written in the book at hand My comments are mere reminders of what MTLDs previously agreed to rather than comments about wording or correct grammatical agreement I always encourage MTLDs to have the final say in all writing issues as long as they explain their reason consistently write according to their decision throughout all language materials and have the approval of the language community Section 5 gives other details of the checking process I follow

Table 1 lists the results of linguistic checks for nine language teams of South Sudan It gives the number of comments made per verse in the first chapter of Scripture drafted8 the percentage of

6 All mentioned Laarim materials are available for download from the links in the appendix of (Stirtz 2015) 7 The Beta language team is one exception as explained in section 22 8 In this paper I use the phrase lsquofirst chapter draftedrsquo loosely to mean the verses first drafted until there were 50ndash60 comments This is in order to make a consistent comparison between the languages regardless of how many comments per verse were made For example in Belanda Bor there were 50 comments in the first 8 verses of Genesis chapter 22 and in Mundari there were 50 comments in the first 40 verses of Genesis chapters 22 and 15 If I only counted the number of comments in the first 8 verses drafted by the Mundari there would be few Mundari comments to compare with the numerous Belanda Bor comments So I counted comments until there were 50ndash60 Then in both languages I divided the relevant number of verses by about the same number of comments so as to make a more equal comparison of comments per verse between the languages

4

comments accepted by MTLDs the most common types of errors the percentage of errors not found by computer tools and the percentage of errors that likely have ambiguity in meaning All language teams drafted Scripture in Paratext Most linguistic checking comments were made using the notes tool in Paratext from a location other than that of the translation team The comments were read by MTLDs and orally explained as needed by TAs in the same location Linguistic checking comments were given after the first draft and team revision of chapters then again after an exegetical check on the chapters and a third time after the translation consultant check The comments of each subsequent linguistic check were mostly for words changed since the previous check All comments given in the first chapter drafted were counted in table 1 regardless of when the comments were made9 I made no comments in Beta language materials after helping this team develop a writing system because one team member is better than I at finding writing errors and is doing the linguistic checks for that team

9 However repeated comments such as for a word spelled incorrectly multiple times or a comment that was not sufficiently dealt with by MTLDs in the first linguistic check and restated in the second check were only counted once unless the comment was for an error that cannot be found by computer checks and only known from context (ie vowel consonant or tone minimal pairs)

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

iii

Contents

1 Introduction 2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim 22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams 23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams 24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies 242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools 26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem 31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages 32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers 33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension 34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers 35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages 36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning 37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency 41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their

language 42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system 43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without

training 44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short

time 45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a

language to evolve naturally 46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to

occur naturally 47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach 6 Conclusion Appendix References

1

1 Introduction

In many respects the quality of translated Scripture has remained the same or even improved through the years despite the faster pace of production In the early years of Bible translation the traditional approach of one or two expatriates working with one or more speakers of the same language took twenty to thirty years to produce a New Testament along with supporting reading materials In recent decades the modern translation project has emerged reducing the time to ten to twenty years1 By the modern translation project I mean a team of mother-tongue translators and language developers (MTLDs) assisted by those trained in specific domains of language development (literacy Scripture engagement translation etc) and given on-going training by a translation assistant (TA) in the initial years of the project As in a traditional translation project Scripture drafts receive exegetical checks community checks verse-by-verse consultant checks and key terms consistency checks For the most part the quality of Scripture has not suffered with this new approach

Yet there is one area where the traditional approach is superior to the modern translation approachmdashtraining MTLDs to consistently use their writing system2 Spelling word-breaks tone marks etc are not automatically followed once they have been agreed-upon3 Even when MTLDs have been well-educated in another language they need on-going training in how to write consistently in their own language

Overseers of traditional projects have4 an in-depth understanding of the language They often learn to speak the language They internalize the grammar and and have a feel for what is allowable and what is not They often make dictionaries and grammar write-ups that inform the writing system But even when the language is not well-documented their knowledge can guide MTLDs in how to use the writing system consistently Although consistent writing is not directly a part of the materials produced in any particular domain of language development but fundamental to the materials of all domains overseers of traditional translation projects assume it is important and make sure it gets done After all there is no one else to do it And their knowledge is the link that ensures materials produced in all domains of the language will consistently use the writing system

In my experience the modern translation approach produces materials in various domains of language development each with excellent wording formatting and appropriate content but which often fail to consistently use the writing system even when the writing system has previously been agreed-upon and well-documented Not only is the writing inconsistent from one domain to the next it is even inconsistent in the same books of each domain Non-speakers trained in translation literacy and Scripture engagement often lack the in-depth understanding of the language needed to assist with making writing consistent or see this task as beyond their responsibilities Often it is assumed that

1 There are a number of factors contributing to the speed of the modern approach which were not present for the early years of the traditional approach such as improved technology innovative strategies and better relationships between partner organizations In certain parts of the world today the traditional translation approach is still the best option and because of these factors which increase the pace of translation these present-day traditional projects now approach the same time frame as modern projects 2 In this paper I use the term lsquowriting systemrsquo to mean the orthographic symbols marks spelling rules word break rules tone-marking rules and all other rules for writing That is a writing system includes not just the symbols for representing sounds that distinguish meaning but also the rules for writing sound changes at morpheme boundaries and the rules for marking syntactic constructions 3 In this paper I use the term lsquoagreed-uponrsquo when referring to a writing system to mean the orthographic symbols and writing rules most recently decided by MTLDs which may or may not yet have the complete approval of the language community Such decisions may be tentative as in the beginning of a language project and not necessarily be well established as the standard for the writing system 4 Although I refer to the traditional translation approach in this paper as the approach used in the early years of Bible translation out of respect for projects that are still using the traditional approach I use the present tense for this approach

2

MTLDs will correct each otherrsquos mistakes or that computer tools will help MTLDs arrive at consistent writing or that training MTLDs in consistent writing is the responsibility of others Linguists assume that their grammar write-ups documenting each language will be understood by language developers and used to make writing consistent in all materials but do not see training MTLDs in this writing process as their responsibility The TAs may be in the best position to give on-going training in writing since they work the most hours with MTLDs But translation is their primary responsibility and often there is little time for writing consistency even in translated materials

The overseers of a traditional translation project are responsible for work in all domains and use their knowledge to train MTLDS in consistent writing for materials in all domains By contrast in the modern translation project because there is no strong link between the domains training in consistent writing is neglected and although materials can have excellent content they have inferior quality in writing consistency

This paper5 discusses the extent of the inconsistency in writing language materials in the context of South Sudan why inconsistent writing is a problem why it is justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLD in writing consistency and how to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach It claims that linguistic checksmdashthat is the equivalent of translation consultant checks but by linguists checking spelling tone marking word-breaks naturalness etcmdashtrain MTLDs in consistently using their writing system significantly improve the writing consistency of language development materials and enable improved reading fluency and understanding These claims are based on improvements in writing of eight translation teams as a result of regular linguistic checks the specific details of which are documented in sections 2 and 4 of this paper

2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim

In 2009 a few years after civil war in Sudan and South Sudan had ended and SIL personnel had renewed work in Juba I was asked to help Laarim [loh] speakers develop a writing system for their language From previous experience I knew it was important to gather enough data for deciding the alphabet and how to represent tone word breaks and sound changes at morpheme boundaries Through participant methods in two 2-week rapid grammar collection (RGC) workshops described in (Stirtz 2015) Laarim

5 This paper resulted from a discussion in the Anglo-Lusophone Linguistics group led by Oliver Stegen which meets regularly via Skype to discuss relevant issues and to encourage each other in our respective linguistic roles with SIL On January 10 2018 as we discussed the interaction between the linguistics and literacy domains of language development my eyes were opened to the fact that linguistic checks were not being practiced in all SIL entities and that not all SIL linguists are in favor of linguistic checks I am thankful for the challenging questions of my friends in this group which helped me to think more precisely about why I believe not just all SIL entities but all Bible translation organizations can and should benefit from linguistic checks I write this paper based on the data I collected from my linguistic-checking experience with the hope that it will be useful to others I am indebted to all who took the time to read and give thoughtful comments on a previous version of this paper especially Mike Cahill (SIL International Orthography Services Coordinator) who thoroughly understands the linguistic issues affecting reading and writing as well as Leila Schroeder (Literacy amp Education Consultant in SIL Africa-Ango-Lusophone) who has had many years of experience in training MTLDs in writing consistency as well as Helen Eaton (Linguistics Consultant and Coordinator of Uganda-Tanzania Branch) who has done even more linguistic checks than I have and has challenged my thinking about the best way to do linguistic checks Special thanks to my SIL South Sudan administrators and colleagues who have allowed me the freedom to make mistakes in order to learn from them I want to especially thank all the TAs who spent endless hours ensuring my written comments were understood and applied by MTLDs since I was not in South Sudan to do this I also want to thank Pioneer Bible Translators for inviting me to work with language teams they support through which the opportunity for me to learn the benefits and costs of linguistic checks was greatly extended

3

speakers made informed decisions for all these aspects of their writing system Considerable time was spent comparing and contrasting vowel qualities and length in word lists so as to train MTLDs in consistent writing of these sounds Afterwards I documented all writing decisions and the grammar learned in books written for MTLDs and I recorded the agreed-upon spelling of 1000 words in a beginning dictionary6

However when Laarim MTLDs began producing literacy materials with the help of SIL literacy personnel I was surprised by how many words had different spelling than what was agreed to in the RGC workshops just a few months before The majority of the inconsistencies were not in following the agreed-upon writing rules but in writing the same words or roots with more than one spelling Thinking my role as a linguistics consultant was to document and train teams in grammarmdashnot to be their spelling police I chose to ignore the writing inconsistency that was developing hoping the MTLDs would arrive at better consistency in time Now with more than half of the New Testament drafted and an extensive number of supporting reading materials published MTLDs are still writing many of the same words or roots with multiple spellings not always agreeing with each other as to which is correct and sometimes changing their mind from one day to the next Because of the high number of case suffixes and verb prefixes and suffixes each with some irregularities correcting these inconsistencies will not be quick using computer tools such as the word list generated in Paratext even if MTLDs could now agree on correct spelling

From this experience with Laarim I realized that even the best writing system chosen by a language community along with the best documentation of its grammar can be virtually worthless if the language community does not learn to consistently use its writing system After learning this lesson the hard way all language teams I later helped develop a writing system I also trained in how to consistently use that writing system7mdashby giving linguistic comments in all materials produced in their language For nearly all MTLDs I have worked with learning the grammar by participatory discovery methods in RGC workshops and understanding its description in grammar books afterwards is not sufficient training Rather consistently applying the grammar to writing is a high level skill only learned by watching others and then doing it yourself through on-going guidance

22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams

As each new vernacular book is drafted by a language team I check the spelling of each word and how each writing rule is followed throughout making written comments for any difference in what MTLDs previously agreed to in a recent RGC workshop and what is written in the book at hand My comments are mere reminders of what MTLDs previously agreed to rather than comments about wording or correct grammatical agreement I always encourage MTLDs to have the final say in all writing issues as long as they explain their reason consistently write according to their decision throughout all language materials and have the approval of the language community Section 5 gives other details of the checking process I follow

Table 1 lists the results of linguistic checks for nine language teams of South Sudan It gives the number of comments made per verse in the first chapter of Scripture drafted8 the percentage of

6 All mentioned Laarim materials are available for download from the links in the appendix of (Stirtz 2015) 7 The Beta language team is one exception as explained in section 22 8 In this paper I use the phrase lsquofirst chapter draftedrsquo loosely to mean the verses first drafted until there were 50ndash60 comments This is in order to make a consistent comparison between the languages regardless of how many comments per verse were made For example in Belanda Bor there were 50 comments in the first 8 verses of Genesis chapter 22 and in Mundari there were 50 comments in the first 40 verses of Genesis chapters 22 and 15 If I only counted the number of comments in the first 8 verses drafted by the Mundari there would be few Mundari comments to compare with the numerous Belanda Bor comments So I counted comments until there were 50ndash60 Then in both languages I divided the relevant number of verses by about the same number of comments so as to make a more equal comparison of comments per verse between the languages

4

comments accepted by MTLDs the most common types of errors the percentage of errors not found by computer tools and the percentage of errors that likely have ambiguity in meaning All language teams drafted Scripture in Paratext Most linguistic checking comments were made using the notes tool in Paratext from a location other than that of the translation team The comments were read by MTLDs and orally explained as needed by TAs in the same location Linguistic checking comments were given after the first draft and team revision of chapters then again after an exegetical check on the chapters and a third time after the translation consultant check The comments of each subsequent linguistic check were mostly for words changed since the previous check All comments given in the first chapter drafted were counted in table 1 regardless of when the comments were made9 I made no comments in Beta language materials after helping this team develop a writing system because one team member is better than I at finding writing errors and is doing the linguistic checks for that team

9 However repeated comments such as for a word spelled incorrectly multiple times or a comment that was not sufficiently dealt with by MTLDs in the first linguistic check and restated in the second check were only counted once unless the comment was for an error that cannot be found by computer checks and only known from context (ie vowel consonant or tone minimal pairs)

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

1

1 Introduction

In many respects the quality of translated Scripture has remained the same or even improved through the years despite the faster pace of production In the early years of Bible translation the traditional approach of one or two expatriates working with one or more speakers of the same language took twenty to thirty years to produce a New Testament along with supporting reading materials In recent decades the modern translation project has emerged reducing the time to ten to twenty years1 By the modern translation project I mean a team of mother-tongue translators and language developers (MTLDs) assisted by those trained in specific domains of language development (literacy Scripture engagement translation etc) and given on-going training by a translation assistant (TA) in the initial years of the project As in a traditional translation project Scripture drafts receive exegetical checks community checks verse-by-verse consultant checks and key terms consistency checks For the most part the quality of Scripture has not suffered with this new approach

Yet there is one area where the traditional approach is superior to the modern translation approachmdashtraining MTLDs to consistently use their writing system2 Spelling word-breaks tone marks etc are not automatically followed once they have been agreed-upon3 Even when MTLDs have been well-educated in another language they need on-going training in how to write consistently in their own language

Overseers of traditional projects have4 an in-depth understanding of the language They often learn to speak the language They internalize the grammar and and have a feel for what is allowable and what is not They often make dictionaries and grammar write-ups that inform the writing system But even when the language is not well-documented their knowledge can guide MTLDs in how to use the writing system consistently Although consistent writing is not directly a part of the materials produced in any particular domain of language development but fundamental to the materials of all domains overseers of traditional translation projects assume it is important and make sure it gets done After all there is no one else to do it And their knowledge is the link that ensures materials produced in all domains of the language will consistently use the writing system

In my experience the modern translation approach produces materials in various domains of language development each with excellent wording formatting and appropriate content but which often fail to consistently use the writing system even when the writing system has previously been agreed-upon and well-documented Not only is the writing inconsistent from one domain to the next it is even inconsistent in the same books of each domain Non-speakers trained in translation literacy and Scripture engagement often lack the in-depth understanding of the language needed to assist with making writing consistent or see this task as beyond their responsibilities Often it is assumed that

1 There are a number of factors contributing to the speed of the modern approach which were not present for the early years of the traditional approach such as improved technology innovative strategies and better relationships between partner organizations In certain parts of the world today the traditional translation approach is still the best option and because of these factors which increase the pace of translation these present-day traditional projects now approach the same time frame as modern projects 2 In this paper I use the term lsquowriting systemrsquo to mean the orthographic symbols marks spelling rules word break rules tone-marking rules and all other rules for writing That is a writing system includes not just the symbols for representing sounds that distinguish meaning but also the rules for writing sound changes at morpheme boundaries and the rules for marking syntactic constructions 3 In this paper I use the term lsquoagreed-uponrsquo when referring to a writing system to mean the orthographic symbols and writing rules most recently decided by MTLDs which may or may not yet have the complete approval of the language community Such decisions may be tentative as in the beginning of a language project and not necessarily be well established as the standard for the writing system 4 Although I refer to the traditional translation approach in this paper as the approach used in the early years of Bible translation out of respect for projects that are still using the traditional approach I use the present tense for this approach

2

MTLDs will correct each otherrsquos mistakes or that computer tools will help MTLDs arrive at consistent writing or that training MTLDs in consistent writing is the responsibility of others Linguists assume that their grammar write-ups documenting each language will be understood by language developers and used to make writing consistent in all materials but do not see training MTLDs in this writing process as their responsibility The TAs may be in the best position to give on-going training in writing since they work the most hours with MTLDs But translation is their primary responsibility and often there is little time for writing consistency even in translated materials

The overseers of a traditional translation project are responsible for work in all domains and use their knowledge to train MTLDS in consistent writing for materials in all domains By contrast in the modern translation project because there is no strong link between the domains training in consistent writing is neglected and although materials can have excellent content they have inferior quality in writing consistency

This paper5 discusses the extent of the inconsistency in writing language materials in the context of South Sudan why inconsistent writing is a problem why it is justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLD in writing consistency and how to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach It claims that linguistic checksmdashthat is the equivalent of translation consultant checks but by linguists checking spelling tone marking word-breaks naturalness etcmdashtrain MTLDs in consistently using their writing system significantly improve the writing consistency of language development materials and enable improved reading fluency and understanding These claims are based on improvements in writing of eight translation teams as a result of regular linguistic checks the specific details of which are documented in sections 2 and 4 of this paper

2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim

In 2009 a few years after civil war in Sudan and South Sudan had ended and SIL personnel had renewed work in Juba I was asked to help Laarim [loh] speakers develop a writing system for their language From previous experience I knew it was important to gather enough data for deciding the alphabet and how to represent tone word breaks and sound changes at morpheme boundaries Through participant methods in two 2-week rapid grammar collection (RGC) workshops described in (Stirtz 2015) Laarim

5 This paper resulted from a discussion in the Anglo-Lusophone Linguistics group led by Oliver Stegen which meets regularly via Skype to discuss relevant issues and to encourage each other in our respective linguistic roles with SIL On January 10 2018 as we discussed the interaction between the linguistics and literacy domains of language development my eyes were opened to the fact that linguistic checks were not being practiced in all SIL entities and that not all SIL linguists are in favor of linguistic checks I am thankful for the challenging questions of my friends in this group which helped me to think more precisely about why I believe not just all SIL entities but all Bible translation organizations can and should benefit from linguistic checks I write this paper based on the data I collected from my linguistic-checking experience with the hope that it will be useful to others I am indebted to all who took the time to read and give thoughtful comments on a previous version of this paper especially Mike Cahill (SIL International Orthography Services Coordinator) who thoroughly understands the linguistic issues affecting reading and writing as well as Leila Schroeder (Literacy amp Education Consultant in SIL Africa-Ango-Lusophone) who has had many years of experience in training MTLDs in writing consistency as well as Helen Eaton (Linguistics Consultant and Coordinator of Uganda-Tanzania Branch) who has done even more linguistic checks than I have and has challenged my thinking about the best way to do linguistic checks Special thanks to my SIL South Sudan administrators and colleagues who have allowed me the freedom to make mistakes in order to learn from them I want to especially thank all the TAs who spent endless hours ensuring my written comments were understood and applied by MTLDs since I was not in South Sudan to do this I also want to thank Pioneer Bible Translators for inviting me to work with language teams they support through which the opportunity for me to learn the benefits and costs of linguistic checks was greatly extended

3

speakers made informed decisions for all these aspects of their writing system Considerable time was spent comparing and contrasting vowel qualities and length in word lists so as to train MTLDs in consistent writing of these sounds Afterwards I documented all writing decisions and the grammar learned in books written for MTLDs and I recorded the agreed-upon spelling of 1000 words in a beginning dictionary6

However when Laarim MTLDs began producing literacy materials with the help of SIL literacy personnel I was surprised by how many words had different spelling than what was agreed to in the RGC workshops just a few months before The majority of the inconsistencies were not in following the agreed-upon writing rules but in writing the same words or roots with more than one spelling Thinking my role as a linguistics consultant was to document and train teams in grammarmdashnot to be their spelling police I chose to ignore the writing inconsistency that was developing hoping the MTLDs would arrive at better consistency in time Now with more than half of the New Testament drafted and an extensive number of supporting reading materials published MTLDs are still writing many of the same words or roots with multiple spellings not always agreeing with each other as to which is correct and sometimes changing their mind from one day to the next Because of the high number of case suffixes and verb prefixes and suffixes each with some irregularities correcting these inconsistencies will not be quick using computer tools such as the word list generated in Paratext even if MTLDs could now agree on correct spelling

From this experience with Laarim I realized that even the best writing system chosen by a language community along with the best documentation of its grammar can be virtually worthless if the language community does not learn to consistently use its writing system After learning this lesson the hard way all language teams I later helped develop a writing system I also trained in how to consistently use that writing system7mdashby giving linguistic comments in all materials produced in their language For nearly all MTLDs I have worked with learning the grammar by participatory discovery methods in RGC workshops and understanding its description in grammar books afterwards is not sufficient training Rather consistently applying the grammar to writing is a high level skill only learned by watching others and then doing it yourself through on-going guidance

22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams

As each new vernacular book is drafted by a language team I check the spelling of each word and how each writing rule is followed throughout making written comments for any difference in what MTLDs previously agreed to in a recent RGC workshop and what is written in the book at hand My comments are mere reminders of what MTLDs previously agreed to rather than comments about wording or correct grammatical agreement I always encourage MTLDs to have the final say in all writing issues as long as they explain their reason consistently write according to their decision throughout all language materials and have the approval of the language community Section 5 gives other details of the checking process I follow

Table 1 lists the results of linguistic checks for nine language teams of South Sudan It gives the number of comments made per verse in the first chapter of Scripture drafted8 the percentage of

6 All mentioned Laarim materials are available for download from the links in the appendix of (Stirtz 2015) 7 The Beta language team is one exception as explained in section 22 8 In this paper I use the phrase lsquofirst chapter draftedrsquo loosely to mean the verses first drafted until there were 50ndash60 comments This is in order to make a consistent comparison between the languages regardless of how many comments per verse were made For example in Belanda Bor there were 50 comments in the first 8 verses of Genesis chapter 22 and in Mundari there were 50 comments in the first 40 verses of Genesis chapters 22 and 15 If I only counted the number of comments in the first 8 verses drafted by the Mundari there would be few Mundari comments to compare with the numerous Belanda Bor comments So I counted comments until there were 50ndash60 Then in both languages I divided the relevant number of verses by about the same number of comments so as to make a more equal comparison of comments per verse between the languages

4

comments accepted by MTLDs the most common types of errors the percentage of errors not found by computer tools and the percentage of errors that likely have ambiguity in meaning All language teams drafted Scripture in Paratext Most linguistic checking comments were made using the notes tool in Paratext from a location other than that of the translation team The comments were read by MTLDs and orally explained as needed by TAs in the same location Linguistic checking comments were given after the first draft and team revision of chapters then again after an exegetical check on the chapters and a third time after the translation consultant check The comments of each subsequent linguistic check were mostly for words changed since the previous check All comments given in the first chapter drafted were counted in table 1 regardless of when the comments were made9 I made no comments in Beta language materials after helping this team develop a writing system because one team member is better than I at finding writing errors and is doing the linguistic checks for that team

9 However repeated comments such as for a word spelled incorrectly multiple times or a comment that was not sufficiently dealt with by MTLDs in the first linguistic check and restated in the second check were only counted once unless the comment was for an error that cannot be found by computer checks and only known from context (ie vowel consonant or tone minimal pairs)

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

2

MTLDs will correct each otherrsquos mistakes or that computer tools will help MTLDs arrive at consistent writing or that training MTLDs in consistent writing is the responsibility of others Linguists assume that their grammar write-ups documenting each language will be understood by language developers and used to make writing consistent in all materials but do not see training MTLDs in this writing process as their responsibility The TAs may be in the best position to give on-going training in writing since they work the most hours with MTLDs But translation is their primary responsibility and often there is little time for writing consistency even in translated materials

The overseers of a traditional translation project are responsible for work in all domains and use their knowledge to train MTLDS in consistent writing for materials in all domains By contrast in the modern translation project because there is no strong link between the domains training in consistent writing is neglected and although materials can have excellent content they have inferior quality in writing consistency

This paper5 discusses the extent of the inconsistency in writing language materials in the context of South Sudan why inconsistent writing is a problem why it is justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLD in writing consistency and how to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach It claims that linguistic checksmdashthat is the equivalent of translation consultant checks but by linguists checking spelling tone marking word-breaks naturalness etcmdashtrain MTLDs in consistently using their writing system significantly improve the writing consistency of language development materials and enable improved reading fluency and understanding These claims are based on improvements in writing of eight translation teams as a result of regular linguistic checks the specific details of which are documented in sections 2 and 4 of this paper

2 The extent of writing inconsistency in language materials of South Sudan

21 Inconsistent writing in Laarim

In 2009 a few years after civil war in Sudan and South Sudan had ended and SIL personnel had renewed work in Juba I was asked to help Laarim [loh] speakers develop a writing system for their language From previous experience I knew it was important to gather enough data for deciding the alphabet and how to represent tone word breaks and sound changes at morpheme boundaries Through participant methods in two 2-week rapid grammar collection (RGC) workshops described in (Stirtz 2015) Laarim

5 This paper resulted from a discussion in the Anglo-Lusophone Linguistics group led by Oliver Stegen which meets regularly via Skype to discuss relevant issues and to encourage each other in our respective linguistic roles with SIL On January 10 2018 as we discussed the interaction between the linguistics and literacy domains of language development my eyes were opened to the fact that linguistic checks were not being practiced in all SIL entities and that not all SIL linguists are in favor of linguistic checks I am thankful for the challenging questions of my friends in this group which helped me to think more precisely about why I believe not just all SIL entities but all Bible translation organizations can and should benefit from linguistic checks I write this paper based on the data I collected from my linguistic-checking experience with the hope that it will be useful to others I am indebted to all who took the time to read and give thoughtful comments on a previous version of this paper especially Mike Cahill (SIL International Orthography Services Coordinator) who thoroughly understands the linguistic issues affecting reading and writing as well as Leila Schroeder (Literacy amp Education Consultant in SIL Africa-Ango-Lusophone) who has had many years of experience in training MTLDs in writing consistency as well as Helen Eaton (Linguistics Consultant and Coordinator of Uganda-Tanzania Branch) who has done even more linguistic checks than I have and has challenged my thinking about the best way to do linguistic checks Special thanks to my SIL South Sudan administrators and colleagues who have allowed me the freedom to make mistakes in order to learn from them I want to especially thank all the TAs who spent endless hours ensuring my written comments were understood and applied by MTLDs since I was not in South Sudan to do this I also want to thank Pioneer Bible Translators for inviting me to work with language teams they support through which the opportunity for me to learn the benefits and costs of linguistic checks was greatly extended

3

speakers made informed decisions for all these aspects of their writing system Considerable time was spent comparing and contrasting vowel qualities and length in word lists so as to train MTLDs in consistent writing of these sounds Afterwards I documented all writing decisions and the grammar learned in books written for MTLDs and I recorded the agreed-upon spelling of 1000 words in a beginning dictionary6

However when Laarim MTLDs began producing literacy materials with the help of SIL literacy personnel I was surprised by how many words had different spelling than what was agreed to in the RGC workshops just a few months before The majority of the inconsistencies were not in following the agreed-upon writing rules but in writing the same words or roots with more than one spelling Thinking my role as a linguistics consultant was to document and train teams in grammarmdashnot to be their spelling police I chose to ignore the writing inconsistency that was developing hoping the MTLDs would arrive at better consistency in time Now with more than half of the New Testament drafted and an extensive number of supporting reading materials published MTLDs are still writing many of the same words or roots with multiple spellings not always agreeing with each other as to which is correct and sometimes changing their mind from one day to the next Because of the high number of case suffixes and verb prefixes and suffixes each with some irregularities correcting these inconsistencies will not be quick using computer tools such as the word list generated in Paratext even if MTLDs could now agree on correct spelling

From this experience with Laarim I realized that even the best writing system chosen by a language community along with the best documentation of its grammar can be virtually worthless if the language community does not learn to consistently use its writing system After learning this lesson the hard way all language teams I later helped develop a writing system I also trained in how to consistently use that writing system7mdashby giving linguistic comments in all materials produced in their language For nearly all MTLDs I have worked with learning the grammar by participatory discovery methods in RGC workshops and understanding its description in grammar books afterwards is not sufficient training Rather consistently applying the grammar to writing is a high level skill only learned by watching others and then doing it yourself through on-going guidance

22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams

As each new vernacular book is drafted by a language team I check the spelling of each word and how each writing rule is followed throughout making written comments for any difference in what MTLDs previously agreed to in a recent RGC workshop and what is written in the book at hand My comments are mere reminders of what MTLDs previously agreed to rather than comments about wording or correct grammatical agreement I always encourage MTLDs to have the final say in all writing issues as long as they explain their reason consistently write according to their decision throughout all language materials and have the approval of the language community Section 5 gives other details of the checking process I follow

Table 1 lists the results of linguistic checks for nine language teams of South Sudan It gives the number of comments made per verse in the first chapter of Scripture drafted8 the percentage of

6 All mentioned Laarim materials are available for download from the links in the appendix of (Stirtz 2015) 7 The Beta language team is one exception as explained in section 22 8 In this paper I use the phrase lsquofirst chapter draftedrsquo loosely to mean the verses first drafted until there were 50ndash60 comments This is in order to make a consistent comparison between the languages regardless of how many comments per verse were made For example in Belanda Bor there were 50 comments in the first 8 verses of Genesis chapter 22 and in Mundari there were 50 comments in the first 40 verses of Genesis chapters 22 and 15 If I only counted the number of comments in the first 8 verses drafted by the Mundari there would be few Mundari comments to compare with the numerous Belanda Bor comments So I counted comments until there were 50ndash60 Then in both languages I divided the relevant number of verses by about the same number of comments so as to make a more equal comparison of comments per verse between the languages

4

comments accepted by MTLDs the most common types of errors the percentage of errors not found by computer tools and the percentage of errors that likely have ambiguity in meaning All language teams drafted Scripture in Paratext Most linguistic checking comments were made using the notes tool in Paratext from a location other than that of the translation team The comments were read by MTLDs and orally explained as needed by TAs in the same location Linguistic checking comments were given after the first draft and team revision of chapters then again after an exegetical check on the chapters and a third time after the translation consultant check The comments of each subsequent linguistic check were mostly for words changed since the previous check All comments given in the first chapter drafted were counted in table 1 regardless of when the comments were made9 I made no comments in Beta language materials after helping this team develop a writing system because one team member is better than I at finding writing errors and is doing the linguistic checks for that team

9 However repeated comments such as for a word spelled incorrectly multiple times or a comment that was not sufficiently dealt with by MTLDs in the first linguistic check and restated in the second check were only counted once unless the comment was for an error that cannot be found by computer checks and only known from context (ie vowel consonant or tone minimal pairs)

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

3

speakers made informed decisions for all these aspects of their writing system Considerable time was spent comparing and contrasting vowel qualities and length in word lists so as to train MTLDs in consistent writing of these sounds Afterwards I documented all writing decisions and the grammar learned in books written for MTLDs and I recorded the agreed-upon spelling of 1000 words in a beginning dictionary6

However when Laarim MTLDs began producing literacy materials with the help of SIL literacy personnel I was surprised by how many words had different spelling than what was agreed to in the RGC workshops just a few months before The majority of the inconsistencies were not in following the agreed-upon writing rules but in writing the same words or roots with more than one spelling Thinking my role as a linguistics consultant was to document and train teams in grammarmdashnot to be their spelling police I chose to ignore the writing inconsistency that was developing hoping the MTLDs would arrive at better consistency in time Now with more than half of the New Testament drafted and an extensive number of supporting reading materials published MTLDs are still writing many of the same words or roots with multiple spellings not always agreeing with each other as to which is correct and sometimes changing their mind from one day to the next Because of the high number of case suffixes and verb prefixes and suffixes each with some irregularities correcting these inconsistencies will not be quick using computer tools such as the word list generated in Paratext even if MTLDs could now agree on correct spelling

From this experience with Laarim I realized that even the best writing system chosen by a language community along with the best documentation of its grammar can be virtually worthless if the language community does not learn to consistently use its writing system After learning this lesson the hard way all language teams I later helped develop a writing system I also trained in how to consistently use that writing system7mdashby giving linguistic comments in all materials produced in their language For nearly all MTLDs I have worked with learning the grammar by participatory discovery methods in RGC workshops and understanding its description in grammar books afterwards is not sufficient training Rather consistently applying the grammar to writing is a high level skill only learned by watching others and then doing it yourself through on-going guidance

22 Linguistic checks for all new South Sudan languages teams

As each new vernacular book is drafted by a language team I check the spelling of each word and how each writing rule is followed throughout making written comments for any difference in what MTLDs previously agreed to in a recent RGC workshop and what is written in the book at hand My comments are mere reminders of what MTLDs previously agreed to rather than comments about wording or correct grammatical agreement I always encourage MTLDs to have the final say in all writing issues as long as they explain their reason consistently write according to their decision throughout all language materials and have the approval of the language community Section 5 gives other details of the checking process I follow

Table 1 lists the results of linguistic checks for nine language teams of South Sudan It gives the number of comments made per verse in the first chapter of Scripture drafted8 the percentage of

6 All mentioned Laarim materials are available for download from the links in the appendix of (Stirtz 2015) 7 The Beta language team is one exception as explained in section 22 8 In this paper I use the phrase lsquofirst chapter draftedrsquo loosely to mean the verses first drafted until there were 50ndash60 comments This is in order to make a consistent comparison between the languages regardless of how many comments per verse were made For example in Belanda Bor there were 50 comments in the first 8 verses of Genesis chapter 22 and in Mundari there were 50 comments in the first 40 verses of Genesis chapters 22 and 15 If I only counted the number of comments in the first 8 verses drafted by the Mundari there would be few Mundari comments to compare with the numerous Belanda Bor comments So I counted comments until there were 50ndash60 Then in both languages I divided the relevant number of verses by about the same number of comments so as to make a more equal comparison of comments per verse between the languages

4

comments accepted by MTLDs the most common types of errors the percentage of errors not found by computer tools and the percentage of errors that likely have ambiguity in meaning All language teams drafted Scripture in Paratext Most linguistic checking comments were made using the notes tool in Paratext from a location other than that of the translation team The comments were read by MTLDs and orally explained as needed by TAs in the same location Linguistic checking comments were given after the first draft and team revision of chapters then again after an exegetical check on the chapters and a third time after the translation consultant check The comments of each subsequent linguistic check were mostly for words changed since the previous check All comments given in the first chapter drafted were counted in table 1 regardless of when the comments were made9 I made no comments in Beta language materials after helping this team develop a writing system because one team member is better than I at finding writing errors and is doing the linguistic checks for that team

9 However repeated comments such as for a word spelled incorrectly multiple times or a comment that was not sufficiently dealt with by MTLDs in the first linguistic check and restated in the second check were only counted once unless the comment was for an error that cannot be found by computer checks and only known from context (ie vowel consonant or tone minimal pairs)

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

4

comments accepted by MTLDs the most common types of errors the percentage of errors not found by computer tools and the percentage of errors that likely have ambiguity in meaning All language teams drafted Scripture in Paratext Most linguistic checking comments were made using the notes tool in Paratext from a location other than that of the translation team The comments were read by MTLDs and orally explained as needed by TAs in the same location Linguistic checking comments were given after the first draft and team revision of chapters then again after an exegetical check on the chapters and a third time after the translation consultant check The comments of each subsequent linguistic check were mostly for words changed since the previous check All comments given in the first chapter drafted were counted in table 1 regardless of when the comments were made9 I made no comments in Beta language materials after helping this team develop a writing system because one team member is better than I at finding writing errors and is doing the linguistic checks for that team

9 However repeated comments such as for a word spelled incorrectly multiple times or a comment that was not sufficiently dealt with by MTLDs in the first linguistic check and restated in the second check were only counted once unless the comment was for an error that cannot be found by computer checks and only known from context (ie vowel consonant or tone minimal pairs)

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

5

Table 1 Results of linguistic checks for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

of comments accepted

Most common types of errors

of errors not found by computer tools

of errors with ambiguity of meaning

Belanda Bor [bxb]

83 86 56 vowel 24 consonant 16 word break

18 2

Bongo [bot]

27 90 54 word break 19 tone 10 vowel

17 4

Beli [blm]

73 93 69 tone 17 word break

38 7

Lopit [lpx]

38 89 47 tone 27 dialect 14 word break

56 3

Mundari [mqu]

08 81 48 vowel 21 syllable break 13 word break

10 2

Reel [atu]

31 95 47 vowel 31 work break 12 tone

14 5

Kappaa 24 92 47 tone 20 vowel 19 consonant

32 7

Omega 15 93 50 vowel 31 consonant 13 word break

0b 0

Beta 00 0 0 0 0 Average 33 90 21 33 a Kappa Omega and Beta are pseudonyms used for languages because of the sensitive nature of the work described in this paper b None of the errors in the first chapter drafted by Omega would be missed by computer checks However twice in the introduction to Luke lapedaumlng lsquoshowrsquo was used instead of laumlpedaumlng lsquotellrsquo and these errors would be missed by computer checks Nevertheless the number of errors in Omega that would be missed by computer checks is much fewer than in other languages

Table 2 lists example comments for the common types of errors made by various teams The errors shown were later revised according to these comments The comments reference the page in grammar books where spelling rules are further explained or where similar sounds are compared and contrasted in word lists See the appendix for a list of websites where these grammar books can be downloaded

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

6

Table 2 Example comments in linguistic checks

Type of error

Language Reference Error Revision Comment

vowel Belanda Bor

Gen 221 afɔnj afonj The agreed-upon spelling of lsquotry testrsquo is afonj Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists on page 24 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

Mundari Gen 223 tukunde tuumlkuumlndeuml Probably this should be spelled with dots as tuumlkuumlndeuml since the root verb is tok lsquocutrsquo and the heavy suffix -uumlndeuml changes the root vowel o to uuml See spelling rule 9

tone marking

Beli Gen 2213 dɔ gbe dɔ-gbe If it means lsquoabove sonrsquo add a hyphen as dɔ-gbe If it means lsquohead of sonrsquo write dɔ gbe See the hyphen rule on page 6

Lopit Gen 222 lenyi lenyi Isako

lecircnyi lecircnyi Icircsako

Write caps (circumflex) on the object and repeated objects of yari lsquotakersquo in lsquoTake your son your only son Isaacrsquo Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako so readers will not think these are subjects See spelling rule 11

Kappa Gen 24 tahldiacute tahldǐ If this means lsquoGod he createdrsquo it should be taldeacute (See page 179 in Grammar Book) If it means lsquowhen God createdrsquo it should be tahldǐ See spelling rules 23 and 26

word break

Bongo Gen 225 bi lehi bilehi If it means lsquofor our worshipingrsquo connect as bilehi If it means lsquohe worships usrsquo separate as bi lehi See spelling rules 4 7

Omega Luke 126 toda ta owda The preposition ta lsquoin torsquo is separate from a following noun See spelling rule 8 So write lsquoin placersquo as ta owda

Reel Gen 222 gat du gatdu If it is a close relationship that is not easily separated connect lsquoyour sonrsquo as gatdu If it is a distant relationship that can easily be separated add euml and write as gat euml du See spelling rules 3a and 3b

consonant Belanda Bor

Gen 222 ngbɛl gbɛl Agreed-upon spelling for lsquoonlyrsquo is gbɛl Compare the sound in this word with the sounds in the word lists for ŋ ngb and gb on page 20 of the Consonant amp Vowel book

other dialect

Lopit Gen 224 nyie nia nyie is correct for the Ŋotira dialect but the agreed-upon spelling of lsquothat (away from speaker and hearer or known to hearer)rsquo is nia

syllable break

Mundari Gen 1510 jokeya jokia Agreed-upon spelling for lsquostomachsrsquo is jokia This assumes the word has only two beats If it has three beats it could have a y

23 Writing inconsistencies in the first chapter of Scripture of new translation teams

The extent of inconsistency for the new language teams of table 1 is surprising Although each of the nine teams previously had at least one RGC workshop where they came to informed agreement of more than 80 of the writing decisions required of their language the MTLDs of eight teams needed assistance in how to apply their agreed-upon writing system The average number of comments per verse in the first chapter drafted was 33 where one language received 83 comments per verse and another 0 comments per verse On average 90 of the comments were accepted by MTLDs This means that

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

7

MTLDs essentially acknowledged that they made 30 errors per verse in their first chapter drafted That may not sound like much at first but it means over 60 errors in Genesis chapter 22 the first chapter drafted by most teams Assuming there were no linguistic checks and that these teams continued to write with the same inconsistency throughout Genesis there would be 4600 errors on average in Genesis alone

One might imagine that many of these errors were made because translators were only thinking about content and wording but would find them later during team revisions However these comments were made after team revisions in which one goal was to revise the text for agreed-upon writing So the MTLDs in the beginning stages of their project did not find 3 errors per verse when checking each otherrsquos draft Since they corrected each of these errors when reminded of their agreed-upon writing they obviously acknowledged they were errors

The following are possible reasons why these errors were missed during team revision

1 The MTLDs forgot the agreed-upon writing system and did not look up the spelling of individual words in the dictionary or the writing rules in the grammar books

2 The MTLDs did not yet fully understand the agreed-upon writing system or know how to apply it 3 The writing system was not intuitive enough for MTLDs or otherwise not the best choice for the

language 4 The MTLDs noticed writing inconsistencies but did not value consistent writing enough to revise the

text accordingly10

If 1 or 2 are correct the MTLDs mainly need to be reminded of the agreed-upon writing system and practice using it which is the purpose of comments in linguistic checks As mentioned the comments of table 2 refer MTLDs to the relevant writing rules in the grammar book where the rules are explained with data examples Or the comments refer MTLDs to the lists of words in the grammar book where certain vowels or consonants are compared and contrasted and the MTLDs can determine the letter-sound correspondence which is needed for the word in question In this way linguistic checks not only remind MTLDs of what they agreed to but also give them on-going training in how to apply it11

If 3 is correct MTLDs will continue making the same number of certain types of errors and it will become apparent through the process of linguistic checks that the writing rules for these types of errors need to be changed Often when MTLDs repeatedly fail to apply a writing rule it is because they have not had enough practice Writers of major world languages only become adept after years of practice so we should not expect any difference for MTLDs learning to write developing languages However if there is not even a little improvement in applying a writing rule after months of practice we should consider an easier but adequate rule if one can be found remembering that ease of reading comprehension is more important than ease of writing No initial writing system is perfect but in my experience the best recommendations for an initial writing system are based on the output of lexical phonology as described by Snider (in 2014) which essentially proposes that MTLDs write what they are aware of and not what they are not aware of The downloadable grammar books in the appendix include the agreed-upon writing rules for the above languages and most of the rules follow this principle If certain writing rules are not applicable to all grammatical constructions or for other reasons need to be changed what better way to find out than by repeatedly testing the rules in language materials as is done through linguistic checks

If 4 is correct it shows MTLDs still need to be convinced that writing consistently is worth the effort The attention to detail required to make consistent writing is often a foreign concept to MTLDs

10 Note that I only made comments on agreed-upon writing at the time of the linguistic check Because I did not make comments about words or constructions not yet agreed-upon the fact that only 1000 words and 80 of writing decisions were previously agreed to is not a valid reason for why the errors were missed 11 This is not to say that linguistic checks alone can give all the training needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Other training should also be given such as weekly dictation exercises with immediate feedback

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

8

just as it is to most students when first learning to write a major world language Endless learning about grammar and language development regardless of how engaging it is will not be nearly as convincing for MTLDs of the need for consistent writing as real language examples where writing choices affect meaning and these are readily seen in linguistic checks Many of the comments listed in table 2 give a choice of spelling depending on which meaning is intended For example writing bilehi in Bongo Genesis 225 gives the meaning lsquofor our worshipingrsquo whereas bi lehi gives the meaning lsquohe worships usrsquo As MTLDs are repeatedly faced with the consequences of their writing choices they begin to fully understand the impact of inconsistent writing and the need for its consistency and most in turn are motivated towards improved writing as a result

24 Writing inconsistencies that may be found by computer tools

241 Using the Paratext wordlist tool to correct writing inconsistencies

Of course not all errors are equal Some can be identified by computer software tools and others cannot The Paratext wordlist tool generates a list of all spellings of all words entered in Paratext By comparing the similarly spelled words multiple spellings of the same words can often be found and corrected However the time for correcting errors using the wordlist tool can be considerable depending on how many errors there are how many verses of Scripture have been entered in Paratext and how difficult it is to distinguish spellings with errors from those without errors when they are listed out of context and without glosses The wordlist tool in Paratext has the helpful feature that when you click on any word in the list it brings up the word in all contexts of Scripture where it occurs However some of the spellings in the list could actually be two different words where one or both are misspelled For example in Laarim as shown in table 3 keneci could be a misspelling of either the imperfective verb kennecci lsquoItellyou-sgrsquo or the perfective kenneci lsquoItoldyou-sgrsquo When this is the case the spelling of each word in the list should be confirmed or corrected in all contexts which takes time

Table 3 Corrections of Laarim words according to context using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling in Paratext wordlist Correct spelling depending on the context keneci kennecci (imperfective) kenneci (perfective) Itellyou-sg keneccĩ keneeci keneccung kenneccung (imperfective) kennecung (perfective) Itellyou-pl kenecung

As mentioned using the Paratext wordlist tool for Laarim is a considerable challenge because of the numerous noun and verb affixes For each verb root there can potentially be more than one hundred correct word spellings counting perfective and imperfective forms with subject and object markers of seven distinct person pronouns not counting derivational morphology Not every form of every verb is common so the average number of forms per verb root used in Scripture could be as low as eight But even this low a figure means that MDLDs must distinguish correct spelling of eight forms of each root from all incorrect spellings keeping in mind which of the 100-plus verb forms are present in the list even though they are listed out of context and keeping in mind correct spelling for sound changes resulting when each morpheme is added to the root Table 4 shows other challenging corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool all with the root enne lsquotellrsquo

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

9

Table 4 Additional corrections of Laarim words using the Paratext wordlist tool

Misspelling Correct spelling keneha kenneha (perfective) lsquoI toldrsquo kenea kennea (imperfective) lsquoI tell themrsquo eenei ennei (imperfective) lsquoyou tellrsquo enehet ennehet (perfective) lsquoyou told usrsquo keneei kennei (imperfective) lsquowe tellrsquo eneca ennecca (perfective) lsquohe toldrsquo enecu enneccu (imperfective) lsquoyou (pl) tellrsquo enecet enneccet (perfective) lsquothey told usrsquo

If the word list is generated from only a few chapters of Scripture correcting these types of errors is quick and easy But the time and effort needed for corrections with this computer tool grows exponentially with the number of chapters and books Checking an entire New Testament would take months Because the task would be so exhausting many errors would likely go untouched and a few new errors might be unintentionally introduced Beginning early in the project and using the wordlist tool often prevents many errors However few MTLDs take the initiative for such a tedious task and when there is pressure by donors to complete translation quickly it is one of the first to be dropped

Laarim is not unusual among Nilo-Saharan languages for its extensive morphology Mundari Lopit Reel Omega Kappa and Beta all have a high number of word forms per verb root and at least one of these languages has even more than Laarim

242 Using the Paratext interlinearizer glossing tool to keep writing consistent

The project interlinearizer glossing tool in Paratext has more potential for correcting writing inconsistencies than the wordlist tool and takes less effort throughout the course of a translation project if used consistently from the start As each new word in Scripture is glossed with one or more glosses the entered glosses automatically show up as choices for the word when it is repeated assuming it is spelled the same When MTLDs spell a word consistently from one time to the next they simply choose the correct gloss for the new context and receive immediate confirmation that they have in fact spelled the word the same way as previously However when MTLDs spell a word differently than before the interlinearizer tool treats the spelling as a new word (unless the new spelling happens to be a correct spelling of a previously entered different word) At this point the MTLDs may realize that they have spelled the word differently and try to find the correct spelling or they may think they are now entering the word for the first time and proceed to gloss the incorrect spelling as if it were a new word The more verses drafted and the more morphologically complex a language is the more likely it is that MTLDs will forget previously entered spellings and enter two or more spellings of the same word Sometimes MTLDs do not remember the agreed-upon spelling the first time they use it in Scripture and then are confused when they later spell it correctly without seeing its gloss as an option

The more words that come to have multiple spellings the more difficult and time consuming it is to make the writing of Scripture consistent again When the interlinearizer tool has not been used consistently for correct writing from the beginning of a translation project it quickly becomes ineffective for making writing consistent Then the wordlist tool is the better of the two computer-checking options at least until the writing and glossing of drafted chapters are corrected When correcting drafts using the interlinearizer tool MTLDs must first delete the gloss of an incorrectly spelled word before they change the spelling of that word and then re-enter the gloss of the correctly spelled word If MTLDs do not first delete the gloss each time they later enter the word with this incorrect spelling the gloss appears as an option indicating that the incorrectly spelled word is correct and the downward slope towards inconsistency continues

All of the nine teams of table 1 used the interlinearizer tool when drafting their first chapter of Scripture and still had 60 errors on average for this chapter Most teams had several multiple spellings of

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

10

words and were already off to a bad start in using the interlinearizer tool The MTLDs could have consulted the beginning dictionary and grammar books for the agreed-upon spelling of most words and some teams even had the Fieldworks database linked to Paratext so that with a single right click on a word in Paratext the word and meaning if entered in the database would appear confirming the correct spelling However when drafting Scripture it is not always advisable to think about correct spelling while trying to find the best choice of wording Then after the chapter is drafted it takes discipline to do the tedious work of consulting the dictionary spelling of each word12 Again when there is pressure from donors to translate quickly the priority for writing consistency diminishes Those teams with considerable morphology have greater difficulty remembering which words have been entered because of the considerable number of correct word forms of each root and end up with more multiple spellings of the same word forms It also takes these teams longer to properly gloss words by using glosses that distinguish each of these forms

Although computer tools are able to help correct a significant number of errors in translated Scripture they are most effective when MTLDs have the training and discipline to use them consistently from the beginning which is generally not the case for the teams I work with Computer tools alone are not sufficient help for MTLDs to write consistently The training provided by linguistic checks is also needed for there to be consistent writing

25 Writing inconsistencies that cannot be found by computer tools

There are also writing errors that are unidentifiable by computer tools This is because although they are incorrect spellings of words in some contexts they are correct spellings of other words in other contexts That is errors regarding homophones and other words with similar spellings are not found by spell checks in English or in any other language

As shown in table 1 21 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks This is thirteen of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 966 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis assuming no further help is given in writing consistency

Table 5 lists the minimal pairs13 involved in the errors represented by table 1 which cannot be found by computer tools Although there are many other minimal pairs in each language for those listed in table 2 one word of each pair was written incorrectly as the other of the pair in the first chapter drafted The number of errors involving this pair in that chapter is also given Errors involving these and other minimal pairs have been made in other chapters by each of these language teams but not recorded here The only way I know to find and correct such errors is by checking each word in context as is done in linguistic checks

Table 5 Minimal pairs involved in errors not found by computer tools

Belanda Bor Reel 4 yɛn lsquothis 1 yiuml lsquo(past)rsquo yen lsquofirewood y lsquoyou (sg)rsquo 3 yi lsquoyou (sg) 1 ke lsquo(habitual)rsquo yiuml lsquofor to ke lsquowithrsquo 1 kadi lsquo you go 1 ka lsquo(habitual passive)rsquo kad lsquogo ka lsquowithrsquo 12 If the interlinear glossing tool of Paratext used the Fieldworks database as it source it would save MTLDs from having to right click on each word to check spelling and would better enforce consistent writing 13 For the sake of simplicity the term lsquominimal pairrsquo is used for any similar sounding pair of words whether they be minimal pairs for vowels consonants or tone In table 5 those that are tone minimal pairs have marks such as an underlined vowel accented vowel comma hyphen word break or other mark distinguishing the pair

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

11

1 loor lsquobe afraid fear 1 ca lsquo(perfective)rsquo lɔɔr lsquolook see ca lsquo(perfective passive)rsquo Bongo 1 ba lsquo(future)rsquo 2 ka lsquoand thenrsquo ba lsquo(future passive)rsquo ka lsquobe asrsquo 1 dual lsquoveilrsquo 2 na lsquowithrsquo duaal lsquoabundancersquo na lsquothisrsquo 1 weumln lsquowhilersquo 2 bi lehi lsquohe worshipsrsquo wɛn lsquoplacersquo bilehi lsquoworshippingrsquo 1 jieen lsquotravelrsquo 1 do bihi lsquoon the placersquo jeen lsquofirewoodrsquo dobihi lsquoarearsquo Kappa 1 ga lsquocutrsquo 1 tahldiacute lsquohe createdputrsquo ga lsquochasersquo tahldi lsquocreatedput itrsquo 1 ngbaꞌba lsquoburn bakersquo 1 suddu lsquoin order to waterrsquo ngbaꞌba lsquowear hitrsquo sudu lsquowater (imperfective)rsquo Beli 1 fuyyiacute lsquohe blewrsquo 6 ka lsquoand then (imperfective)rsquo fuyyi lsquoblew itrsquo ka lsquobe (continuous verb)rsquo 2 iingg lsquothemselvesrsquo 4 ko lsquoand then (perfective)rsquo iing lsquohimselfrsquo ko lsquobe asrsquo 1 jisah lsquosomethingrsquo 4 maa lsquogorsquo jisaacuteh lsquois donersquo ma lsquoI (imperfective verb)rsquo 1 tahlĩn lsquoput for him 3 moo lsquohisrsquo tahli lsquoput him mo lsquoI (perfective verb)rsquo 1 eem-e lsquopart (end of dep cl) 2 na lsquowho whichrsquo eemeuml lsquopart (end of rel cl) na lsquothis (demonstrative)rsquo 1 u lsquoyou 1 ꞌjaa lsquosee findrsquo ucirc lsquoyou will ꞌja lsquorunrsquo 1 leeleega lsquoforest 1 te lsquowho whichrsquo leeleege lsquoforest (accompaniment) te lsquothat (demonstrative)rsquo 1 maang lsquodisagreement 1 ꞌbɔna lsquoherersquo maanag lsquocourageous ꞌbɔ na lsquobecause of thisrsquo 1 gudiacute lsquohe pulls Lopit gudi lsquopulls it 30 (nocircun) lsquo(verb object or complement)rsquo 1 guducircni lsquois pulling it (noun) lsquo(not a verb object or complement)rsquo gudǔni lsquowas pulling it 2 ade lsquoaway outrsquo 1 ahdahni lsquomakes it a de lsquoto therersquo ꞌahdǎhni lsquowas causing to come ino lsquogo (command)rsquo 1 godacircnaacute lsquois being taken inno lsquoofrsquo godǎnaacute lsquowas being taken Mundari 1 fui lsquotree name 2 a lsquoand thenrsquo fuui lsquomale a lsquowas asrsquo 1 faaneuml lsquofather (end of rel cl) 1 ŋir lsquognash teethrsquo faane lsquofather (accompaniment) ŋer lsquobrotherrsquo 1 e lsquohe 1 kuluka lsquotheirrsquo eacute lsquoto at in from by kuumlluumlkouml lsquoyour (pl)rsquo 1 faameeg-e lsquowisdom (end of dep cl) 1 niyo lsquomyrsquo faameeg lsquowisdom nyo lsquowhatrsquo

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

12

26 Writing inconsistencies that affect meaning

In addition there are writing errors that affect the meaning of Scripture These are a subset of the errors that cannot be identified by computer tools For most of the errors not found by computer checks readers will still correctly guess the intended meaning since the alternative meaning does not make sense in the context of the writing error However there are some such errors where both the intended meaning of the incorrectly written word and the meaning of the word as it is written could both be equally correct in the context Provided the readers have learned the use of symbols and markings in the writing system they will assume the unintended meaning associated with the incorrectly written word is correct

As shown in table 1 33 of errors on average for the nine languages cannot be found by computer checks and are ambiguous in meaning in the context where they occur This is two of the sixty errors missed by MTLDs in Genesis chapter 22 and 151 of the potential 4600 errors in Genesis if no further help is given in writing consistency

The examples of table 6 are thought to be ambiguous for meaning in the contexts of the Scripture passages The word in bold and italics to the left of the forward slash is the error referred to in table 1 and the word in bold and italics to the right of the forward slash is the correction Although most of these errors make little difference for the meaning of the overall passage some particularly those with underlined reference on the left would likely cause readers to have some incorrect understanding of the passage albeit mostly harmless Although none of these errors are apt to mislead readers into believing incorrect doctrine they show the likelihood of other similar errors in other chapters and that there is potential for more harmful errors than these

Table 6 Errors of the first chapter drafted thought to be ambiguous in meaning

Belanda Bor

Gen 224 Yiuml aꞌdek ni nin Aburam aloralɔr finy yɛn ni ciꞌd Jɔk can tɔgo yiumlre boor mal kuŋ

On the third day Abraham fearedsaw this place which God told him about

Bongo Gen 227 Foumlꞌduuml na ji je gbana ngiumlriuml kangiumlriuml ka girembo na ꞌbaa ro bingba ne ka aꞌji ꞌbiumlꞌbiuml

Do we have the fire and the wood as a thing for burning as an offeringWe have the fire and the wood but do we have the thing for burning as an offering

Gen 224 Hi kada muta kamuta ka Abrahim lewu toro ka ba ata bihi dibi kpaumlngaumllauml

On the third day asthen Abraham looked up and saw the place from far away

Beli Gen 226 Aberemo ŋaa ngeumlriuml paꞌdo bo ŋma ꞌdɔ kpaumljiuml ko caa dɔ-gbe kaka Iceki

Abraham took the wood of the fire for burning an offering and put it on his son and on IsaacIsaac to carry

Gen 222 Te ne liumlyoumltauml kaliumlyoumltauml ka ꞌbe ka ꞌdɔ bo ŋma kpaumljiuml

Sacrifice him there giving himand give him as a burnt offering

Gen 223 Nidɔ-ꞌbaꞌbayi ra tɔ ni ꞌbɔɔtoumlpiuml Aberemo aumlny iuml tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko je ꞌdɔ dɔ-akaca

On another day in the morning Abraham got up as loading thingsand loaded things on a donkey

Gen 224 Dimi-ꞌbi kada mota tɔ Aberemo nji tɔrɔ kotɔrɔ ko ꞌjaa biumliuml te di-biumliuml bowɔɔ

On the third day Abraham looked up as seeingand saw that place from a distance

Lopit Gen 222 Yari lecircnyi hoi lecircnyi hoi lia loboite Icircsako lia limuno iye innoino a fau ho Moria

Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac of the land of Moriahand go to the land of Moriah

Gen 225 Itolojo inni he sigira eijo naŋ he lenyi hanaŋ eifwo adea de

Stay here with the donkey and I and my son will go awaythere

Mundari Gen 2217 a nyakarat kuumlluumlŋ waran rudde koumljiumlnouml kunu merok kulukakuumlluumlkouml

and your descendants will take possession of the cities of your (pl) enemiestheir enemies

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

13

Reel Gen 223 Ku kɛ kaac raar weumlden weumlnwɛn meuml ca laumlt ɛ euml Deumlcɛu

Then he set out going while God told him about itto the place God told him about

Gen 226 Nauml ku kɛ weumliuml keke jaumlaumll kɛn diumlaumlaumlŋ reeu

When they two repeatedly went traveling togetherwent on a trip together

Gen 2214 Yuiumliuml paumlaumlm RUAumlTH ee baba nooŋ On the mountain of the Lord He will provideit will be provided

Kappa Gen 222 E ahdahniꞌahdǎhni deena jen duin

He made her by the mancaused her to come to the man

Gen 212 Param eacute addeega naacute weedeuml egrave kahmuligah nagrave jisaacutehjisah naacute fidinggiuml egrave peeramg biig nagrave wiahg ahndahgiuml tazǎn tu

Gold of the earth which is good and resin which is made to be that which smells nice is something that smells nice and some shiny stones which are very good are there

Gen 220 Jen duin e nag miahgah kahrdahng egrave miig eacute aweelge egrave jeg eacute leeleegaleeleege eacute sahyahg

The man named the domestic animals along with the birds of the sky andalong with the animals of the forest with names

Gen 31 Daahr eacute mane jo enna bel faameeg-efaameeg e galda jeg nagrave eacute leeleega eacute mane egrave jeg nagrave Mahi Tel tahldiꞌiuml

When the snake alone was clever he was more thanThe snake was more clever than the animals of the forest which God made

3 Why is inconsistent writing a problem

God saved yu by his grace when you be lieved And you canrsquot take credit for this itis a gift from God Salvation is not aa reward for the god things we have done so none of us can boost about itrdquo14

We can understand most if not all the intended meaning of these incorrectly written verses maybe even if we didnrsquot recognize them as Ephesians 28-9 So why bother to ensure that writing is consistent in developing languages

31 Inconsistent writing is not acceptable in major world languages

As demonstrated by table 1 MTLDs of South Sudan make the same number of errors similar in type as in the above verses Writing with such errors would not be acceptable in published Scripture of any major world language So why should Bible translation organizations publish Scripture with such errors in developing languages

32 Inconsistent writing is not easily compensated for by beginning readers

We can understand the intended meaning in the above verses largely because of our years of reading experience We have learned to anticipate possible meanings of a sentence from reading fewer than all of its words So we can still arrive at the correct meaning when some words are marred by incorrect spelling However many MTLDs have not yet learned this advanced reading skill and it is more difficult for them to compensate for bad spelling

14 This wording of Ephesians 28-9 is from the New Living Translation All errors in writing are intentionally inserted by the author of this paper

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

14

33 Inconsistent writing slows reading and negatively affects comprehension

When reading the inconsistently spelled words yu versus you and aa versus a did you notice yourself slowing down to confirm the meaning Your mind has certain word images associated with certain word meanings and it has to slow down to evaluate the meaning of new word images such as incorrectly spelled words When words are spelled inconsistently readers have to form more than one word image for the same meaning causing slower word recognition and slower reading Oral reading is usually best understood by listeners when it has the same pace as an average speaker So reading in front of a church congregation that is slower than an average speaker hampers the message of Scripture And for many language groups in front of churches is likely the most common place for Scripture to be read

34 Inconsistent writing generates inconsistent writers

The more complex a writing system the more crucial it is for the system to be used consistently Even if no one directly explains the writing system to readers to some extent they may indirectly learn the use of letters and marks as they notice how they are consistently used for certain sounds and grammatical constructions But the more inconsistent the written materials the less chance any readers have to learn the system even when writing is taught directly How do you teach readers to spell correctly when their example reading materials are inconsistently spelled

35 Inconsistent writing missed by computer checks is not acceptable in major world languages

The misspellings god instead of good and boost instead of boast would be correct in other sentences so are not found by spell checks in these verses If these verses were correct except for these errors would they then be acceptable in published Scripture of major world languages Is it enough to merely correct the writing of Scripture using computer tools (even if the majority of errors could be corrected by them) but leave the errors not found by computer tools

36 Inconsistent writing can distort meaning

A strong value of Bible translation organizations is that readers correctly understand the original intended meaning of Scripture Should we not be concerned about the fact that some writing inconsistencies give the wrong meaning

37 Inconsistent writing devalues the message of Scripture

As readers notice more and more writing inconsistencies might they not conclude that Scripturersquos message is not worth more than the minimal effort taken to avoid such inconsistencies

4 How is it justifiable for non-speakers to assist MTLDs with writing consistency

Who decides what is the correct way to write a language What right do non-speakers of a language have to influence its writing Shouldnrsquot we just let spelling evolve naturally until it eventually becomes standardized as was the case for English and other languages

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

15

41 MTLDs must be well-informed of grammatical patterns when making writing decisions for their language

In the verses of section 3 how do we know that itis should be two words instead of one and that be lieve should be one word instead of two Often MTLDs will connect words in one place but separate them in others Sometimes it helps to tell them orthographic principles such as ldquoIf both are written as individual words in other sentences they should probably be written separately here alsordquo But often theoretical-sounding arguments such as this delivered by outsiders are not enough to change the minds of MTLDs about their writing They need to be convinced by the grammar of their own language

In my experience MTLDs often make inconsistent and conflicting decisions about writing when they only have one word in isolation or one construction in mind but usually make sound logical decisions about writing when they see the big picture having all relevant grammatical patterns in mind

In RGC workshops MTLDs have the opportunity to make informed writing decisions for their language after learning the phonological and tonal patterns from comparing and contrasting sounds of hundreds of words learning the morphophonological patterns when affixes are added and learning the syntactic patterns that govern word breaks in the natural context of narrative texts In these workshops MTLDs are convinced by the grammar of their own language And having the wide view in mind usually make decisions (often without much prodding from linguists) which remain unchanged in the years to come During the workshop writing rules are tested for how well MTLDs can apply them to natural texts and afterwards for acceptability as materials are produced and distributed to the communities

42 MTLDs respond well to regular reminders of how to use their chosen writing system

Although the MTLDs often forget the rules they agreed to when later drafting materials they readily correct their mistakes when reminded of the relevant patterns demonstrated in grammar books on which their writing decisions are based Failure by MTLDs to follow well-chosen writing systems is usually not the fault of the writing system but of those not training them to use the writing system

43 MTLDs should not be expected to consistently write their chosen writing system without training

Most citizens of developed countries have at least twelve years of formal education to learn how to read and write their language Why do we expect MTLDs to be able to learn their writing system in a few months And this is in essence what we claim when we do not train MTLDs in consistent writing thrusting them directly into language development to figure out the writing rules for themselves Many MTLDs are well-educated having similar academic skills as expatriates But being well-educated in a language of wider communication does not make you educated in your first language Besides not everyone who learns to write a major world language pays close attention to detail or learns the editing skills required to check materials in that language and yet this is what we ask of MTLDs of developing languages

44 Linguistic checks can train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system in a relatively short time

However linguistic checks can drastically reduce the time needed for MTLDs to learn writing consistency Table 7 compares the comments per verse from linguistic checks in the first chapter drafted

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

16

repeated from table 1 and the comments per verse in the most recent chapter drafted15 It also lists the total number of chapters with linguistic checks in order to show how much opportunity each team has had for improving their writing For most teams there is considerable improvement in writing skills between the first and last chapter drafted and the change in number of comments per verse reflects this learning Whereas the average number of comments per verse in the first chapter is 33 the average in the most recent is 10 Since most of these teams are only half way through drafting their first book of Scripture this represents a significant improvement in a relatively short period of time Compared with the Laarim which are still writing with about the same inconsistency as when they started translation these teams have made substantial progress16 Perhaps by the time these teams finish their first book of Scripture they will have again reduced their errors by 70 and the average number of comments per verse will be only 03

Table 7 Improvement in writing consistency for language teams of South Sudan

Language comments per verse in first chapter

comments per verse in most recent chapter

Total chapters with linguistic checksa

Belanda Bor 83 06 14 Bongo 27 09 25 Beli 73 05 33b Lopit 38 22 25 Mundari 08 05 33c Reel 31 07 30 Kappa 24 19 9 Omega 15 16d 3 Beta 00 00 0 Average 33 10 191 a Literacy books for these languages have also had linguistic checks but are not included in this chart b In addition 24 chapters of Beli Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team For a better comparison with other language translation teams I have only included the chapters checked with the current Beli translation team c In addition 24 chapters of Mundari Luke have also had linguistic checks but are not included here because Luke was drafted by a different translation team d The lack of decrease in the number of comments from the first to last chapter in Omega represents a lack of opportunity for improvement in writing Linguistic checks were done on all three chapters at once and improvement in writing for the translators from comments on these three chapters will not be seen until further chapters are drafted

15 The most recent chapters drafted are as of the first draft of this paper April 2018 16 As mentioned the improved writing skills for these teams is based on the number of comments I made in linguistic checks on both the first and most recent chapters drafted However since the TAs sometimes helped these teams correct writing inconsistencies before I made comments on a text it is difficult to say exactly how much the writing skills of MTLDs improved from previous linguistic checks alone Of course this correction from TAs is needed and beneficial to MTLDs and just happens to skew the results of table 7 Although TAs are responsible for explaining my written comments to MTLDs as needed any help they give MTLDs in correcting writing inconsistencies before I make comments on a text is voluntary and likely minimal At any rate since all such assistance was done orally there is no documentation to quantify this assistance Nevertheless even if half of the reduction in my comments was due to the assistance of TAs the MTLDs of the eight teams have still learned to write much more consistently than the Laarim

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

17

45 Training MTLDs in consistent writing is more humane than encouraging standardization of a language to evolve naturally

Which is more consideratemdashto assist MTLDs in choosing well-informed writing decisions and train them to use them or to encourage MTLDs to spell as is right in their own eyes with the hope that the best choices will win out under the guise that non-speakers have no say in writing decisions In my experience the longer MTLDs swing back and forth on writing decisions or inconsistently apply agreed-upon writing decisions the more potential there is for unhelpful writing decisions to become accepted as the norm making later improvements more difficult And the longer MTLDs write inconsistently the more opposed they are to the assistance that could improve their writing Although they see problems in their way of writing it is what they are used to and what they have come to identify as their language As time passes to change their writing is to change their language which is connected to their identitymdashan untouchable

46 For language development projects there is insufficient time for writing standardization to occur naturally

How long can Bible translation organizations afford to wait for language communities to standardize their language It took hundreds of years for English and we are still suffering from the many unfortunate choices of its standardization The reality is that Bible translation organizations often do not wait for standardization to occur but publish materials that have only partial consistency in writingmdashsometimes merely what can be corrected through computer checks at the end of a New Testament project in a limited time by those willing to make an effort towards this token gesture

47 It is unethical to publish inconsistently written language materials

There are few publishing companies willing to publish materials in any major world language without the materials first being edited according to the writing standards of that language So how is it justifiable for Bible translation organizations to publish materials with inconsistent writing

It doesnrsquot have to be this way In the next section I describe how linguistic checks can be done which enable writing standardization of a language within a few months or years and which allow Godrsquos message to be read unhindered

5 How to improve writing consistency in the modern translation approach

The modern translation team assisted by those trained in various domains but without a domain overseer who understands the language deeply needs someone to guide them in consistent writing as is done in linguistic checks Linguistic checks should be tailored to the specific situation of MTLDs and their language culture and community as well as to the time financial and personnel resources of the organization supporting them in language development However the following are believed to be the best practices or general ideals for linguistic checks regardless of situation along with some explanation for each

(1) Linguistic checks should be done on all vernacular materials published for teams in the beginning stages of language development

SIL South Sudan has an entity policy stating which language teams are required to have a linguistic check before materials in that language can be published Just as the content of translated Scripture must

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

18

first be checked and approved before being published the writing consistency must also be approved in materials of beginning teams17 When there is at least one MTLD who is better at checking materials than all non-speakers the team becomes independently responsible for checking its own materials SIL Uganda-Tanzania has a similar policy for linguistic checks as SIL South Sudan18

(2) Linguistic checks should be done by an available person who understands the agreed-upon writing system in relation to the grammar and is excellent at finding inconsistencies in its application to written materials

Often the best person to check materials will be a linguist or someone involved in the grammar analysis and process of deciding the writing system The person must pay attention to detail but not get lost in the details or be crippled by perfectionism This is because a linguistic check can never make a text perfect and the checker must be willing to trust MTLDs for the best choice of writing for constructions not yet understood The checker does not have to be a linguistics consultant and could be the TA or in some cases one of the MTLDs If the checker is not the TA the TA should attend all linguistic checks in order to better learn the writing system and give on-going guidance in writing consistency to MTLDs

(3) One person should do all the linguistic checks for a language

The advantage of only one person checking materials in a language is that that person can better remember how certain rules are applied in various contexts and give less conflicting comments to MTLDs than there would likely be from more than once checker Of course when one person is not able to do all the linguistic checks for a language it is better to switch to a different checker than for the checking to stop Just as translation consultants in training have the opportunity to practice checking texts before they are given the full authority to approve texts it is best for linguistic checkers to have practice checking before they become checkers for a language

(4) The person doing the linguistic checks should continue the checks until one of the MTLDs is better at finding writing inconsistencies From then onward that MTLD should do the linguistic checks

The goal is for each language team to be sustainable as soon as possible having the skills needed for all aspects of language development So it is a momentous step towards this goal when a MTLD becomes better at checking than a non-speaker

(5) A linguistic check should be done after a draft and team revision of a book or portion of a book Then after the text is further revised such as following a community check or consultant check an additional linguistic check should be done on the revised portion of the text

In order for MTLDs to have maximum learning in writing their language they must be given regular opportunities to write and to revise their writing under proper guidance Team revisions can help create a spirit of constructive criticism among MTLDs and train them to have keen eyes for ways of improving the text In team revisions MTLDs should be encouraged to improve their text as much as they can But nearly all teams also need the guidance provided by a linguistic check Without proper guidance

17 Special thanks to the administrators of SIL South Sudan who formed this policy and enforce it enabling linguistic checks to be an advantageous requirement for beginning language teams 18 The SIL Uganda-Tanzania document Linguistic Checking Policies and Practice is available from director_utbsilorg In SIL Uganda-Tanzania linguistic checks often include comments concerning discourse grammar and naturalness as well as some elements of content such as consistency in use of non-key terms ie fisherman nation etc In addition the link between the domains of language development is made stronger by literacy staff sometimes being trained by translation personnel in translation principles and the TAs and MTLDs sometimes being trained by the linguistics coordinator in the identification of morphemes and grammatical patterns

19

someone learning to play a musical instrument can develop poor habits from bad technique and then the bad habits must be unlearned in addition to learning the proper technique The same unfortunate situation happens for writers when they have no guidance and are left to continue practicing their errors

Although it may be tempting to wait until a long text such as Genesis is ready to be published before checking it the sooner MTLDs are trained through the corrections of linguistic checks such as after the first chapter drafted the fewer errors they will make in chapters later drafted

Further it is not enough to merely check a text once if afterwards there are revisions in wording or regressions to the original errors in writing Any changes in the text could introduce new writing inconsistencies that cause problems for reading or standardization of writing as well as bad writing habits for MTLDs Checking a text more than once such as after the initial draft and after it is revised following a community check or consultant check gives time-appropriate training to MTLDs and saves time by reducing the number of errors that would later need to be corrected However only the revised portion of a text needs be checked in each subsequent linguistic check In Paratext the compare texts tool highlights the changes made between any two dates making second or third checks of the same text easy and efficient

(6) The linguistic checker should prepare for a checking session by carefully reading the relevant grammar write-ups and orthography statement as well as by being familiar with the computer software used for the check

Assuming the person checking was involved in the grammar analysis the writing decisions and the documentation for these re-learning this information may only take a few hours Otherwise the careful study of write-ups required for adequate preparation of a linguistic check may take several days In South Sudan the grammar books have exercises at the end of each lesson where the reader can practice finding the morphemes and other grammar in natural text The beginning dictionaries have introductions describing which forms of words are entered Both of these tools may also help the checker prepare for the checking session In addition the checker should be familiar with how to look up enter and organize words in Fieldworks as well as how to make comments and searches in Paratext

(7) All texts being checked for linguistics should have a translation

Texts in Paratext can be translated relatively easily using the interlinearizer tool Texts not in Paratext can first be entered into Paratext and translated then later revised for spelling in the originally formatted source document Alternatively MTLDs can write a translation for the text in Word or the linguistic checker can draft a translation later to be checked by MTLDs However unless the linguistic checker is a MTLD or knows the language fluently the number of errors found will be significantly fewer when not checking from a clear translation The translation does not need to be polished such as by having all morphemes accurately labeled It merely needs to be clear enough for the checker who is already familiar with most grammar constructions Usually the checker just needs an approximate meaning for each word and a free translation with clause-for-clause meaning and sometimes one or the other is enough

(8) Before the linguistic check the checker should minimally confirm the agreed-upon spelling of each word and the proper application of each agreed-upon writing rule for the text being checked making written comments where there appear to be errors When appropriate the comments should reference the relevant writing rules orthography documents and previous application of rules in other vernacular materials

The linguistic check with MTLDs will be much more effective if the checker first spends adequate time alone making written comments about the text It will take at least four hours to make comments on the first chapter of Scripture and at least two hours on following chapters More time for making comments on each chapter is needed as the complexity of the grammar and the agreed-upon writing system increases or as the ability of the MTLDs for writing consistently decreases Extra time is needed on the first chapter because the checker is still becoming familiar with how each writing rule is applied and extra explanation is needed for the initial comments It is impossible to check a book perfectly

20

because among other reasons the checkerrsquos knowledge will always be incomplete about the language So at least for checkers with tendencies towards perfectionism it is best to limit oneself to a reasonable time for making comments on each chapter or book checked

As a general rule the only comments required by a linguistic check are those that point out the differences between the writing in the text and the agreed-upon writing at that time That is the standard used for linguistic checks are whichever words and writing rules are currently agreed-upon by MTLDs and documented in the dictionary orthography statement or other documents There is no need to comment on the spelling of words or constructions beyond those currently agreed-upon for writing When MTLDs have learned discourse grammar of their language comments should be given of possible applications of this grammar to their text But until this grammar has been learned such comments can wait

When making comments first read the translation of a sentence then compare the spelling of each word with the spelling of that word in the dictionary To find words in the FLEX dictionary that are misspelled in the text you will often need to search for words using the find lexical entry tool in both the language of entries and the language of glossing Then check if any writing rules are incorrectly applied in that sentence If there are too many writing rules to keep track of you can instead check each sentence of the text for one of the writing rules Then check each sentence for the next writing rule and so on until you have finished all the rules There will always be some words or constructions that you donrsquot know enough about in order to decide if they are written correctly For these unless you can quickly find out what is correct from the grammar write-ups or orthography statement donrsquot make any comment19

Depending on the grammar of a language and the rules of its writing system the comments of linguistic checks may involve but are not limited to the writing features of table 8 Although only comments regarding agreed-upon writing are required by a linguistic check any obvious errors not necessarily described by the orthography statement such as missing capitalization or punctuation are also helpful to point out

Table 8 Writing features investigated by linguistic checks20

vowel quality word boundaries tone marking vowel length capitalization transliteration of borrowed words consonant sequences punctuation shortened words consonant length non-standard dialect direct and indirect speech syllabic nasals non-standard free variation unnatural language

Write down the comments that will later be given in a linguistic check even if you will be the one to discuss them with MTLDs Without writing them down you will probably not remember your comments as well as you think If you are not the one to discuss the comments with MTLDs then you must make the written comments as clear and concise as possible keeping in mind what the MTLDs will and will not understand

With the anticipation that MTLDs will forget some of the agreed-upon writing it is proactive to reference the first of each type of comment with the relevant writing rule or page where the agreed-upon writing is documented as shown in the comments of table 2 A comment to change the vowel quality of a word such as fɔnj to fonj (lsquotry testrsquo in Belanda Bor) could reference two lists of words where the two similar vowels are compared and contrasted as in table 9

19 Instead as mentioned under best practice statement (9) add the construction and its reference to a list that you can discuss with MTLDs at the next appropriate time such as in a linguistic workshop 20 Most of these writing features are taken from the linguistic checks policy document of SIL Uganda-Tanzania Branch

21

Table 9 Two Belanda Bor vowels compared and contrasted

Ɔ ɔ O o rɔk lsquobody selfrsquo ꞌtok lsquoback of headrsquo ꞌdɔl lsquothroatrsquo kor lsquochestrsquo tɔl lsquoropersquo kpo lsquohoe typersquo bɔy lsquonetrsquo woꞌd lsquosonrsquo rɔf lsquocourt conferencersquo lot lsquostirring stickrsquo wɔf lsquohandsomeness (of man)rsquo kon lsquoasida porridgersquo kɔt lsquohouse roomrsquo tol lsquosnake (general)rsquo tɔ lsquodeath sicknessrsquo for lsquohipporsquo jɔk lsquogod Godrsquo foŋ lsquogrinding stonersquo kɔ lsquotimersquo kot lsquoshieldrsquo

Especially when you anticipate objection to your comment and you wonrsquot otherwise be able to remember your reasons write down the evidence for the error or why it should be changed Use examples from the language to support each comment as in the first Bongo comment in table 10

Table 10 Other example linguistic checking comments

Language Reference Error Revision Comment Bongo Gen 128 alehine alehi ne lsquohe prayedrsquo is alehi ne (separate) We know it should be

separate because of Gen 2448 alehi ma ji NYERE lsquoI prayed to the Lordrsquo In Gen 2448 the ma lsquoIrsquo is not connected to the verb so the ne lsquohersquo should not be connected in Gen 128 Use lsquofind and replacersquo to change all alehine to alehi ne

Bongo Gen 128 di ꞌda diꞌda In Gen 134 lsquofrom therersquo is diꞌda Use lsquofind and replacersquo to change all diꞌda to di ꞌda or change all di ꞌda to diꞌda

Lopit Gen 2217 ne hittok

na hittok

In other places lsquowhich bigrsquo is na hittok Spelling rule 8 says ne lsquowhichrsquo comes before a word with vowel i but this word hittok may be an exception Decide which is correct then change all ne hittok to na hittok or change all na hittok to ne hittok

When you find new words not yet agreed-upon for spelling which have more than one spelling in the text list a reference for each spelling as in the second Bongo comment in table 1021 Then in the checking session all spellings can be corrected with one of the spellings Similarly when MTLDs have applied a writing rule to a new construction differently in two contexts mention the two contexts so that you can later ask which way of applying the rule is correct for that construction as in the Lopit comment of table 10

21 As mentioned in best practice statement (9) it is helpful to enter all new words in the dictionary as you come across them when checking a text (They should be marked in some way as needing to later be confirmed for correct spelling and word category) Then when you again find the same word in the text with a different spelling (and donrsquot remember previously entering the word) you will discover the difference in spelling when you look up the word in the dictionary

20

because among other reasons the checkerrsquos knowledge will always be incomplete about the language So at least for checkers with tendencies towards perfectionism it is best to limit oneself to a reasonable time for making comments on each chapter or book checked

As a general rule the only comments required by a linguistic check are those that point out the differences between the writing in the text and the agreed-upon writing at that time That is the standard used for linguistic checks are whichever words and writing rules are currently agreed-upon by MTLDs and documented in the dictionary orthography statement or other documents There is no need to comment on the spelling of words or constructions beyond those currently agreed-upon for writing When MTLDs have learned discourse grammar of their language comments should be given of possible applications of this grammar to their text But until this grammar has been learned such comments can wait

When making comments first read the translation of a sentence then compare the spelling of each word with the spelling of that word in the dictionary To find words in the FLEX dictionary that are misspelled in the text you will often need to search for words using the find lexical entry tool in both the language of entries and the language of glossing Then check if any writing rules are incorrectly applied in that sentence If there are too many writing rules to keep track of you can instead check each sentence of the text for one of the writing rules Then check each sentence for the next writing rule and so on until you have finished all the rules There will always be some words or constructions that you donrsquot know enough about in order to decide if they are written correctly For these unless you can quickly find out what is correct from the grammar write-ups or orthography statement donrsquot make any comment19

Depending on the grammar of a language and the rules of its writing system the comments of linguistic checks may involve but are not limited to the writing features of table 8 Although only comments regarding agreed-upon writing are required by a linguistic check any obvious errors not necessarily described by the orthography statement such as missing capitalization or punctuation are also helpful to point out

Table 8 Writing features investigated by linguistic checks20

vowel quality word boundaries tone marking vowel length capitalization transliteration of borrowed words consonant sequences punctuation shortened words consonant length non-standard dialect direct and indirect speech syllabic nasals non-standard free variation unnatural language

Write down the comments that will later be given in a linguistic check even if you will be the one to discuss them with MTLDs Without writing them down you will probably not remember your comments as well as you think If you are not the one to discuss the comments with MTLDs then you must make the written comments as clear and concise as possible keeping in mind what the MTLDs will and will not understand

With the anticipation that MTLDs will forget some of the agreed-upon writing it is proactive to reference the first of each type of comment with the relevant writing rule or page where the agreed-upon writing is documented as shown in the comments of table 2 A comment to change the vowel quality of a word such as fɔnj to fonj (lsquotry testrsquo in Belanda Bor) could reference two lists of words where the two similar vowels are compared and contrasted as in table 9

19 Instead as mentioned under best practice statement (9) add the construction and its reference to a list that you can discuss with MTLDs at the next appropriate time such as in a linguistic workshop 20 Most of these writing features are taken from the linguistic checks policy document of SIL Uganda-Tanzania Branch

21

Table 9 Two Belanda Bor vowels compared and contrasted

Ɔ ɔ O o rɔk lsquobody selfrsquo ꞌtok lsquoback of headrsquo ꞌdɔl lsquothroatrsquo kor lsquochestrsquo tɔl lsquoropersquo kpo lsquohoe typersquo bɔy lsquonetrsquo woꞌd lsquosonrsquo rɔf lsquocourt conferencersquo lot lsquostirring stickrsquo wɔf lsquohandsomeness (of man)rsquo kon lsquoasida porridgersquo kɔt lsquohouse roomrsquo tol lsquosnake (general)rsquo tɔ lsquodeath sicknessrsquo for lsquohipporsquo jɔk lsquogod Godrsquo foŋ lsquogrinding stonersquo kɔ lsquotimersquo kot lsquoshieldrsquo

Especially when you anticipate objection to your comment and you wonrsquot otherwise be able to remember your reasons write down the evidence for the error or why it should be changed Use examples from the language to support each comment as in the first Bongo comment in table 10

Table 10 Other example linguistic checking comments

Language Reference Error Revision Comment Bongo Gen 128 alehine alehi ne lsquohe prayedrsquo is alehi ne (separate) We know it should be

separate because of Gen 2448 alehi ma ji NYERE lsquoI prayed to the Lordrsquo In Gen 2448 the ma lsquoIrsquo is not connected to the verb so the ne lsquohersquo should not be connected in Gen 128 Use lsquofind and replacersquo to change all alehine to alehi ne

Bongo Gen 128 di ꞌda diꞌda In Gen 134 lsquofrom therersquo is diꞌda Use lsquofind and replacersquo to change all diꞌda to di ꞌda or change all di ꞌda to diꞌda

Lopit Gen 2217 ne hittok

na hittok

In other places lsquowhich bigrsquo is na hittok Spelling rule 8 says ne lsquowhichrsquo comes before a word with vowel i but this word hittok may be an exception Decide which is correct then change all ne hittok to na hittok or change all na hittok to ne hittok

When you find new words not yet agreed-upon for spelling which have more than one spelling in the text list a reference for each spelling as in the second Bongo comment in table 1021 Then in the checking session all spellings can be corrected with one of the spellings Similarly when MTLDs have applied a writing rule to a new construction differently in two contexts mention the two contexts so that you can later ask which way of applying the rule is correct for that construction as in the Lopit comment of table 10

21 As mentioned in best practice statement (9) it is helpful to enter all new words in the dictionary as you come across them when checking a text (They should be marked in some way as needing to later be confirmed for correct spelling and word category) Then when you again find the same word in the text with a different spelling (and donrsquot remember previously entering the word) you will discover the difference in spelling when you look up the word in the dictionary

21

Table 9 Two Belanda Bor vowels compared and contrasted

Ɔ ɔ O o rɔk lsquobody selfrsquo ꞌtok lsquoback of headrsquo ꞌdɔl lsquothroatrsquo kor lsquochestrsquo tɔl lsquoropersquo kpo lsquohoe typersquo bɔy lsquonetrsquo woꞌd lsquosonrsquo rɔf lsquocourt conferencersquo lot lsquostirring stickrsquo wɔf lsquohandsomeness (of man)rsquo kon lsquoasida porridgersquo kɔt lsquohouse roomrsquo tol lsquosnake (general)rsquo tɔ lsquodeath sicknessrsquo for lsquohipporsquo jɔk lsquogod Godrsquo foŋ lsquogrinding stonersquo kɔ lsquotimersquo kot lsquoshieldrsquo

Especially when you anticipate objection to your comment and you wonrsquot otherwise be able to remember your reasons write down the evidence for the error or why it should be changed Use examples from the language to support each comment as in the first Bongo comment in table 10

Table 10 Other example linguistic checking comments

Language Reference Error Revision Comment Bongo Gen 128 alehine alehi ne lsquohe prayedrsquo is alehi ne (separate) We know it should be

separate because of Gen 2448 alehi ma ji NYERE lsquoI prayed to the Lordrsquo In Gen 2448 the ma lsquoIrsquo is not connected to the verb so the ne lsquohersquo should not be connected in Gen 128 Use lsquofind and replacersquo to change all alehine to alehi ne

Bongo Gen 128 di ꞌda diꞌda In Gen 134 lsquofrom therersquo is diꞌda Use lsquofind and replacersquo to change all diꞌda to di ꞌda or change all di ꞌda to diꞌda

Lopit Gen 2217 ne hittok

na hittok

In other places lsquowhich bigrsquo is na hittok Spelling rule 8 says ne lsquowhichrsquo comes before a word with vowel i but this word hittok may be an exception Decide which is correct then change all ne hittok to na hittok or change all na hittok to ne hittok

When you find new words not yet agreed-upon for spelling which have more than one spelling in the text list a reference for each spelling as in the second Bongo comment in table 1021 Then in the checking session all spellings can be corrected with one of the spellings Similarly when MTLDs have applied a writing rule to a new construction differently in two contexts mention the two contexts so that you can later ask which way of applying the rule is correct for that construction as in the Lopit comment of table 10

21 As mentioned in best practice statement (9) it is helpful to enter all new words in the dictionary as you come across them when checking a text (They should be marked in some way as needing to later be confirmed for correct spelling and word category) Then when you again find the same word in the text with a different spelling (and donrsquot remember previously entering the word) you will discover the difference in spelling when you look up the word in the dictionary

22

(9) The checker should record all words and constructions found that have not previously been agreed-upon for spelling so that these can be discussed with the MTLDs in the next linguistics workshop or time available for this

Each new word found that is not yet entered in the dictionary can be entered with your best guess of spelling part of speech and definition if it is also marked as not yet checked such as with a question mark after the entry in the headword field You should also enter the reference of where this word is found such as in the notes field so that you can later refer to the word in context Also make a list of new grammatical constructions not yet discussed or that you donrsquot understand There may or may not be time to discuss these in the linguistic check Often it is best to wait until these words and constructions can more carefully be checked with a wider representation of the language community and when enough time can be designated for this work such as in a linguistics workshop Your references for these new words and constructions in context will enable MTLDs to more easily remember them

(10) During the linguistic check the checker should carefully listen as MTLDs read the text marking any mismatch between the sounds read and the agreed-upon writing representing those sounds as well as any unexpected pauses that might indicate a delay in comprehension

I recommend asking various MTLDs to read the entire chapter or passage without stopping as you mark places with potential problems Reading the passage straight through several times gives the opportunity to find more potential problems as well as the opportunity to find how many times each place was a problem for readers

(11) After hearing the text the checker should ask about each mismatch and pause as well as each comment written before the session The checker should make sure the MTLDs understand each comment but allow them to decide how they will write provided they are consistent throughout their written materials and in agreement with the language community22

The checking session for a text will take at least half the time it took you to write comments on that text Give enough time to adequately discuss each potential error Especially take time to listen to the comments of each MTLD but keep a reasonable pace so that MTLDs do not become annoyed by too much time taken away from other language development activities Make sure MTLDs are engaged during the entire session Take breaks when needed and stop the session if it is no longer productive

With the entire chapter or passage fresh in mind have MTLDs read one verse at a time stopping after each to discuss all potential errors Make sure your explanation of each comment is clear and concise The more you talk the more tired of listening MTLDs become especially if the language you are using is not their first language Say what you need to say but donrsquot talk any more than you have to

No one likes to be told they made an error Making encouraging comments such as ldquoMost of your words are written correctlyrdquo or ldquoYou really understand how to use this writing rule in this verserdquo can help ease the pain of your other comments Never allow yourself to gloatmdashoutwardly or even inwardlymdashwhen your comments are accepted Never raise your voice or show frustration when your comments are not accepted Remember that it is not a contest about who is right and who is wrong but that everyone wins when the writing is consistent When MTLDs continue to make the same errors and when you need to repeat yourself or find yet another way to help MTLDs understand the reasons for a change in writing remember that it took you many years to learn the writing of your language It is only reasonable to be patient while they learn in a much shorter time

When MTLDs disagree with a comment make sure you understand their reasons and then make sure they understand your reasons When the comment objected to concerns a vowel consonant or lexical tone have MTLDs compare and contrast the word in question with those in lists having the same 22 In this paper when I refer to lsquoagreement of the language communityrsquo I also mean the agreement of any government institution which may have more authority than the language community

23

and similar sounds When the comment is about the application of a writing rule have MTLDs read the relevant rule in the orthography statement along with example sentences where it is correctly applied If MTLDs are not willing to change their writing based on these language examples search for other places in the text at hand where the same word is spelled correctly or the rule is applied correctly and ask MTLDs if both contexts should be written the same If both cannot be the same try to find a valid reason such as that the word has a different root or that there is different grammar involved that keeps the writing rule from applying Record this new information so that the dictionary or writing rule can be revised as needed and the writing application better understood

If the reason for the objection to the writing change is simply that MTLDs have changed their minds about the previously agreed-upon writing ask if the community shares their opinion If the community is believed to be in favor as long as you donrsquot foresee any hindrance to reading comprehension as a result of the change and as long as MTLDs are able to consistently apply this change throughout the text have them revise the text for this change during the linguistic check if there is time Otherwise state that the writing issue needs to be handled through proper procedures at another time

Writing systems at least need to be tested for the following criteria

A Acceptability with the language community B A similar level of comprehension in reading as in speaking C Usability and relative ease of writing all grammatical constructions

Each of these is informally tested to some extent in a linguistic check and because each of these criteria is in tension with each other there is tension in the linguistic check when deciding how to apply the writing system

I recommend keeping these criteria in the above order of priority Strictly follow the rule MTLDs have the final say in all writing issues After all if the primary benefactors of the written language donrsquot accept their written language what difference does it make how perfect it is If the language community does not accept the materials produced they will not use them and then all the recourses to produce them have been wasted On the other hand if a writing rule chosen by the language community does not allow for adequate reading speed or comprehension the organization supporting development of that language should not pay for materials to be printed with that rule Rather the language community should be shown through numerous examples in the language how reading will be more challenging with that rule allowing the community to be convinced by their own language of the need for a better writing rule

When ease of reading comprehension is in tension with ease of writing because there are more readers than writers in any given language it is better to make reading easier than writing Although MTLDs may find some of the agreed-upon writing rules difficult to apply if the additional effort for writing is worth the increase gained in reading comprehension make sure you give the MTLDs adequate time to learn the writing rule however challenging it may be before suggesting it be changed

To the extent that the writing system was agreed-upon with informed decisions by sufficient representation of the language community and to the extent that it is adequate for reading comprehension and MTLDs are making progress in learning to write it the writing system should continue to be followed The Bible translation organization assisting the MTLDs has a vested interest in the quality of materials produced and in working for them it is your job to point out all writing inconsistencies When you allow unchallenged inconsistencies to creep into a text the problems that will likely result are your responsibility By contrast after you have stated valid reasons for correcting an error in ways that MTLDs have understood you have done your job even when there is disagreement

If MTLDs object to your suggested changes in a way that demonstrates frustration or another strong negative reaction or if they continually disregard many of your suggested changes after having understood the valid reasons for them stop checking new comments long enough to find out the reason for the underlying tension that is present Consider what you have said or done that may have contributed to the situation and take responsibility for it if appropriate Think carefully about any cultural clashes that may be taking place and how you could resolve them Ask the TA or an additional person to observe if you need help understanding what is wrong Perhaps you need to explain why you ask so many questions since questions can sound like rebukes or the purpose behind your other ways of

24

communicating Sometimes just simply stating the goal of the checking session how you are trying to accomplish that goal and what you expect from the MTLDs giving them a chance to respond can help clarify the problem and resolve the tension

If MTLDs begin to accept all your comments there is also something wrong Perhaps there is a lack of trust between you and the MTLDs or some other reason why they are not able to speak openly with you Complete acceptance means they have stopped trying to make themselves understood or have stopped thinking for themselves Always be on the look-out for such a grave situation At the first sign stop checking until you have found out the reasons and have properly dealt with them

(12) MTLDs should make all agreed-upon changes to the source document rather than the linguistic checker and the checker should confirm that each change has been made

For the MTLDs to be the proper owners of language development materials they need to be the ones drafting and revising the source documents If they are not able to do this in the beginning of the project they should be given training until they can do it When MTLDs are still learning the keyboard they often make careless errors without realizing it sometimes even introducing new errors when correcting previous errors So the linguistic checker must confirm that the MTLDs correct each error as they agreed to either during the checking session or by looking over the revised text afterwards For any spelling changes when using the interlinearizer tool in Paratext make sure the MTLDs first delete all glosses associated with the incorrect spelling before correcting the word so that this incorrect spelling will no longer appear to be correct by bring up legitimate meanings

(13) The checker should record each writing change from the previously agreed-upon writing that was proposed during the checking session and send a report of these to those involved in the language project The changes should be checked with other MTLDs and in more vernacular materials in the next linguistics workshop or when time is available Afterwards all documents should be revised according to these changes and distributed as needed

The report should include changes in the spelling of individual words changes in writing rules and changes in which grammatical constructions a rule applies to along with the reasons for each If there are major changes or a significant number of changes potentially resulting from the linguistic check the report is especially important The linguistic checker should be the one to further check these changes at a later time or at least be present when they are further checked This is because the linguistic checker will accumulate keen insight into many words and grammatical constructions through the process of checking texts which is vital to further discussions about these writing issues When changes have been agreed-upon by the language community the dictionary and orthography documents as well as all vernacular materials must then be revised accordingly The time for the checker to write the report combined with the time to later revise the orthography documents after agreement on the writing changes has been confirmed will often take at least three hours

(14) If the person writing comments for the linguistic checks is not the one orally discussing the comments with MTLDs before making comments on a new text the checker should first verify how MTLDs responded to previous comments and make additional comments on previous texts as necessary

In some cases translation consultant checks are now being done from a distance using the notes tool in Paratext for all comments These are explained as needed by the TA in the location of the MTLDs Linguistic checks can also be done from a distance by relying on the TA to explain comments Another difference between distant and local linguistic checks is the need to confirm which comments were accepted in the previous check and to determine the reason for those not accepted Although you will not be present when the text is revised according to your comments you can easily find out which comments are accepted by using the compare texts tool to highlight the changes made between two dates and the open notes tool to list all your comments made during that period

For comments that are not accepted the MTLDs or the TA must give a written response to your comment telling the reason If the reason is valid and the new writing will not hinder reading

25

comprehension and if the MTLDs have consistently applied the writing change throughout the texts in Paratext record this change in an email to MTLDs along with other similar potential changes asking if the language community is in agreement with them If the reason does not seem valid make a new comment restating your reason for keeping the agreed-upon writing with more evidence or with a more clear explanation If the MTLDs have not consistently applied a writing change that seems reasonable make a new comment pointing out the difference in writing from one place to the other suggesting that they make all the same Other than these differences the steps for linguistic checks from a distance are generally the same as for local linguistic checks

6 Conclusion

Linguistic checks have at least the benefits listed in table 11

Table 11 Benefits of linguistic checks

1 Test the writing system for usability in all grammatical constructions 2 Point out changes needed in the writing system 3 Ensure that writing is consistent leading to standardization 4 Help prevent bad writing habits of MTLDs 5 Train MTLDs in the consistent application of their writing system 6 Deepen the grammatical understanding of MTLDs of their language 7 Convince MTLDs of the value of grammatical understanding 8 Increase the motivation of MTLDs to write consistently 9 Give MTLDs better ownership of their language 10 Make the language project more sustainable 11 Save time by reducing the number of errors to correct later 12 Add quality to books published 13 Increase the perceived value of written materials 14 Enable improvement in reading speed and comprehension

The cost of linguistic checks is at least the number of hours listed in table 12

Table 12 Costs of linguistic checks

Comment Persons involved Minimum time language study preparation

checker 3 hours

making comments checker 4 hours on first 20 verses afterwards 1 hour per 10 verses or per A4 size page

reading text MTLDs checker TA

5 hours per 20 verses

revising text according to comments

MTLDs checker TA

2 hours on first 20 verses afterwards 5 hours per 10 verses or per A4 size page

writing report and revising orthography documents

checker 3 hours

Using these amounts of time a rough estimate for checking 5 chapters of Scripture each of about 20 verses or a reading story book of about 10 A4 size pages involves at least 26 hours of time for the linguistic checker and 8 hours for the MTLDs and TA Assuming all further linguistic checks on the same

26

chapters take about half this time the total hours for 100 verses is 39 hours for the checker and 12 hours for the MTLDs and TA This time may be reduced when checking additional chapters since fewer comments are likely as MTLDs improve in their writing Even so a low estimate for the time to check Genesis would be 300 hours or 2 months of full-time work for the checker and 150 hours or 1 month of full-time work for the MTLDs and TA Checking languages with complex writing systems will take longer For some it may take more time for MTLDs to learn to write their language consistently than it takes to adequately analyze the grammar and agree on the writing system

From my experience of being the checker for eight languages of South Sudan I can say without a doubt that the benefits outweigh the costs There is no comparison between the satisfaction of seeing eight teams of MTLDs begin to write well and the disappointment of seeing Laarim continue to make the same errors I worked just as hard or harder in helping Laarim make well-informed writing decisions as I did for the other teams Yet with Laarim positive outcomes from my extensive grammatical analysis and description are much more difficult to find

What value is there in well-chosen writing systems if they are not consistently followed They may be as beautiful as a trophy on a shelf but they are just as useless Which domain of language development invests the most time in helping MTLDs choose well-informed writing systems and will lose the most if they are not followed Personnel in no other domain assisting modern translation projects care as much about the application of grammar to writing as linguists So if writing is to become consistent it is usually linguists who must take the lead in this work

Although costly in time linguistic checks have many benefits They can effectively train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system and enable standardization of writing in a few months or years so that the message of Scripture can be read unhindered

However no matter how unethical it may be that books are nearly always well-edited in major world languages and not as often in developing languages the two months or more to train one language team in consistent writing is a legitimate challenge for Bible translation organizations given their limited resources Perhaps in some situations all suitable linguistic checkers for a team simply do not have the time But often it is just a matter of prioritizing the time

Some Bible translation organizations supporting modern translation projects talk about the quality of work resulting in their projects Often such references to quality are meant to be in contrast to the work of a certain translation organization using other methods with much quicker results However those that talk of quality work without making linguistic checks a priority should re-evaluate what quality their books actually have Without linguistic checks the quality of writing23 in books produced by the two types of organizations may in reality not be that different How much better it would be if all Bible translation organizations could rightfully claim quality products enhanced by linguistic checks so that MTLDs have the best chance to learn writing consistency and to read the message of Scripture unhindered

23 Here I am only saying that without linguistic checks materials produced by the two types of organizations may be similar in quality of writing I am not saying anything about the quality of translated content since this is not addressed by linguistic checks Because of different methods for checking content the materials produced by the two types of organizations may remain vastly different in their quality of content

27

Appendix

Orthography and grammatical descriptions of Laarim can be downloaded from the following links

Laarim Dictionary httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58710 Laarim Consonant amp Vowel Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58701 Laarim Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58705 Laarim Discourse Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58728

Similar documents for other languages mentioned in this paper can be downloaded from the dictionary websites below under the relevant tabs

httpbeliwebonaryorg httpbelandaborwebonaryorg httpbongowebonaryorg httplopitwebonaryorg httpmundariwebonaryorg httpreelwebonaryorg

The websites with documents for Beta Kappa and Omega are available upon request from dlps_alafricasilorg

23

and similar sounds When the comment is about the application of a writing rule have MTLDs read the relevant rule in the orthography statement along with example sentences where it is correctly applied If MTLDs are not willing to change their writing based on these language examples search for other places in the text at hand where the same word is spelled correctly or the rule is applied correctly and ask MTLDs if both contexts should be written the same If both cannot be the same try to find a valid reason such as that the word has a different root or that there is different grammar involved that keeps the writing rule from applying Record this new information so that the dictionary or writing rule can be revised as needed and the writing application better understood

If the reason for the objection to the writing change is simply that MTLDs have changed their minds about the previously agreed-upon writing ask if the community shares their opinion If the community is believed to be in favor as long as you donrsquot foresee any hindrance to reading comprehension as a result of the change and as long as MTLDs are able to consistently apply this change throughout the text have them revise the text for this change during the linguistic check if there is time Otherwise state that the writing issue needs to be handled through proper procedures at another time

Writing systems at least need to be tested for the following criteria

A Acceptability with the language community B A similar level of comprehension in reading as in speaking C Usability and relative ease of writing all grammatical constructions

Each of these is informally tested to some extent in a linguistic check and because each of these criteria is in tension with each other there is tension in the linguistic check when deciding how to apply the writing system

I recommend keeping these criteria in the above order of priority Strictly follow the rule MTLDs have the final say in all writing issues After all if the primary benefactors of the written language donrsquot accept their written language what difference does it make how perfect it is If the language community does not accept the materials produced they will not use them and then all the recourses to produce them have been wasted On the other hand if a writing rule chosen by the language community does not allow for adequate reading speed or comprehension the organization supporting development of that language should not pay for materials to be printed with that rule Rather the language community should be shown through numerous examples in the language how reading will be more challenging with that rule allowing the community to be convinced by their own language of the need for a better writing rule

When ease of reading comprehension is in tension with ease of writing because there are more readers than writers in any given language it is better to make reading easier than writing Although MTLDs may find some of the agreed-upon writing rules difficult to apply if the additional effort for writing is worth the increase gained in reading comprehension make sure you give the MTLDs adequate time to learn the writing rule however challenging it may be before suggesting it be changed

To the extent that the writing system was agreed-upon with informed decisions by sufficient representation of the language community and to the extent that it is adequate for reading comprehension and MTLDs are making progress in learning to write it the writing system should continue to be followed The Bible translation organization assisting the MTLDs has a vested interest in the quality of materials produced and in working for them it is your job to point out all writing inconsistencies When you allow unchallenged inconsistencies to creep into a text the problems that will likely result are your responsibility By contrast after you have stated valid reasons for correcting an error in ways that MTLDs have understood you have done your job even when there is disagreement

If MTLDs object to your suggested changes in a way that demonstrates frustration or another strong negative reaction or if they continually disregard many of your suggested changes after having understood the valid reasons for them stop checking new comments long enough to find out the reason for the underlying tension that is present Consider what you have said or done that may have contributed to the situation and take responsibility for it if appropriate Think carefully about any cultural clashes that may be taking place and how you could resolve them Ask the TA or an additional person to observe if you need help understanding what is wrong Perhaps you need to explain why you ask so many questions since questions can sound like rebukes or the purpose behind your other ways of

24

communicating Sometimes just simply stating the goal of the checking session how you are trying to accomplish that goal and what you expect from the MTLDs giving them a chance to respond can help clarify the problem and resolve the tension

If MTLDs begin to accept all your comments there is also something wrong Perhaps there is a lack of trust between you and the MTLDs or some other reason why they are not able to speak openly with you Complete acceptance means they have stopped trying to make themselves understood or have stopped thinking for themselves Always be on the look-out for such a grave situation At the first sign stop checking until you have found out the reasons and have properly dealt with them

(12) MTLDs should make all agreed-upon changes to the source document rather than the linguistic checker and the checker should confirm that each change has been made

For the MTLDs to be the proper owners of language development materials they need to be the ones drafting and revising the source documents If they are not able to do this in the beginning of the project they should be given training until they can do it When MTLDs are still learning the keyboard they often make careless errors without realizing it sometimes even introducing new errors when correcting previous errors So the linguistic checker must confirm that the MTLDs correct each error as they agreed to either during the checking session or by looking over the revised text afterwards For any spelling changes when using the interlinearizer tool in Paratext make sure the MTLDs first delete all glosses associated with the incorrect spelling before correcting the word so that this incorrect spelling will no longer appear to be correct by bring up legitimate meanings

(13) The checker should record each writing change from the previously agreed-upon writing that was proposed during the checking session and send a report of these to those involved in the language project The changes should be checked with other MTLDs and in more vernacular materials in the next linguistics workshop or when time is available Afterwards all documents should be revised according to these changes and distributed as needed

The report should include changes in the spelling of individual words changes in writing rules and changes in which grammatical constructions a rule applies to along with the reasons for each If there are major changes or a significant number of changes potentially resulting from the linguistic check the report is especially important The linguistic checker should be the one to further check these changes at a later time or at least be present when they are further checked This is because the linguistic checker will accumulate keen insight into many words and grammatical constructions through the process of checking texts which is vital to further discussions about these writing issues When changes have been agreed-upon by the language community the dictionary and orthography documents as well as all vernacular materials must then be revised accordingly The time for the checker to write the report combined with the time to later revise the orthography documents after agreement on the writing changes has been confirmed will often take at least three hours

(14) If the person writing comments for the linguistic checks is not the one orally discussing the comments with MTLDs before making comments on a new text the checker should first verify how MTLDs responded to previous comments and make additional comments on previous texts as necessary

In some cases translation consultant checks are now being done from a distance using the notes tool in Paratext for all comments These are explained as needed by the TA in the location of the MTLDs Linguistic checks can also be done from a distance by relying on the TA to explain comments Another difference between distant and local linguistic checks is the need to confirm which comments were accepted in the previous check and to determine the reason for those not accepted Although you will not be present when the text is revised according to your comments you can easily find out which comments are accepted by using the compare texts tool to highlight the changes made between two dates and the open notes tool to list all your comments made during that period

For comments that are not accepted the MTLDs or the TA must give a written response to your comment telling the reason If the reason is valid and the new writing will not hinder reading

25

comprehension and if the MTLDs have consistently applied the writing change throughout the texts in Paratext record this change in an email to MTLDs along with other similar potential changes asking if the language community is in agreement with them If the reason does not seem valid make a new comment restating your reason for keeping the agreed-upon writing with more evidence or with a more clear explanation If the MTLDs have not consistently applied a writing change that seems reasonable make a new comment pointing out the difference in writing from one place to the other suggesting that they make all the same Other than these differences the steps for linguistic checks from a distance are generally the same as for local linguistic checks

6 Conclusion

Linguistic checks have at least the benefits listed in table 11

Table 11 Benefits of linguistic checks

1 Test the writing system for usability in all grammatical constructions 2 Point out changes needed in the writing system 3 Ensure that writing is consistent leading to standardization 4 Help prevent bad writing habits of MTLDs 5 Train MTLDs in the consistent application of their writing system 6 Deepen the grammatical understanding of MTLDs of their language 7 Convince MTLDs of the value of grammatical understanding 8 Increase the motivation of MTLDs to write consistently 9 Give MTLDs better ownership of their language 10 Make the language project more sustainable 11 Save time by reducing the number of errors to correct later 12 Add quality to books published 13 Increase the perceived value of written materials 14 Enable improvement in reading speed and comprehension

The cost of linguistic checks is at least the number of hours listed in table 12

Table 12 Costs of linguistic checks

Comment Persons involved Minimum time language study preparation

checker 3 hours

making comments checker 4 hours on first 20 verses afterwards 1 hour per 10 verses or per A4 size page

reading text MTLDs checker TA

5 hours per 20 verses

revising text according to comments

MTLDs checker TA

2 hours on first 20 verses afterwards 5 hours per 10 verses or per A4 size page

writing report and revising orthography documents

checker 3 hours

Using these amounts of time a rough estimate for checking 5 chapters of Scripture each of about 20 verses or a reading story book of about 10 A4 size pages involves at least 26 hours of time for the linguistic checker and 8 hours for the MTLDs and TA Assuming all further linguistic checks on the same

26

chapters take about half this time the total hours for 100 verses is 39 hours for the checker and 12 hours for the MTLDs and TA This time may be reduced when checking additional chapters since fewer comments are likely as MTLDs improve in their writing Even so a low estimate for the time to check Genesis would be 300 hours or 2 months of full-time work for the checker and 150 hours or 1 month of full-time work for the MTLDs and TA Checking languages with complex writing systems will take longer For some it may take more time for MTLDs to learn to write their language consistently than it takes to adequately analyze the grammar and agree on the writing system

From my experience of being the checker for eight languages of South Sudan I can say without a doubt that the benefits outweigh the costs There is no comparison between the satisfaction of seeing eight teams of MTLDs begin to write well and the disappointment of seeing Laarim continue to make the same errors I worked just as hard or harder in helping Laarim make well-informed writing decisions as I did for the other teams Yet with Laarim positive outcomes from my extensive grammatical analysis and description are much more difficult to find

What value is there in well-chosen writing systems if they are not consistently followed They may be as beautiful as a trophy on a shelf but they are just as useless Which domain of language development invests the most time in helping MTLDs choose well-informed writing systems and will lose the most if they are not followed Personnel in no other domain assisting modern translation projects care as much about the application of grammar to writing as linguists So if writing is to become consistent it is usually linguists who must take the lead in this work

Although costly in time linguistic checks have many benefits They can effectively train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system and enable standardization of writing in a few months or years so that the message of Scripture can be read unhindered

However no matter how unethical it may be that books are nearly always well-edited in major world languages and not as often in developing languages the two months or more to train one language team in consistent writing is a legitimate challenge for Bible translation organizations given their limited resources Perhaps in some situations all suitable linguistic checkers for a team simply do not have the time But often it is just a matter of prioritizing the time

Some Bible translation organizations supporting modern translation projects talk about the quality of work resulting in their projects Often such references to quality are meant to be in contrast to the work of a certain translation organization using other methods with much quicker results However those that talk of quality work without making linguistic checks a priority should re-evaluate what quality their books actually have Without linguistic checks the quality of writing23 in books produced by the two types of organizations may in reality not be that different How much better it would be if all Bible translation organizations could rightfully claim quality products enhanced by linguistic checks so that MTLDs have the best chance to learn writing consistency and to read the message of Scripture unhindered

23 Here I am only saying that without linguistic checks materials produced by the two types of organizations may be similar in quality of writing I am not saying anything about the quality of translated content since this is not addressed by linguistic checks Because of different methods for checking content the materials produced by the two types of organizations may remain vastly different in their quality of content

27

Appendix

Orthography and grammatical descriptions of Laarim can be downloaded from the following links

Laarim Dictionary httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58710 Laarim Consonant amp Vowel Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58701 Laarim Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58705 Laarim Discourse Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58728

Similar documents for other languages mentioned in this paper can be downloaded from the dictionary websites below under the relevant tabs

httpbeliwebonaryorg httpbelandaborwebonaryorg httpbongowebonaryorg httplopitwebonaryorg httpmundariwebonaryorg httpreelwebonaryorg

The websites with documents for Beta Kappa and Omega are available upon request from dlps_alafricasilorg

24

communicating Sometimes just simply stating the goal of the checking session how you are trying to accomplish that goal and what you expect from the MTLDs giving them a chance to respond can help clarify the problem and resolve the tension

If MTLDs begin to accept all your comments there is also something wrong Perhaps there is a lack of trust between you and the MTLDs or some other reason why they are not able to speak openly with you Complete acceptance means they have stopped trying to make themselves understood or have stopped thinking for themselves Always be on the look-out for such a grave situation At the first sign stop checking until you have found out the reasons and have properly dealt with them

(12) MTLDs should make all agreed-upon changes to the source document rather than the linguistic checker and the checker should confirm that each change has been made

For the MTLDs to be the proper owners of language development materials they need to be the ones drafting and revising the source documents If they are not able to do this in the beginning of the project they should be given training until they can do it When MTLDs are still learning the keyboard they often make careless errors without realizing it sometimes even introducing new errors when correcting previous errors So the linguistic checker must confirm that the MTLDs correct each error as they agreed to either during the checking session or by looking over the revised text afterwards For any spelling changes when using the interlinearizer tool in Paratext make sure the MTLDs first delete all glosses associated with the incorrect spelling before correcting the word so that this incorrect spelling will no longer appear to be correct by bring up legitimate meanings

(13) The checker should record each writing change from the previously agreed-upon writing that was proposed during the checking session and send a report of these to those involved in the language project The changes should be checked with other MTLDs and in more vernacular materials in the next linguistics workshop or when time is available Afterwards all documents should be revised according to these changes and distributed as needed

The report should include changes in the spelling of individual words changes in writing rules and changes in which grammatical constructions a rule applies to along with the reasons for each If there are major changes or a significant number of changes potentially resulting from the linguistic check the report is especially important The linguistic checker should be the one to further check these changes at a later time or at least be present when they are further checked This is because the linguistic checker will accumulate keen insight into many words and grammatical constructions through the process of checking texts which is vital to further discussions about these writing issues When changes have been agreed-upon by the language community the dictionary and orthography documents as well as all vernacular materials must then be revised accordingly The time for the checker to write the report combined with the time to later revise the orthography documents after agreement on the writing changes has been confirmed will often take at least three hours

(14) If the person writing comments for the linguistic checks is not the one orally discussing the comments with MTLDs before making comments on a new text the checker should first verify how MTLDs responded to previous comments and make additional comments on previous texts as necessary

In some cases translation consultant checks are now being done from a distance using the notes tool in Paratext for all comments These are explained as needed by the TA in the location of the MTLDs Linguistic checks can also be done from a distance by relying on the TA to explain comments Another difference between distant and local linguistic checks is the need to confirm which comments were accepted in the previous check and to determine the reason for those not accepted Although you will not be present when the text is revised according to your comments you can easily find out which comments are accepted by using the compare texts tool to highlight the changes made between two dates and the open notes tool to list all your comments made during that period

For comments that are not accepted the MTLDs or the TA must give a written response to your comment telling the reason If the reason is valid and the new writing will not hinder reading

25

comprehension and if the MTLDs have consistently applied the writing change throughout the texts in Paratext record this change in an email to MTLDs along with other similar potential changes asking if the language community is in agreement with them If the reason does not seem valid make a new comment restating your reason for keeping the agreed-upon writing with more evidence or with a more clear explanation If the MTLDs have not consistently applied a writing change that seems reasonable make a new comment pointing out the difference in writing from one place to the other suggesting that they make all the same Other than these differences the steps for linguistic checks from a distance are generally the same as for local linguistic checks

6 Conclusion

Linguistic checks have at least the benefits listed in table 11

Table 11 Benefits of linguistic checks

1 Test the writing system for usability in all grammatical constructions 2 Point out changes needed in the writing system 3 Ensure that writing is consistent leading to standardization 4 Help prevent bad writing habits of MTLDs 5 Train MTLDs in the consistent application of their writing system 6 Deepen the grammatical understanding of MTLDs of their language 7 Convince MTLDs of the value of grammatical understanding 8 Increase the motivation of MTLDs to write consistently 9 Give MTLDs better ownership of their language 10 Make the language project more sustainable 11 Save time by reducing the number of errors to correct later 12 Add quality to books published 13 Increase the perceived value of written materials 14 Enable improvement in reading speed and comprehension

The cost of linguistic checks is at least the number of hours listed in table 12

Table 12 Costs of linguistic checks

Comment Persons involved Minimum time language study preparation

checker 3 hours

making comments checker 4 hours on first 20 verses afterwards 1 hour per 10 verses or per A4 size page

reading text MTLDs checker TA

5 hours per 20 verses

revising text according to comments

MTLDs checker TA

2 hours on first 20 verses afterwards 5 hours per 10 verses or per A4 size page

writing report and revising orthography documents

checker 3 hours

Using these amounts of time a rough estimate for checking 5 chapters of Scripture each of about 20 verses or a reading story book of about 10 A4 size pages involves at least 26 hours of time for the linguistic checker and 8 hours for the MTLDs and TA Assuming all further linguistic checks on the same

26

chapters take about half this time the total hours for 100 verses is 39 hours for the checker and 12 hours for the MTLDs and TA This time may be reduced when checking additional chapters since fewer comments are likely as MTLDs improve in their writing Even so a low estimate for the time to check Genesis would be 300 hours or 2 months of full-time work for the checker and 150 hours or 1 month of full-time work for the MTLDs and TA Checking languages with complex writing systems will take longer For some it may take more time for MTLDs to learn to write their language consistently than it takes to adequately analyze the grammar and agree on the writing system

From my experience of being the checker for eight languages of South Sudan I can say without a doubt that the benefits outweigh the costs There is no comparison between the satisfaction of seeing eight teams of MTLDs begin to write well and the disappointment of seeing Laarim continue to make the same errors I worked just as hard or harder in helping Laarim make well-informed writing decisions as I did for the other teams Yet with Laarim positive outcomes from my extensive grammatical analysis and description are much more difficult to find

What value is there in well-chosen writing systems if they are not consistently followed They may be as beautiful as a trophy on a shelf but they are just as useless Which domain of language development invests the most time in helping MTLDs choose well-informed writing systems and will lose the most if they are not followed Personnel in no other domain assisting modern translation projects care as much about the application of grammar to writing as linguists So if writing is to become consistent it is usually linguists who must take the lead in this work

Although costly in time linguistic checks have many benefits They can effectively train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system and enable standardization of writing in a few months or years so that the message of Scripture can be read unhindered

However no matter how unethical it may be that books are nearly always well-edited in major world languages and not as often in developing languages the two months or more to train one language team in consistent writing is a legitimate challenge for Bible translation organizations given their limited resources Perhaps in some situations all suitable linguistic checkers for a team simply do not have the time But often it is just a matter of prioritizing the time

Some Bible translation organizations supporting modern translation projects talk about the quality of work resulting in their projects Often such references to quality are meant to be in contrast to the work of a certain translation organization using other methods with much quicker results However those that talk of quality work without making linguistic checks a priority should re-evaluate what quality their books actually have Without linguistic checks the quality of writing23 in books produced by the two types of organizations may in reality not be that different How much better it would be if all Bible translation organizations could rightfully claim quality products enhanced by linguistic checks so that MTLDs have the best chance to learn writing consistency and to read the message of Scripture unhindered

23 Here I am only saying that without linguistic checks materials produced by the two types of organizations may be similar in quality of writing I am not saying anything about the quality of translated content since this is not addressed by linguistic checks Because of different methods for checking content the materials produced by the two types of organizations may remain vastly different in their quality of content

27

Appendix

Orthography and grammatical descriptions of Laarim can be downloaded from the following links

Laarim Dictionary httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58710 Laarim Consonant amp Vowel Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58701 Laarim Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58705 Laarim Discourse Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58728

Similar documents for other languages mentioned in this paper can be downloaded from the dictionary websites below under the relevant tabs

httpbeliwebonaryorg httpbelandaborwebonaryorg httpbongowebonaryorg httplopitwebonaryorg httpmundariwebonaryorg httpreelwebonaryorg

The websites with documents for Beta Kappa and Omega are available upon request from dlps_alafricasilorg

25

comprehension and if the MTLDs have consistently applied the writing change throughout the texts in Paratext record this change in an email to MTLDs along with other similar potential changes asking if the language community is in agreement with them If the reason does not seem valid make a new comment restating your reason for keeping the agreed-upon writing with more evidence or with a more clear explanation If the MTLDs have not consistently applied a writing change that seems reasonable make a new comment pointing out the difference in writing from one place to the other suggesting that they make all the same Other than these differences the steps for linguistic checks from a distance are generally the same as for local linguistic checks

6 Conclusion

Linguistic checks have at least the benefits listed in table 11

Table 11 Benefits of linguistic checks

1 Test the writing system for usability in all grammatical constructions 2 Point out changes needed in the writing system 3 Ensure that writing is consistent leading to standardization 4 Help prevent bad writing habits of MTLDs 5 Train MTLDs in the consistent application of their writing system 6 Deepen the grammatical understanding of MTLDs of their language 7 Convince MTLDs of the value of grammatical understanding 8 Increase the motivation of MTLDs to write consistently 9 Give MTLDs better ownership of their language 10 Make the language project more sustainable 11 Save time by reducing the number of errors to correct later 12 Add quality to books published 13 Increase the perceived value of written materials 14 Enable improvement in reading speed and comprehension

The cost of linguistic checks is at least the number of hours listed in table 12

Table 12 Costs of linguistic checks

Comment Persons involved Minimum time language study preparation

checker 3 hours

making comments checker 4 hours on first 20 verses afterwards 1 hour per 10 verses or per A4 size page

reading text MTLDs checker TA

5 hours per 20 verses

revising text according to comments

MTLDs checker TA

2 hours on first 20 verses afterwards 5 hours per 10 verses or per A4 size page

writing report and revising orthography documents

checker 3 hours

Using these amounts of time a rough estimate for checking 5 chapters of Scripture each of about 20 verses or a reading story book of about 10 A4 size pages involves at least 26 hours of time for the linguistic checker and 8 hours for the MTLDs and TA Assuming all further linguistic checks on the same

26

chapters take about half this time the total hours for 100 verses is 39 hours for the checker and 12 hours for the MTLDs and TA This time may be reduced when checking additional chapters since fewer comments are likely as MTLDs improve in their writing Even so a low estimate for the time to check Genesis would be 300 hours or 2 months of full-time work for the checker and 150 hours or 1 month of full-time work for the MTLDs and TA Checking languages with complex writing systems will take longer For some it may take more time for MTLDs to learn to write their language consistently than it takes to adequately analyze the grammar and agree on the writing system

From my experience of being the checker for eight languages of South Sudan I can say without a doubt that the benefits outweigh the costs There is no comparison between the satisfaction of seeing eight teams of MTLDs begin to write well and the disappointment of seeing Laarim continue to make the same errors I worked just as hard or harder in helping Laarim make well-informed writing decisions as I did for the other teams Yet with Laarim positive outcomes from my extensive grammatical analysis and description are much more difficult to find

What value is there in well-chosen writing systems if they are not consistently followed They may be as beautiful as a trophy on a shelf but they are just as useless Which domain of language development invests the most time in helping MTLDs choose well-informed writing systems and will lose the most if they are not followed Personnel in no other domain assisting modern translation projects care as much about the application of grammar to writing as linguists So if writing is to become consistent it is usually linguists who must take the lead in this work

Although costly in time linguistic checks have many benefits They can effectively train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system and enable standardization of writing in a few months or years so that the message of Scripture can be read unhindered

However no matter how unethical it may be that books are nearly always well-edited in major world languages and not as often in developing languages the two months or more to train one language team in consistent writing is a legitimate challenge for Bible translation organizations given their limited resources Perhaps in some situations all suitable linguistic checkers for a team simply do not have the time But often it is just a matter of prioritizing the time

Some Bible translation organizations supporting modern translation projects talk about the quality of work resulting in their projects Often such references to quality are meant to be in contrast to the work of a certain translation organization using other methods with much quicker results However those that talk of quality work without making linguistic checks a priority should re-evaluate what quality their books actually have Without linguistic checks the quality of writing23 in books produced by the two types of organizations may in reality not be that different How much better it would be if all Bible translation organizations could rightfully claim quality products enhanced by linguistic checks so that MTLDs have the best chance to learn writing consistency and to read the message of Scripture unhindered

23 Here I am only saying that without linguistic checks materials produced by the two types of organizations may be similar in quality of writing I am not saying anything about the quality of translated content since this is not addressed by linguistic checks Because of different methods for checking content the materials produced by the two types of organizations may remain vastly different in their quality of content

27

Appendix

Orthography and grammatical descriptions of Laarim can be downloaded from the following links

Laarim Dictionary httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58710 Laarim Consonant amp Vowel Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58701 Laarim Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58705 Laarim Discourse Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58728

Similar documents for other languages mentioned in this paper can be downloaded from the dictionary websites below under the relevant tabs

httpbeliwebonaryorg httpbelandaborwebonaryorg httpbongowebonaryorg httplopitwebonaryorg httpmundariwebonaryorg httpreelwebonaryorg

The websites with documents for Beta Kappa and Omega are available upon request from dlps_alafricasilorg

26

chapters take about half this time the total hours for 100 verses is 39 hours for the checker and 12 hours for the MTLDs and TA This time may be reduced when checking additional chapters since fewer comments are likely as MTLDs improve in their writing Even so a low estimate for the time to check Genesis would be 300 hours or 2 months of full-time work for the checker and 150 hours or 1 month of full-time work for the MTLDs and TA Checking languages with complex writing systems will take longer For some it may take more time for MTLDs to learn to write their language consistently than it takes to adequately analyze the grammar and agree on the writing system

From my experience of being the checker for eight languages of South Sudan I can say without a doubt that the benefits outweigh the costs There is no comparison between the satisfaction of seeing eight teams of MTLDs begin to write well and the disappointment of seeing Laarim continue to make the same errors I worked just as hard or harder in helping Laarim make well-informed writing decisions as I did for the other teams Yet with Laarim positive outcomes from my extensive grammatical analysis and description are much more difficult to find

What value is there in well-chosen writing systems if they are not consistently followed They may be as beautiful as a trophy on a shelf but they are just as useless Which domain of language development invests the most time in helping MTLDs choose well-informed writing systems and will lose the most if they are not followed Personnel in no other domain assisting modern translation projects care as much about the application of grammar to writing as linguists So if writing is to become consistent it is usually linguists who must take the lead in this work

Although costly in time linguistic checks have many benefits They can effectively train MTLDs to consistently use their writing system and enable standardization of writing in a few months or years so that the message of Scripture can be read unhindered

However no matter how unethical it may be that books are nearly always well-edited in major world languages and not as often in developing languages the two months or more to train one language team in consistent writing is a legitimate challenge for Bible translation organizations given their limited resources Perhaps in some situations all suitable linguistic checkers for a team simply do not have the time But often it is just a matter of prioritizing the time

Some Bible translation organizations supporting modern translation projects talk about the quality of work resulting in their projects Often such references to quality are meant to be in contrast to the work of a certain translation organization using other methods with much quicker results However those that talk of quality work without making linguistic checks a priority should re-evaluate what quality their books actually have Without linguistic checks the quality of writing23 in books produced by the two types of organizations may in reality not be that different How much better it would be if all Bible translation organizations could rightfully claim quality products enhanced by linguistic checks so that MTLDs have the best chance to learn writing consistency and to read the message of Scripture unhindered

23 Here I am only saying that without linguistic checks materials produced by the two types of organizations may be similar in quality of writing I am not saying anything about the quality of translated content since this is not addressed by linguistic checks Because of different methods for checking content the materials produced by the two types of organizations may remain vastly different in their quality of content

27

Appendix

Orthography and grammatical descriptions of Laarim can be downloaded from the following links

Laarim Dictionary httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58710 Laarim Consonant amp Vowel Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58701 Laarim Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58705 Laarim Discourse Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58728

Similar documents for other languages mentioned in this paper can be downloaded from the dictionary websites below under the relevant tabs

httpbeliwebonaryorg httpbelandaborwebonaryorg httpbongowebonaryorg httplopitwebonaryorg httpmundariwebonaryorg httpreelwebonaryorg

The websites with documents for Beta Kappa and Omega are available upon request from dlps_alafricasilorg

27

Appendix

Orthography and grammatical descriptions of Laarim can be downloaded from the following links

Laarim Dictionary httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58710 Laarim Consonant amp Vowel Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58701 Laarim Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58705 Laarim Discourse Grammar Book httpwwwsilorgresourcesarchives58728

Similar documents for other languages mentioned in this paper can be downloaded from the dictionary websites below under the relevant tabs

httpbeliwebonaryorg httpbelandaborwebonaryorg httpbongowebonaryorg httplopitwebonaryorg httpmundariwebonaryorg httpreelwebonaryorg

The websites with documents for Beta Kappa and Omega are available upon request from dlps_alafricasilorg

28

References

Snider Keith 2014 Orthography and phonological depth In Mike Cahill and Keren Rice (eds) Developing orthographies for unwritten languages 27ndash48 Dallas TX SIL International

Stirtz Timothy 2015 Rapid grammar collection as an approach to language development SIL Electronic Working Papers 2015-004 Dallas TX SIL International httpwwwsilorgresourcespublicationsentry62483