TO BE OR NOT TO BE

BENIN OR BINI

LINGUISTIC TRANSPOSITION, EDO TO ENGLISH

Toyin Adepoju

I wrote an essay arguing that the Oba of Benin's declaration that the term 'Bini'
should no more be used and that only 'Benin' should be employed is not practical.
Some responses to my essay suggest to me that my style of pointing out why that is
so might not have been clear enough. I want to present the issues in a clearer
manner that has gained from appreciating the issue better from reading the
responses to my essay.

I begin from examining the linguistic issues involved in relation to the use of the
terms 'Benin', ‘Bini’ and the related 'Edo'.

The reason why it is hardly possible to legislate the terrm 'Bini' out of existence is
that there is no other word that can play the role it plays in English. In the examples
that follow, I will try to show that ‘Bini’ is indispensable for reasons of grammar and
semantics.

Grammar deals with the organisation or structure of words in language. Every

language operates in terms of both a universal structure it shares with all
languages and the peculiar manner in which this structure is realised in the specific
language. The rules that apply to all languages are modified in their realization in
particular languages. So, all all languages share, to a large extent, the same
grammatical components, but these components are not always used in the same
manner in each language.

Semantics deals with meaning in language. How does the meaning of an expression
emerge in an expression or body of expressions? How does it relate to the world
being referred to by the expression? Is this meaning clear or ambiguous, direct or
indirect? These are questions of semantics.

On the grounds of both grammar and semantics, I cannot see how it is possible to
avoid the use of the term 'Bini'.

To ask someone if a person is of Benin ancestry in the language of the Edo of

Benin, you state , as rendered by Alex Osifo:

Ovbi' Edo (u) we khin (ra)

or, I expect

Ovbi' Edo we khin ?

 Translating that into English provides the following options:

The options are

1. Are you Edo? [ Relatively direct translation]

2. Are you Benin?
3. Are you Bini?
4. Are you Beninnoise?

The first option is clearly valid at the level of both grammar and semantics. It is a
straight transfer from the native language into English that is in harmony with the
sense of English grammar and uses a term the people of Benin use for themselves.

I wonder, though, if it might be ambiguous. This ambiguity emerges from the fact that
the term 'Edo’ may be seen as referring not only to people from Benin but also to
members of the Edoid group of languages. A clear example are the Akoko-Edo of
Edo North.

In the light of that consideration, does 'Are you Edo?' necesarrily refer only to people
whose ancestors are among the ethnic group that founded Benin? Will the context of
the expression, the issues being discussed, the people discussing, be enough to
clarify whether the narrow or broader meaning of Edo is being referred to?

The second option ‘ Are you Benin?’ looks clumsy to me. Why is it clumsy? The
problem might be, that in English, when using a word that indicates that one belongs
to a social group, that word is inflected, modified, from its original form.

Examples

1. Are you Turkish? Where 'Turkish' is an inflection or modification of 'Turkey'. Turkey

is the country to which the Turks belong.

2. Are you English? Where 'English' is a modification of England. England is the

country to which the English belong.

The expression 'Are you Benin?' does not demonstrate such an inflexion so it looks
odd.

'Are you Benin?' is similar to 'Are you Turkey?' or 'Are you England?' I dont need to
point out the clumsiness of those expressions.

We could also consider example 4. ‘Are you Beninnoise?’ I get the impression,
though, that this is already in use by the Republic of Benin. According to Ifuemi
Adepoju, it is also more in harmony with French grammar whicg the Beninnoise use,
being a Francophone country.
This leaves example 3. ‘Are you Bini?’

This is practical because it is inflected. This inflection seems to be in harmony with

English grammar but I won’t pretend to be able to analyse why. It is also already in
use.

At this point, brethren, I rest my case.

I hope to write another essay that places these issues in the context of relationships
between cultural politics, linguistic development, and linguistic conventions.

31/03/2011