The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of the Solega A Linguistic Perspective

54

2.7 Conclusion

In terms of folk ethnobiological nomenclature , the data presented here demonstrate,
for instance, that the ethnobiological lexicon of languages can be dominated by
binomials or secondary lexemes, even at the ‘ generic ’ level (Solega), or may have
only unanalysable mononomials at the ‘ subgeneric ’ levels of their taxonomy (many
Australian languages). Other researchers have reported that ethnobiological classi-
fi cation s may be organized in ways other than inclusive hierarchies (e.g. [ 149 ] for
Sahaptin ) or that Berlin ’s nomenclatural rules are better applied to plants than to
animals ([ 150 ] for Ndumba). Still others have suggested that some societies may
completely lack a ‘standardised’ ethnotaxonomy, but may instead tolerate a consid-
erable degree of dissonance, leading to a taxonomy that is “ inherently dynamic and
subject to negotiation ” ([ 60 ] for Wola ).
The existence of strong similarities between scientifi c taxonomy and folk tax-
onomy is meant to be a crucial piece of evidence supporting Berlin ’s claim that
ethnobiological classifi cation s are primarily shaped by the cognitive similarities
shared by all humans, with cultural or utilitarian factors playing a very small role.
Directly addressing this point, the taxonomist P. F. Stevens, in reviewing Berlin’s
1992 publication, expressed surprise that the latter seemed to take the veracity of
scientifi c classifi cations for granted, when they were clearly “ as much mirage as
etic grid ” ([ 142 ], p. 294). Furthermore, although Berlin insists that Ralph Bulmer ’s
1974 paper [ 151 ] on the PNG language Kalam “ provided the fi rst independent cor-
roboration of the striking similarities among ethnobiological systems of classifi ca-
tion ”, Bulmer’s own thoughts on the universality of certain concepts presented in
e.g. [ 12 ] were less conciliatory:

Table 2.1 Solega nomenclatural patterns across various organism types

Obligate secondary Optional secondary Obligate primary

mara ‘tree’ a:guri mara

ta:re mara

etc.

None recorded None recorded

ambu ‘vine’ nẽvẽ ambu

bella:re ambu

etc.

None recorded None recorded

giḍa ‘herb’ oṇṭe giḍa

kaṭṭu:ḷi giḍa

etc.

phaṇaki (giḍa)

mu:rele na:ga (giḍa)

etc.

None recorded

hullu ‘grass’ jabbar hullu

ba:ṇe hullu

etc.

None recorded None recorded

hakki ‘bird’ araḷakki

maṇṇakki

etc.

uṇṇigirika(n-akki)

karaḷi(y-akki)

etc.

ko:ḷi

natta:re

etc.

pera:ṇi ‘mammal’ None recorded None recorded aḷḷugã

suṇḍa

etc.

2 Ethnotaxonomies and Universals: Investigating some Key Assumptions