Talk:Languages of Angola

message: The claim that 2/3 of the population uses Portuguese as the home language needs a source. Unless what is meant is that a large proportion of the population uses some Portuguese at home, this seems very unusual. Someone passed on a short article claiming that 1/3 used Portuguese at home and that even seemed high enough that I was going to check with experts. Now I guess I'll have to do it sooner rather than eventually...  --A12n 23:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick check comes up with a source saying that 95% of Angolans speak one of the Bantu languages, with some % speaking Khoisan "click" languages and presumably some Portuguese (presumably all 1st language figures): Country Studies: Angola: Ethnic Groups and languages . It may be out of date, but even despite the upheaval of the civil war it is hard to imagine such a huge shift in language demographics. --A12n 23:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 60% of Portuguese native speakers in the 1983 census. . But that maybe misleading because of prestige and war (many left), but it's the official number until a new census is done. But 95% speaking Bantu is very unlikely, neither before nor after the war. Maybe you end up with an ethnical figure. Some authors stated that because of the war the number of Portuguese speakers dropped to 40% (people left for neighbouring Namibia, former Zaire, S. Africa and Zimbabwe), but it is on the rise again (people returning), a source for that I didn't searched now, read sometime ago, but that's on instituto Camões website (also in Portuguese) . Remember that a significant part of the population live around Luanda and other cities.--Pedro 09:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to follow up with some other sources. Just coming back to the topic of Angola now. In the text it now says: "Of the 60% Portuguese native speakers, half could only speak Portuguese..." The way this is worded sounds like a contradiction - if someone is a native speaker of x they usually speak x. The issue of how to define a "native speaker" is another question. I appreciate your efforts on this.--A12n 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: @Libingi: I know Mbunda is an important regional language. However, when we establish a list of those regional languages which have been officially chosen as "national languages", we cannot include Mbunda, but have to include Ganguela  - because that is what the official instances have decided, whether we like it or not. -- Aflis (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are losing me! Can someone tell me the origin of Ganguela. I have given the Mbunda origin. Can someone tell me otherwise? Who are the Official instances deciding to replace Mbunda with Ganguela? "Whether we like it or not" to me is not a good arguement, can we give facts to the world. I have given following official instrument: KIKONGO, KIMBUNDU, UMBUNDU, CHOKWE, MBUNDA AND KWANYAMA according to the Official Gazette No: 3/87 of May 23, 1987 following a resolution adopted by the Council of Ministers, Idiomas Nacionais - Ministério da Administração do Território. Which one was used to replace Mbunda? I still reiterate, Ganguela is a tool used by Portuguese colonialists to wipe out Mbunda from Angola because Mbundas fought them to a bitter end from 1914 to 1920s, someone give me reasons to refute that.A number of websites including Angola Government websites acknowledge that, like; http://www.google.com/imgres?start=199&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1T4GGHP_enZM470ZM471&biw=1366&bih=549&tbm=isch&tbnid=TUg-gcQ59edDFM:&imgrefurl=http://www.aiogace.com/html/fivepagetwo.html&docid=8Qq1BQ6FK2tg4M&imgurl=http://www.aiogace.com/images/flagmap.jpg&w=231&h=262&ei=5q1gUMHBN4XEsga9k4DgBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=122&vpy=139&dur=1106&hovh=209&hovw=184&tx=92&ty=123&sig=109066615671263718258&page=11&tbnh=171&tbnw=151&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:199,i:25. Why is this website promoting Ganguela which to me has no origin but a concoction of southeastern Angola tribes which are descendants of Mbunda? Libingi (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I sounded emotional. My aim is to help you tell the world the truth. I am happy you agree with me that "Nganguela" is one of these ethnographical classification categories invented during colonial times. I wish you will agree too that it was for a purpose. Missionery Emil Pearson even concocted an English-Ngangela Dictionary in May 1971. I say concoction because it doesn't show any meaning in Ngangela language but a lumping together of the southeast languages of Angola. History is stories or narrations given by forefathers down the line. Research therefore is a collection of these stories and authenticating them. Listening to; Nyemba, Ngonjelo, Chimbandi, Lwiimbi, Humbi, Luchazi, Yauma, Nkangala, Ndundu, Mashaka, Mbalango, Sango; tribes found southeast of Angola, the dialect is the same and Mbunda, no translation is needed. Therefore a research amoung these tribes will be helpful. There is King Mbandu III, the 23rd Mbunda Monarch from the first one in KOLA now DRC Congo, in Lumbala Nguimbu, Moxico Province in Angola, why not pay him a visit? There are a remnant of Mbundas at the confluence of Kwilu and Kasai rivers region in DRC Congo, during the migration of Mbundas from KOLA in 1500s, through Kwilu/Kasai and entered Mbundaland now Angola in 1600. The history and life of the Mbunda Speaking People is well reaearched and published in 1994, by Cheke Cultural Writers Association and is widely refered to by researchers, why not peruse through it before you lump it as one of the hypotheses? Who can confirm people's history apart from themselves? Yes, you can use a trustworthy friend in Luanda, but listen to one observer in UK, he says: "The unfortunate part of our(Mbunda) history is that it has been decimated by the Wars in Angola and a deliberate Colonialist policy of divide and rule. Despite the wars our History is still there for those who genuinely seek it from those who genuinely possess it. The onus is on our selves to research and tell the world about our selves. We should unshackle the syndrome of accepting and legitimising anything given and seen through the eyes of foreigners as "our history". We are the only ones better placed to write about our selves. Foreigners will distort our history to serve their own endeavours as has been the case with the Portuguese. Imagine a Chokwe writing Mbunda history;it will be a complete distortion and misrepresentation of facts as passed on to us from our ancestors. Of course subjectivity is an issue. But it is subjectivity that makes history dynamic that one source is not regarded as a complete and absolute authority. As rightly said by Mwata Ndandula Libingi history is there to be researched. Rich narratives still exists in many forms among our people despite the traumatic turmoil and displacements. The research, publication and cultural preservation efforts done by the Cheke cha Mbunda is highly commendable and significant to our cultural identity. The challenge on us whether we see our selves as Mbunda or Nyemba or Ngangela is to emancipate our selves from the colonial mindset of seing our selves as different to each other and rise up and complement the efforts of Cheke cha Mbunda by adding new narratives to the rich repository of our history it has given us". Mbunda was removed from the list in 1990s, after the Mbunda representative Prince Katuya Kanyenge retired from Instituto  de Línguas Nacionais (the Institute of National Languages)' and remained vacant until the so called Ngangela representative was put there, and that saw the start of Mbunda replacement. If your Luanda friend is really trustworthy, he will confirm this. I have a copy of the official document, Gazette No: 3/87 of May 23, 1987 following a resolution adopted by the Council of Ministers, I am not relying on websites research information. Let your friend obtain it and confirm it to you. Libingi (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed Gangela is the 6th national language.  kwami (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Any additional contribution to this discussion is, in principle, most welcome  - but could you be nice enough to please indicate your source? -- Aflis (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the ELL2. Cited in the article, along with the more modest figure for the number of native Portuguese speakers, and the suspicion that even that may be over-estimated (though it's 15 yrs old, and the number has presumably increased since then). — kwami (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - but what is ELL2 ? Aflis (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the article. It's cited in the article. — kwami (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Don't recall the source, but I did read that one of the reasons for the increase in Portuguese was the large number of mixed marriages due to the disruption of the civil war. That should be mentioned IMO. — kwami (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Mixed marriages have not been that numerous, and generally happened in cities where even in ethnically homogeneous family the tendency has been, since well before independence, that the children did no longer learn an African language. -- Aflis (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Deleted the extensive ethnographic info at Mbunda language. That belongs in an article on the people, since it does not describe the language. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

text: (Plus it was plagiarized.) [evidently not: Libingi apparently wrote the article he is quoting.] — kwami (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  National languages 

message: Achim von Oppen is wrong about the geographical location of the people called "Nganguela": the peoples east of the Ovambo are called "Xindonga", in ethnoghraphical terms. The generic term "Nganguela" is applied to the peoples east of the Ovimbundu = east of the Central Highlands). -- Aflis (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @Aflis (talk)  Thanks, correct observation, agreed. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nganguela 

message: We are in 2014. Independence was in 1975. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  @ Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) Stop edit warring. That statement clearly refers to what happened after independence not 2014. You should have listened to the State Secretary for Culture's statement at a conference on the same issue in Menounge in Cuando Cuvango on TPA yesterday. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  @ Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) Fair enough, I will accept that for now. I actually intended to do the same, however it is just for now. I am surprised you are in Angola but not following the events as they unfold. When resolutions of the Menounge meeting gets to you and you come to know the position the Angolan Government has taken, you will have to give up your motive. I take issues as they are, but your edits are out of rage, trying to serve those that are using you and therefore failing to read in between the lines. I am a Mbunda and I know what I am talking about. I stand to protect the interest of Angola (my roots), I have everything to loose. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, Ndandula, this is NOT the place to fight the interests of your people. Here we reflect reality as best as we can, based on the best tested information available. And speaking of which, you could help by explaining something about footnotes 4 and 5 at Mbunda (Redinha and Urquart). I have located the articles and the pages, but these do not seem to bear out the affirmations about Mbunda as a national language. Could you please copy paste the paragraghs? I also take the opportunity to inform you that I am escalating the COI issue to the Adminstrators' Noticeboard. Regards, Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages of Angola 

message: Hi. I have reversed a number of recent edits by editor Aflis for the following reason:
*1. Broke the infobox. 
*2. Did not even bother to look at result, otherwise would have seen what he did to the infobox.
*3. Generally pays little attention to other editors' edit summaries. 
*4. Had he paid attention to PedroPVZ's edit summary he would have understood why PVZ removed the section on mother tongue, with a 2005 source questioning the validity of a 2012 source.
*5. Once more he has demonstrated scarce understanding of the subject, failing to understand what is meant by "national language" and confusing "national" with "countrywide", as he did by making reference to "national" vs "regional" here and here. 
*6. Fails to differentiate between "references" and "notes".
*7. Needs to provide sources to what and which are the "national languages" listed here this edit. Please provide recent sources and not Redinhas's work from 1975. At any rate, the editor has repeatedly presented this source in this context, so he must present the text in Redinha's book that mentions the "six national language" declared by the government "after independence", seeing that Redinha's book was edited in 1974, came out in 1975 and independence was in November 1975.
Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal of a serries of recent edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Languages of Angola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151112181401/http://www.rna.ao/radio-ngola-yetu/ to http://www.rna.ao/radio-ngola-yetu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified