AN ẸDO — ENGLISH DICTIONARY

AN ẸDO — ENGLISH DICTIONARY

BY

REBECCA N. AGHEYISI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research activities which led to the production of this work were
made possible by a research grant awarded to the author by the Faculty
of Arts & Social Sciences Research Committee of the University of Benin
in April 1976 (cf. FASS. 12/76/77). A subsequent supplementary grant
from the committee in 1978 served to support the project to its completion.
I wish to express my deep appreciation for the opportunity provided to me
by this support to make this little contribution to the development and study
of Ẹdo.

In a work such as this, it is inevitable that assistance is sought and
received from diverse quarters. Throughout this project, numerous people
in Benin City and elsewhere gave of their time, expertise, and knowledge to
make possible its completion. It is certainly impossible for me to acknowledge
individually everyone of these people, but to each of them, I express my
sincere gratitude and indebtedness for their help.

I must, however, acknowledge with thanks, the special assistance received
from certain individuals and institutions. First among these are my various
Research Assistants, in particular, Mr. Pius Guobadia, who worked diligently
on a full-time basis throughout the first phase of the project. Others, who
must be specially mentioned are Ọsayaba Agheyisi, Nogieru Agbọnkọnkọn
and Roland Ugiagbe Aigbe who worked with me, part-time, at different
periods.

Mr. G.N.I. Enobakhare read portions of the draft and made useful
comments and contributions from which this work has benefited.

Professor William Welmers gave generously of his books on Ẹdo and
other reference materials, which turned out to be very useful for aspects of
the project. Also Mr. Ikponwonsa Ọsẹmwengie made available to me his
personal copy of Melzian’s Dictionary.

My special thanks also go to the Radio Bendel authorities for making
available to me several tapes of their Ẹdo Language programmes.

The Departments of Linguistics of both the University of Kansas,

Finally, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Junior Staff members
of the Department of Linguistics and African Languages, University of Benin,
for their individual and collective support throughout the project, and most
especially to Mr. Simon Odibo, who undertook most diligently, the onerous
task of typing the various drafts of the manuscript.

In a work such as this, there are bound to be a number of inadequacies
and shortcomings. For every one of them, I accept full responsibility.

January, 1982                                                 R.N. Agheyisi

INTRODUCTION

(i) The language and its name

Any formal account on any aspect of Ẹdo language must begin with
a clarification of the term “Ẹdo”, especially as it has come to be associated
with a number of distinct interpretations. The oral traditional account, as
diligently documented by Chief (Dr) Jacob U. Egharevba in his various works
on Benin History, traces the origin of the use of the term “Ẹdo” as the
indigenous name for Benin City to Oba Ewuare (1440 — 1473). According
to one version of the account:

The other names also currently associated with the city and the language
of its inhabitants, namely, “Benin” and “Bini” have a somewhat more obscure
origin. Again, according to the traditional account:

Again, if Oba Ewedo’s name for the City “Ubini” is the origin of “Benin”
and “Bini”, then it would seem that their use for the City and the language
pre-dates that of “Ẹdo”; in which case the latter was intended to have replaced
them. According to another account by Chief Egharevba:

Further ambiguity was introduced later into the reference of the term
“Ẹdo” as a linguistic label, when linguists decided to use it as the designation
for the group of historically related languages and dialects spoken in various
communities within and around the former Benin Kingdom. These languages
and dialects include the Ẹdo language proper of the Benin Division; the Ishan
group of dialects; the languages and dialects now spoken in the present Owan,
Etsakọ and Akoko-Ẹdo Local Government Areas; Urhobo, and Isoko and
their related dialects. Northcote W. Thomas is said to have initiated the
practice by referring to the speakers of these languages and dialects as the
“Ẹdo-speaking peoples”, in his famous ethnographic report of 1910. It is
interesting to note however that not all subsequent scholars have followed
in this practice. Westermann, for example, in his Languages of West Africa
created his own kind of ambiguity by referring to the group as the “BINI
language group”, and to the single language as BINI. He, however, noted
that “The name ẸDO (the old name of Benin) is used by some writers (e.g.
Thomas) to cover all the languages of the Group” (p. 87). Greenberg, on
the other hand, did not use the name ẸDO at all in any of his classifications,
but merely listed the languages of the group by their individual names, using

However, the ultimate solution to the nomenclatural problem may be
found in the recent proposal by Elugbe (1979) of the designation “Edoid
Languages” for the group of historically related languages. This would then
free the term “Ẹdo” for use in reference to the single language only.

The focus of the present work being on the single language per se,
rather than the group of related languages, the usual nomenclatural ambiguity
is presumed to be irrelevant, and so “Ẹdo” is intended to refer to “Ẹdo (Bini)”
rather than the Edoid languages.

(ii) Extent of its speaking population

The Ẹdo language is today spoken natively throughout most of the
territory coterminous with the Benin Division of the former Mid-Western
State of Nigeria, and which has now been demarcated into the Orẹdo, Ovia
and Orhionmwọn Local Government Areas. This same area constituted the
permanent core of the pre-colonial Benin Kingdom and empire and its
inhabitants have always referred to themselves as Ivbi-Ẹdo. The estimated
area of the territory is about 10,372 square kilometres, while the 1952 and
1963 population figures for the Division are given as 292,081 and 429,907
respectively. A small proportion of the population however constitutes the
non-Ẹdo immigrants who are either permanent or temporary residents in
the area. On the other hand, there are believed to be other communities of
Ẹdo native speakers in the Okitipupa Division of Ondo Province, as well as
in and around Akure in Ondo State. In addition to these native speakers,
thousands of other residents in the Bendel State speak Ẹdo as a second
language, especially those with Ishan and Afenmai native language back-

The main Ẹdo speech community is generally homogeneous, though
noticeable peculiarities do exist in the speech of the inhabitants of some of
the peripheral communities. For example the common saying about Oza
speech: “Oza ne ọ yin ke Ẹdo ne ọ zẹ eghọen!” (Oza, the Ẹdo neighbours
who speak a foreign language!), though exaggerating, serves to illustrate this
fact. However, all the different varieties are mutually intelligible.

(iii) Linguistic affinity with other Nigerian Languages

Investigations into the nature of the historical relationship between
the various Nigerian languages are still at a very elementary stage. Only very
broad outlines of the pattern of genetic relationship have yet emerged. It is
now a firmly established fact that Ẹdo is a core member of a larger group
of genetically related languages and dialect clusters, usually referred to as
the Ẹdoid Group of languages, which in turn belongs, along with other Nigerian
languages such as Yoruba, Nupe, Idoma, Igbo, and Izon, to the KWA branch
of the NIGER — CONGO family (Westermann 1952; Greenberg 1966).

Further research into the structure of relationship within the Ẹdoid
Group has led to more detailed sub-grouping of the languages. For example
the classification presented below is the latest rendering of the relationship
by Elugbe in his 1979 paper. It presumably supercedes other earlier analyses
of the relationship such as Elugbe 1973; Hoffmann 1974; etc.

There is no doubt that it would be most desirable to be able to com-
plement, and indeed confirm, some of the sketchy and sometimes un-
documented accounts from oral traditions about the cultural heritage of the
various linguistic groups, with inferences derivable from language classifica-
tions such as these. For example, many of the communities within and
without Bendel State, in their oral traditions, trace their origins to Benin
City or other parts of the Benin Kingdom. (Moore: 1970; Bosah 1976; Obuke
1975; etc.). To what extent are these accounts of migrations reconcilable
with the diversification in speech forms implied in the classifications? Un-
fortunately the present classifications are yet too limited in the information
they provide. Until it becomes possible to estimate the dates of the various
sub-groupings the historical primacy of any one of them cannot be established.

(iv) The Present Work

The present study, in many respects, builds on the foundation of pre-
vious lexicographical works on Ẹdo such as Thomas’ Anthropological Report
on the Ẹdo-Speaking Peoples; Munro’s English-Ẹdo Wordlist, and most im-
portantly, Hans Melzian’s most commendable earlier work on Ẹdo Language;
in particular, his A concise Dictionary of the Bini Language
of Southern Nigeria (1937), which unfortunately has long gone out of print.
The few copies of this work which today exist are confined to the private
collections of a few privileged individuals, and some institutional libraries
mainly in Britain and America. This has, in general, rendered this work in-
accessible to the interested man-in-the-street, especially in the Ẹdo linguistic
community, where it is probably most relevant. Furthermore, the absence
of any other comprehensive lexicographical publication on Ẹdo since Melzian’s
has helped to create the undesirable vacuum that has since existed in this
aspect of available reference material on the Language. The need to fill this
vacuum has been a prime motivation for the undertaking of this work.

This dictionary is designed basically to reflect Ẹdo contemporary usage,
with particular awareness of the complex sociolinguistic environment in
which the language is being used today. In this respect, it anticipates the
special needs of the average Ẹdo speaker, for whom the necessity to be able
to operate bilingually in Ẹdo and English has become a pressing reality. This
perspective is clearly reflected in both the selection of entries for the dic-
tionary, as well as the quality and range of information provided for each
entry. Thus, there are, for example, a number of entries found in Melzian’s
dictionary, deriving particularly from his intensive research into Ẹdo tradi-
tional and religious rituals and folklife, which are not found in the present
work; while on the other hand, there is a sizeable number of everyday
vocabulary and adapted loan words included here, which are not found in
the earlier work. Generally, however, the underlying objective, which has
been to produce from the available resources on Ẹdo, a collection which
would qualify for the designation “a modern dictionary of Ẹdo” has hopefully
been realized.

Special efforts have also been made to incorporate both phonological
and grammatical information for each of the entries, in anticipation of the
specialized needs of the language researcher and others interested in linguistic

The research activities which led to the production of this work were
initiated in 1976, and carried out in three phases. Work in the first phase
focussed around the compilation of Ẹdo words from miscellaneous sources,
including published works, manuscripts, recorded tapes and individual
contacts. The list of the formal works consulted is provided at the end of
the section.

The main activity of this phase entailed combing through these various
sources for words and expressions to be used as entries in the dictionary.
Melzian’s Dictionary served as a final reference in this regard, especially for
crosschecking for additional items that may have been overlooked or un-
attested in the other sources. Also most of the Latin names for plants and
trees were taken directly from this dictionary.

This phase of the project did not end until mid 1979, when the target
of 7,500 items was eventually achieved. It was expected that after analysis
of the data thus collected, at least half of the items would be selected as
suitable entries.

The second phase was devoted to the grammatical and semantic analysis
of the data that had been assembled. The objective was to determine the
lexical status of each item as well as their grammatical and semantic pro-
perties. As a result of work in this phase, the 7,500 items compiled previously
became analyzed into a little under four thousand entries. This reduction
in number of entries came about mainly by the application of the principle
whereby forms which are grammatically predictable (i.e. forms derivable from
others by highly productive grammatical rules) did not qualify as independent
entries. Thus, for example, the set of adjectives derivable from ideophonic
adverbs by the addition of né- as prefix, such as: nemosemose “lovely”^;
newọrọ “long”; netuẹin “tiny”; nekhuẹrhẹkhuẹrhẹ “soft”; etc., were
eliminated from independent listing. This also accounts for the non-listing
of most of the verb-based nominals derived by the affixation of {u-mwẹn}
to verb stems, such as usanmwẹn — “jumping”; udemwẹn — “falling”; etc.
Only forms of this category that can be said to have acquired independent
lexical status in usage have been retained as entries. Examples of such words
include ugamwẹn — “christian church service”; udọnmwẹn — “leanness”;
ukọnmwẹn — “stupidity”; utọmwẹn — “longevity”; uwanmwẹn — “brightness;”

The final phase of the project was devoted to processing and collating
all the information that had been assembled on the various entries, and in
particular, to conducting a final cross-checking of the meanings of various
words. It was often necessary to hold discussion and consultation sessions
with various individuals over the meanings of certain items. In the final draft
that emerged from this phase, for each entry in the dictionary, the following
categories of information were provided:

(v) Orthography

Also consistent with the stipulations of the official orthography, tone
marking has been confined exclusively to those forms which might remain
ambiguous without the indication of tone. The tone marks on such forms
are expected therefore to be regarded as part of their regular spelling. In

A NOTE ON GRAMMAR

Parts of speech labels which have been employed in the categorization
of Ẹdo words in this dictionary, though determined primarily on the basis
of the internal structure of Ẹdo, do however generally convey the broad
meanings conventionally associated with these labels in their use by linguists.
Thus an item identified as a noun would normally be expected to have a
substantive rather than a relational reference, just as one identified as a verb
would be adjudged to describe an action, state or process. However, the
characteristics of some of the major grammatical categories in the language
deserve further specification.

1. Nouns: These are generally substantives and they all begin with
a vowel. They usually function as subjects or objects (direct and indirect)
of sentences. Representative examples include: okpia — “man”, okhuo —
“woman”; Ozo — “a proper name borne by males”; owa — “house”; erhan —
“tree”; ẹhoho — “wind”; ẹvbare — “food”; ovbe — “sleep”; ohu — “anger”;
ose — “beauty”; usẹ — “poverty” etc.

2. Verbs: These generally designate actions, state events, or processes,
and they occur as the core or nucleus of the predicate in sentences. All Ẹdo
verbs begin with consonants and may be mono or multi-syllabic, though
most basic, underived verbs are monosyllabic. Most stative verbs in Ẹdo
correspond to the category of descriptive or qualifying adjectives in English.
Representative examples of words in this category are: dẹ — “to buy”; gbe —
“to dance”; rree — “to be far”; khọrhiọn — “to be ugly”; mose — “to be
beautiful”; wii — “to get lost” etc.

3. Adjectives: These generally designate qualities of substantives.
They are predominantly ideophonic in form, and with the exception of the
few underived forms such as dan — “evil, bad”, they are usually used predica-
tively, and are introduced by the verb ye — “to be like; to seem”, or other

4. Adverbs: These generally modify verbs or the entire sentence or
clause in which they occur. Like adjectives, they are mainly ideophonic in
form and the majority are derived, usually from verbs. Indeed most derived
adverbs have formally identical adjectival counterparts, and their identifica-
tion as adverbs usually has to be determined from the contexts in which
they occur; for example: gbadaa [gbádáá] in the sentences below can be
both an adverb and an adjective, as in 1 and 2 respectively below:

(vi) Alphabetical Order

The alphabetical order of entries is as shown below:

ABBREVIATIONS

REFERENCES