Penduka Declaration on the

Standardisation of
Ju and Khoe Languages

Penduka Training Centre, Windhoek, Namibia

20-22 April 2001

Twenty-six San language, oral history and education specialists from three
countries came together under the auspices of the Working Group of Indigenous
Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA)1 to study the issue of alphabet
standardisation in certain Ju and Khoe languages.

The conference delegates studied the issues related to the standardisation of two
languages, namely !Xun, a member of the Ju language family, and Khwedam, a
member of the Khoe language family. Both languages are spoken in Botswana,
Namibia, Angola and South Africa. Khwedam is also spoken in Zambia. Working
with skilled language specialists from other Ju and Khoe language groups, the
delegates made a series of decisions on the standardisation of their languages
and how their ethnic names are to be written.

Main Recommendations:
 The !Xun people adopt the existing Ju|'hoansi alphabet used in Namibia.
The !Xun language has not previously been written. Henceforth the !Xun
people will spell their name according to the correct orthography, i.e. !Xun
and not !Xû, !Kung, or Kung. The alphabet is now called the Ju alphabet,
used for both the !Xun and Ju|'hoansi languages. The delegates
emphasised that though they have two languages, the !Xun and the
Ju|'hoansi are brothers and sisters.

 Speakers of Khwedam, including both standard Khwe and ||Anikhwe, have

modified their working alphabet that was developed with the assistance of
researchers from the University of Cologne. The new orthography does
away with unnecessarily complicated letters and creates nasalisation in
the same manner as Khoekhoegowab, i.e. â, ê, etc. Henceforth, the
1
WIMSA is a council of San leadership in Southern Africa and a support network for San community
organisations.

1
 language will be known as Khwedam and the people are known as
Khwe. Work on the Khwedam language will respect the diversity of the
language and the identity of the people, giving particular recognition to the
||Anikhwe language variety. NB. The old spelling Kxoe and Kxoedam is
inappropriate and does not represent the new integrated spelling system.

Conference Summary
The Penduka Conference was a major historic event for the San peoples of
Southern Africa. This is the first conference where those San peoples with
existing standardised alphabets worked together with those communities whose
languages are not written to make informed decisions on new orthographies.
Historically, San peoples have been dependant on outsiders to standardise their
languages.

The Conference drew delegates from San communities in Namibia, Botswana

and South Africa speaking Ju|’hoansi, !Xun, Khwedam, Khoekhoegowab and
Naro. Each delegate comes from a community-based organisation working for
the equality and dignity of indigenous peoples. Delegates included members of
the WIMSA San Regional Education and Language Committee and the South
African National Khoe and San Languages Body.

The Conference included training in the principles of phonetics and orthography,

and a review of the historical influences that have shaped the spelling of Ju,
Khoe, Taa and !Ui languages spoken by the various San peoples. The South
African San Institute (SASI), a non-government organisation serving the needs of
WIMSA and San community organisations in Southern Africa, facilitated the
Conference. San activists from different organisations provided training on
orthography, mapping place names, and genealogies as well as facilitation of
policy decision-making.

Observations and Recommendations

The Penduka Conference delegates made the following observations and
recommendations:

It is an error to refer to the languages of the San peoples as Khoisan. In

the 1930s European researchers made the mistake of thinking that all
click languages came from one source. Previous and subsequent
research show that there are at least three separate language families.
These are the Ju, Khoe and !Ui-Taa language families. Each language
family has different grammar, word order and vocabulary. There are
various San peoples who speak Khoe languages, and there are non-San
peoples who speak Khoe languages, including the Nama and the Damara.

The difference between Khwedam (a Khoe language) and !Xun (a Ju

language) is greater than the difference between Otjiherero and isiZulu,
both of which are Bantu languages. The difference between Naro (a Khoe

2
 language) and N|u (a !Ui-Taa language) is greater than between English
and Hindi (the dominant language of India), both of which are Indo-
European languages.

Governments, the media and the public should have greater awareness
and respect for San peoples’ languages and cultures. The media should
stop projecting stereotypes of San peoples, portraying us as speaking one
language and living in a stereotyped manner.

The San peoples reaffirm our distinct heritages and identities and reject
being placed under the label Khoisan along with people who do not speak
our languages or share our traditions and customs. The media should be
more responsible when reporting about San peoples and speak to our
representative organisations and spokespersons. (see Appendix 3)

Delegates are distressed by the UNESCO research that shows that 50%
of the world's languages will die out in the next generation or two. Many of
these threatened languages are spoken by indigenous peoples, and the
languages of displaced hunter-gatherers are particularly vulnerable.

Delegates recognise that writing a language does not automatically

protect if from dying out. However, improving the status of the language,
introducing into schools, restoring place names, recognising correct
personal names, recording traditional knowledge and history all contribute
to the survival of Ju and Khoe languages and the identities and intangible
heritage of San peoples.

Delegates recognise that there are still many languages and varieties that
need to be recognised, standardised and introduced into schools. These
include: N|u, the only surviving !Ui language, !Xõó (!Xon) the last Taa
language, the recognition of the Hai||om variety of Khoekhoegowab, the
other Khoe languages of Eastern Botswana and Western Zimbabwe, other
Ju languages of southern Angola, and Tlodzo we Hadza (Hadzane) of
Tanzania.

See Recommendations on Orthography and the way forward by the Khwe

working group and the Ju Working group.

New orthographies attached as appendices.

3
 Appendix 1: Delegate list
Surname, Name Affiliation Country Language
!Naoadoës, Marieta Omaheke San Trust Namibia Naro
|Goâgoses, Adeline Omaheke San Trust Namibia Ju|'hoansi
|Ui, Fame Nyae Nyae - Otjozondjupa region Namibia Ju|'hoansi
|Useb, Joram WIMSA Staff Namibia Khoekhoe-
gowab
Andrias, Tsheko Teemashane Trust Botswana ||Anikhwedam
Baise, Michael Teemashane Trust Botswana ||Anikhwedam
Boyongo, Joel West Caprivi Development Trust Namibia Khwedam
Camm, Marea Kuru Development Trust Botswana Naro
Carpenter, Beverley Ju|’hoansi village schools project Namibia observer
Chifako, Avelina !Xun and Khwe Association, RSA !Xun
National Khoe and San
Languages Body
Chumbo, Sefako Teemashane Community Trust Botswana Khwedam
Crawhall, Nigel South African San Institute, South Facilitator
consultant Africa
Fritz, Tcega Kuru Development Trust, Naro Botswana Naro
Language Project
Geria, Sonner Bwabwata-Mûtc’iku Conservancy Namibia Khwedam
Committee, West Caprivi
LeRoux, Willemien WIMSA / Tocadi Botswana observer
Makina, Benter !Xun and Khwe Association RSA !Xun
Manu, Petrus !Xun and Khwe Association RSA Khwedam
Mishe, Rennie !Xun and Khwe Association, RSA !Xun
National Khoe and San
Languages Body
Mudala, Hendricks Teacher, Khwedam orthography Namibia Khwedam
project
Mushavanga, Jafta !Xun and Khwe Association RSA Khwedam
N!aici, Dahm Nyae Nyae - Omaheke region Namibia Ju|'hoansi
Naudé, David Chairperson WIMSA Council, Namibia Khwedam
West Caprivi Development Trust,
Khwedam orthography project
Nore, Tomsen !Xun and Khwe Association, RSA Khwedam
Member of the SA National Khoe
and San Languages Body
Pamo, Billies !Xun and Khwe Association RSA Khwedam
Qubi, Xhwaa Kuru Development Trust Botswana Naro
Sindimba, Bohitile Kuru Development Trust, Tocadi Botswana ||Anikhwedam
Tame, Kativa !Xun and Khwe Association RSA !Xun
Tanago, Moronga WIMSA, Education and Culture Botswana Khwedam
Committee
Tsaraos, |Xõa WIMSA Trainee Namibia !Kung
Xixae, Damo Qooshe Community Organisation Botswana Ju|'hoansi

4
 Appendix 2: Why we want to write

Part of the workshop included analysing the needs and expectations of the
participants with regard alphabet development and writing. The facilitator
emphasised that there is not a direct relationship between writing and the
management of intangible heritage and traditional knowledge systems.

Delegates expressed their concern that many San languages, particularly !Ui-Taa
languages in the south have died out in the last century. The facilitator reminded
delegates that the Ju and Khoe languages have existed for millennia and pre-
date the spread of Bantu and Indo-European languages. The reason the
languages of hunter-gatherer societies are dying out is related to land loss,
displacement and poverty. It is possible to use writing, a tangible cultural
practice, to help sustain intangible heritage and knowledge, however this
requires a very clear plan by those developing the orthographies and educational
materials and cannot be separated from other processes of re-empowerment.

The facilitator asked the delegates to discuss what they think writing will achieve
for them. The delegates broke into language-specific working groups to answer
three questions on this theme. The following are a synthesis of the report backs.

Why do we want to write our languages?

 To keep our language alive, including maintaining our history, culture and
traditions
 To unite the people by standardising an orthography that includes the different
varieties we have in our languages
 To empower our people to compete in all levels of development
 To promote use of our language and empower its speakers with skills
 To conduct research (e.g. conservation and environmental information) in our
own language
 To research and document our own language
 To read the Bible in our own language
 To learn in schools in our language

What is the target group for learning to read and write? (Who should
learn?)
 A core group of young trainers
 Parents and children together
 Young people
 Elders, so that they can check our recording of history
 Non-speakers (second language learners), teachers, doctors and police who
work in our communities and cannot pronounce our names or provide
reasonable services

5
In the report back there was a lively discussion about how to put priority on
teaching the new alphabets. It was agreed that there needs to be a core group of
skilled people. These people must work closely with the elders to make sure they
use the language properly. These skilled trainers then help teachers and adult
literacy teachers learn the system. It is good for children if their parents are also
learning to read and write. It is good if some old people chose to learn as they
can check on the work of younger people.

What do we want write?

 Our history, folktales, traditional stories, traditional religious material and
songs
 The Bible, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, poetry and novels
 People’s names, this is very important in schools
 School materials, teacher training materials, second language learning
materials
 All types of traditional knowledge, names of places, hunting methods, names
of animals, medicinal plants, natural resources information, etc

It was noted that place name mapping is important. It helps support land claims
and demonstrate the indigenous identity of San peoples. It was agreed that
language recording should have a useful function, such as teaching new skills,
securing rights, and promoting self-respect.

6
 Appendix 3:

Statement on the use of the term ‘Khoisan’ and the creation of

the National Khoisan Consultative Conference in South Africa

Mr Tomsen Nore addressed the Conference on the topic of the resolutions of the recent National
Khoisan Consultative Conference in Oudtshoorn, South Africa. The resolutions of the Conference
called for, amongst other things, the unity of all groups claiming indigenous identity in South
Africa, that indigenous peoples in South Africa will henceforth be known as Khoisan, and that a
National Khoisan Consultative Council (NKCC) will speak on behalf of indigenous peoples both
when dealing with government and the media.

Mr Nore expressed his concern that the San peoples are being marginalised through this
process, when they already have WIMSA that unites the various San peoples. He said there is
concern among San and Nama people in South Africa that the Khoisan movement is dominated
by people who speak Afrikaans and English and who live in urban areas. The indigenous peoples
of Southern Africa speak their own languages and live in rural areas.

The Conference debated the subject and came up with the following statements.

 The use of the word Khoisan suppresses the right to self-determination of San peoples. It
was noted that the use of a small ‘s’ shows that San peoples are junior partners in this
relationship.
 The San peoples have an identity. There are many San peoples; each one has its language
and identity like the Naro people of Botswana. The Naro delegates say there is nothing like
Khoisan in their country. San groups must remain united.
 The Khoekhoe people have their own identity. The San are not rejecting Khoe people.
 South African San groups have already resolved to create a South African San Council, they
do not need to be in the National Khoisan Council
 WIMSA unites the San peoples already; the National Khoisan Council is not necessary
 WIMSA, Kuru Development Trust and TOCADI all unite the San peoples, SASI is a service
organisation for the San
 Though some San leaders have been involved in the National Khoisan Council, their
communities are not fully informed. The delegates call on the leaders to make sure that the
communities understand what is happening before any San people go further with the
Council
 The election process of the National Khoisan Council is not legitimate or transparent. There
must be a transparent process at grassroots level before any election can be accepted.
 Governments and media must be educated not to believe all of these things said by
universities. They must recognise the different indigenous peoples. The communities must
speak for themselves.