Global Journal of Human Social Science, G: Linguistics and Education, Volume 21 Issue 4

Mountain (Von Sicard, 1952:10), where the prominent Changamire Rozwi dynasty established their capital (Loubser, 1990:15). The sojourn of the Vhaven ḓ a in the Shona country thus resulted in the Vhaven ḓ a absorbing a considerable amount of Shona culture and language (Lestrade, 1960:1). The Vhaven ḓ a appear to have been influenced more by Western Shona than by other Shona groups such as the Korekore, Manyika and others (Wentzel, 1983:170-171). By Western Shona, it is meant particularly the Kalanga and Rozwi dialects. Wentzel (1983) has written fairly extensively on the relationship between Kalanga and Ven ḓ a, where differences are also realised in the lexicon, phonology and the syntax of these two languages. These differences show that although Tshiven ḓ a has been influenced by Rozwi, the influence is not so great that the Vhaven ḓ a can justifiably be regarded as an offshoot of Rozwi. It seems the Vhaven ḓ a broke away from the Rozwi around 1680s (Loubser, 1989:58). d) The Vhaven ḓ a’s Arrival at Limpopo and Linguistic Fusions Concerning the Vhaven ḓ a’s date of arrival in the land south of the Limpopo, there are still considerable different opinions. The date of their arrival, however, seems to range from the end of the 17 th century to the beginning of the 18 th century (Stayt 1931; Wentzel, 1983). According to Hanisch (2008:122), “the 18 th century dates given to the arrival of a ‘unified’ group of people into the Soutpansberg relate to the arrival of the Singo, who linguistically speaking, were western Karanga, coming from the central-western parts of Zimbabwe”. These people, according to Hanisch (2008:122), “are accepted to have been the unifying factor in drawing the earlier clans together to form a centralised political system under the legendary Chief Ṱ hohoyan ḓ ou.” This view is echoed by Carnerly (1994b) who states that the coming of the Vhasenzi in the late 1600s, various Vhaven ḓ a clans and other groups living in Soutpansberg became politically united under the central authority of Vhasenzi and their ruler, Dambanyika. It is not clear whether by Vhasenzi, Carnerly means the Singo only or the whole nation of the Vhaven ḓ a. This centralised political system is said to have become part of a state similar in structure to that of the Great Zimbabwe and Khami Empires of Zimbabwe (Carnerly, 1994b). Carnerly (1994b:28) also records that under Ṱ hohoyan ḓ ou’s leadership, who was supposedly enthroned after the death of his nephew ( Ṋ emudzivha ḓ i, 1985), the political boundaries extended further south to Pietersburg with the Olifants River in the south east and the Sand River in the west. This is probably why other accounts consider the Northern Transvaal as the Vhaven ḓ a’s place of origin (see Mmbara, 2009; Ṋ etswera, 2012). Loubser (1988; 1989; 1990; 1991) says the ‘real’ Vhaven ḓ a originated from the Northern Transvaal, while other groups migrated much later into the area. Loubser (1989:54) further says “the archaeological results thus support the current notion of local origins” (1989:54). Loubser excavated different areas in Ven ḓ a which were occupied by the early Vhaven ḓ a and made this conclusion on the basis of the comparisons of ceramic styles, settlement patterns and mitshe ṱ o (stone walls) patterns found in these areas. Loubser’s findings also reveal that the Mapungubwe ceramic style marks the earlier Shona settlement south of the Limpopo while the Khami ceramics show the arrival of new Shona dynasties from Zimbabwe. In the south of the Soutpansberg, the earliest ceramic style found was the Eiland followed by Moloko. Both are Sesotho styles and show the presence of the Sesotho speaking people in the land south of the Limpopo long before the Vhaven ḓ a (Madiba, 1994). This overlapping “indicates the close interaction between Shona and Sotho speakers, then the development of Ṱ avhatshena and Letaba Ven ḓ a language” (Loubser, 1989: 58). Emanating from this is the belief that the Tshiven ḓ a language is a result of a fusion between Sesotho and Chishona (Madiba, 1994). According to Loubser (1989:54), “by the mid-fifteenth century Shona-speaking immigrants from Zimbabwe settled in the northern Transvaal and interacted with the local Shona and Sotho inhabitants”. As a result of this interaction, the Vashona and Basotho communities developed a common Vhaven ḓ a identity by the mid-sixteenth century (Loubser, 1989). e) Hypotheses on the Dual Character of Tshiven ḓ a Although Loubser recognises the fusion of the Vashona and the Basotho ceramic styles, there is, however, no established conclusion on other aspects such as how the Vashona’s and Basotho’s languages came to be fused. This is why it is a problem for scholars to account for the dual character of the Tshiven ḓ a language. The plausible explanation is that the amalgamation of Sesotho and Chishona “can be attested by the affinities which [Tshiven ḓ a] is said to have with these languages” (Lestrade, 1932:21). Loubser (1988, 1989), Schoefield (1937) and Sinton- Schoetter (1971) offer a substantiation for these affinities in light of the parallels found by archaeologists between the Vhaven ḓ a’s pottery and its adjacency to the Basotho and Vashona styles. In attempting to account for the dual character of the Tshiven ḓ a language, Phillipson (1972) alludes to intermarriage as the probable explanation. In this intermarriage, the Vhaven ḓ a men are said to have married Chishona-speaking wives while the Tshiven ḓ a-speaking wives were married by the Sesotho- speaking men (Phillipson, 1972:201). In this regard, Loubser acknowledges traditions that hint at intermarriage between the Basotho under the Raphulu and the Shona-speaking Tshivhula dynasty (1991:418). Huffman (2005) and Huffman and du Piesanie (2011) © 2021 Global Journals Volume XXI Issue IV Version I 40 ( G ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 Loanword Nativisation in Tshiven ḓ a: A Descriptive Analysis Vhaven ḓ a are said to have stayed around the Matongoni