I get the not-saying-someone's-name taboo, but why would anyone use a special word for a bunch of different lizards in front of their mother-in-law? Just... Why?
"Why did the custom of avoidance speech arise? Some experts on its use in Africa and India see it as a way to reinforce the inferior status of daughters-in-law. In Australia, the prohibitions might have been intended to reduce the chance of sexual relations between in-laws."
I also wonder if it reduces the marriage appeal for people whose parents' names start with particularly common letters/syllables.
To be fair, it might not be possible for us to know why they did it with much certainty.
My initial speculation was that it was a way of clearly avoiding any hint of flirtation or sexual interest (sort of like an extreme form of boundary-setting).
Yeah I read the whole thing and still didn't quite get it. It's almost like the article was written by someone trying to be meta about avoidance speech, trying to avoid explaining it in any clear manner.
I’m somewhat familiar with how the avoidance register works in Walpiri, and the switch is solely based on the social relationship, not the names involved.
It’s a fairly complex sub-language - there’s a different set of words that get used only for the avoidance register or are very generic terms from standard speech, and the grammar is simplified. The pronunciation is also shifted a bit, iirc (I want to say it uses creaky voice, but I’m not sure).
There's not necessarily a rational explanation for every human behavior. Most interpersonal interactions rely on long-established and very obscure traditions. It shapes society because it unites people sharing the same culture while excluding foreigners. It gives a sense of community, etc. etc.
I don't think you will find a satisfying answer. But some random jumbled thoughts that come to my mind:
Among the Dyirbal traditionally there was a strong avoidance taboo with certain relatives:
> The overarching feature of all Australian Aboriginal societies is the classificatory
kinship system. By applying a series of principles, each person is in a relationship to every other person. Mother’s sisters’ and father’s brothers’ children (‘parallel cousins’) are regarded as equivalent to one’s own siblings. In contrast, ‘cross-cousins’, the children of father’s sisters and mother’s brothers, have a quite different status. They must never be directly addressed and, if talking in their presence, a special speech style called Jalnguy has to be employed. [1]
Lizards are an important source of protein for the indigenous Australians.
Verbs of motion were similarly taboo among the Dyirbal, just as specifying a specific type of lizard in front of your MIL.
In most cultures, the mother of a possible wife has a significant say over whether the marriage will happen. In many cultures, a demonstration or contribution of wealth or ability to provide may be required of one or both potential spouses. In nomadic hunter-gathering cultures, men's social status is often tightly linked to hunting prowess. And indeed:
> [...] until the boy had proved himself to be a good provider. When he brought home a carcass, the choicest portion would be ostentatiously presented to waymin, the potential mother-in-law, as a hint that she might soon consider him to be ready for the marriage. [1]
I will now speculate wildly. If you're looking for a why, assuming there might be one, look at the effect. It leaves the man unable to talk about his hunting activities in front of his in-laws. He can't easily brag. He can't easily plan a hunting trip with his father-in-law.
Preventing such close cross-family links outside of ritual interactions with a go-between, may prevent a single family from gaining disproportionate influence or power. It may also help preserve the expected degree of distance between the son and mother-in-law. A (potential) son breaks many social taboos by discussing his ability to provide for his (future) wife or if he tries to coordinate economically with her family, outside of the appropriate channels.
[1] p. 5; R. M. W Dixon; Edible Gender, Mother-in-Law Style, and Other Grammatical Wonders: Studies in Dyirbal, Yidiñ, and Warrgamay https://academic.oup.com/book/27709
Probably has something to do with clan-animal-totem relationships.
> "Each clan is identified with a special totem (sacred animal) passed down from the Dreamtime by successive headmen or lore keepers. The totem differs according to where the clan lives. As descendents of the ancestral Gunyunggalinglung beings (that the Aboriginal people believe made the world), to intentionally injure, kill or eat one’s clan totem animal brings great misfortune on your all your extended family."
E.g. if a Protestant family had a marriage relationship with a Catholic family, they might not discuss certain rituals or topics specific to their tradition at large inter-family gatherings.
