My mind lately has been seduced by some non-linguistic, programming-related material I've been researching busily on the side. However I'm ready to hop back into some lingering issues in my comment box where the latest discussion had ended off with the dilemma of reconstructing the first person pronoun in Proto-Berber. Let's zone in first on this Proto-Berber word for "I" before extending the topic to the rest of the Afro-Asiatic family.
Among available Proto-Berber reconstructions, my personal notes so far record Kossmann's *nǎḱḱ and Dolgopolsky's *ənakkʷ. However to compensate for Zenaga's cognate niˀkan with an out-of-the-blue glottal stop, and in keeping with known sound correspondences, alternatives like *nəʔḱḱ and *năɣḱ are suggested by my commenters. Afterall, if both Proto-Berber *ɣ and *ˀ produce a Zenaga glottal stop, these are reasonable ideas on the surface. However I've expressed my dismay about these word-finals because I don't find them to be terribly "pronounceable". This is my plebeian shorthand for saying that the forms in question border on the phonemically exotic at the expense of phonotactic rules.
I figure that if we're going to brainstorm it would be best to keep one's fancies to some clear-minded structure that includes a vision of not only the sound inventory of the protolanguage but rules governing its syllable structure. In both alternatives, we have a rather heavy word-final dump loaded with a bunch of articulatory features that, according to general rule, should be the least able to maintain complex contrasts in world languages because of the issue of saliency in an expiratory position. This to me just raises more questions than answers. In a form like *nəʔḱḱ, we would have an inaudible glottal stop nestled within the shadows of a palatalized geminate. To reconstruct word-final *-ˀḱḱ is to imply that there are simpler codae that contrast with it such as *-ḱḱ or ˀḱ but I suspect that such exemplary forms will be hard to come by leading to a reasonable suspicion against the validity of such a sequence. Likewise, if we go with *năɣḱ, we're left with similar questions. Where then are the examples of its implicit voiceless counterpart *-xḱ? How is this alleged word-final palatalization to be articulated? Would this palatalized velar plosive be pronounced with pre-palatalization or would it be accompanied by a non-phonemic release by way of palatalized aspiration or a subtle vowel? All of these issues must be addressed and it's not sufficient to me to only pay heed to phonemics. What is unavoidably enmeshed with the riddle of its exact form is simultaneously the manner in which these phonemes may be assembled into valid Proto-Berber words. We must pay attention to both issues at once in order to provide more realistic alternatives. These questions are just as much questions that *I* must address, and do indeed feel obligated to address, when seeking a better answer.
After much deliberation I realized one piquant possibility that agrees with my determined obeisance to Occam's Razor while (hopefully) being more congruent to extent facts. Abandoning my previous skepticism for a moment, let's simply accept for the sake of argument that some palatalizing element is original to Proto-Berber because of pesky details like Shenwa's cognate nəč. Why then not opt for a more streamlined form like *nəky? In this way, the glide can credibly serve as both a source for palatalization and gemination at once. It satisfies my phonotactic constraints which restrain me from indulging in overloaded coda of more than two consonants and, if this may be pursued to its ultimate conclusion, it might reduce Berber's commonly reconstructed phonemic inventory by eliminating palatalization as a phonemic feature altogether. Note too that as I write this, I recognize that I must investigate how Zenaga's -ˀk- in its cited pronoun niˀkan contrasts with geminated kk because if it doesn't and if it's merely a matter of orthographic style, then there should be no issue left regarding the possibility of such a glide creating later geminates in light of the fact that in Three irregular Berber verbs: 'eat', 'drink', 'be cooked, ripen' (2008) Maarten Kossmann posits quite similar developments for Proto-Berber, or at least for "Pre-Proto-Berber".
Yet this still leaves me with a mysterious remainder to solve: How does this Berber pronoun relate to the rest of Afro-Asiatic (AA) and its forms? I have doubts towards the notion that the final palatalizing element, whatever its nature, is original to Afro-Asiatic. While we have Classical Hebrew אָנֹכִי (ˀanoki) alongside Akkadian anāku, the former is likely contaminated with the 1ps possessive suffix. This implies the latter to be more conservative, thus Semitic *ˀanāku with final *-u. In Egyptian too, evidence mounts against a final *-i or *-y when we observe that there is no palatalization evident in the final velar of ỉnk (> Sahidic Coptic anok) in contrast to the 2ps feminine dependent pronoun with palatalization: ṯm (*cim) < AA *kim. This leads me to wonder if Berber, like Classical Hebrew, has innovated by contamination with the same common 1ps possessive element *ya found throughout AA.
Your issue with the cluster ʔḱḱ is of course correct. Especially since Proto-Berber doesn't allow -cc coda's without morpheme boundaries.
ReplyDelete(only the feminine suffix -t and some verbal suffixes can create -cc clusters).
There's more problems with the form in Zénaga though, as we have trouble explaining the /ə/ (orthographically i).
I just remembered that, in Zénaga, there are at least some cases where ʔ causes an automatic lengthening of the following consonant. Visible in, for example the word for beard taʔmmärt cf. Kabyle tamart. So maybe Zénaga niʔkk should be analysed as /nəʔk/.
But there are also cases where this lengthening isn't the case, so this needs to be approached with some care. For example oʔgər 'to steal' from PB *ăʔkər 'id.' with the common shift from *k > g (*g usually shifts to *ġ).
The 1pl. in Zénaga is nəkni without a glottal stop.
If the glottal stop is original, we are almost certainly dealing with a case of metathesis. The Zénaga ʔ can only appear in coda, and will metathesise to take that position. As said above -cc coda's are not allowed in Berber so if the form /nəʔk/ goes back to Proto-Berber it would have to have been **ənʔək. This still doesn't explain the mismatch in vowel compared to the rest of Berber.
The inconsistent glottal stop in Zénaga certainly is an indication that it's an innovation, although it is utterly unclear to me what motivated this innovation. Zénaga is also the only language with a vowel that doesn't agree with the rest of Berber. I would still hope to understand why Zénaga's forms are as they are, but they definitely don't seem to be of much use for reconstruction of Proto-Berber.
The deeper origin of PB *ḱḱ may certainly be Pre-PB *ky. The rarity of the radical *y will have to be accounted for in such ways (similar to Kossmann's reconstruction for 'to eat').
Note too that as I write this, I recognize that I must investigate how Zenaga's -ˀk- in its cited pronoun niˀkan contrasts with geminated kk because if it doesn't and if it's merely a matter of orthographic style, then there should be no issue left regarding the possibility of such a glide creating later geminates in light of the fact that in Three irregular Berber verbs: 'eat', 'drink', 'be cooked, ripen' (2008) Maarten Kossmann posits quite similar developments for Proto-Berber, or at least for "Pre-Proto-Berber".
/kk/ is well attested in Zénaga and never alternates with /ʔk/. /ʔk/ seems to be a rare cluster. Initially I only find two nouns (without PB etymologies) in Taine-Cheikh (2008) taʔkšah 'problème' and taʔkkäykäyt 'médicament à base de beurre, de graisse'. All examples of PB *ʔk have become ʔg. We can probably posit that as a sound law for Zénaga, although the *k > g shift seems to occur in other situations as well.
I'll soon do a quick scan through the whole dictionary for medial /ʔk/ and /kk/ just to check if there isn't any variation in other positions. But, considering the amount of time I've put into studying the glottal stop of Zénaga, this would surprise me. Still it's always worth checking, sometimes systems elude you until you start making lists.
This leads me to wonder if Berber, like Classical Hebrew, has innovated by contamination with the same common 1ps possessive element *ya found throughout AA.
Perhaps. Hard to tell though. The Proto-Berber 1sg. possesive suffix is *-inu. But Direct Object/Indirect object is -*i. 1sg. is of course *əġ (or rather *əq/ḳ).
Previous message was too long to fit this in too:
ReplyDelete-----------
Let me finish off this post with an overview of Kossmann's results on the study of PB *ḱ cited from Kossmann (1999: 206):
Stade 1: Règles proto-berbères
*Vḱə > *Vyə
*iḱi > *iyi
*nḱ > *ny
Stade 2: Règles qui concernent le kabyle, le zénète et plusieurs parlers orientaux
*s(ə)ḱ (> šḱ) *šš
*tk (*tḱ?) > čč
Stade 3:
(a) Règles qui concernent le zénète et plusieurs parlers orientaux
*ḱC, *ǵC > *kC, *gC
*ḱu, *uḱ, *ǵu, *uǵ > *ku, *uk, *gu, *ug (il n'est pas certain si le même développement se trouve avec les consonnes tendues)
*gi > *ǵi (il n'est pas certain si le même développement se trouve avec les consonnes tendues. Elle ne se trouve pas avec *ki.)
*ḱ > *š (dans les autres environnements)
*k > *k (dans les autres environnements)
*ḱḱ > *čč (dans les autres environnements)
*ǵ > ž (dans les autres environnements)
*ǵǵ > ǧǧ (dans les autres environnements)
(b) Règles qui concernent les autres parlers
*ḱ > *k
*ḱḱ > *kk
*ǵ > *g
*ǵǵ > *gg
Stade 4: Règle dialectale qui concerne seuelement certains parlers zénètes
*k > *y devant un consonne alvéolaire.
Thank you very much for all these details but my first question of the day may seem rudely short: How can a speaker distinguish between /nəʔk/ (velar with preposed glottal stop) and /nəkː/ (geminated velar)?
ReplyDeleteWell they are definitely different articulations. But I do see your point. You would like for /ʔk/ to be the regular result of PB *ḱḱ.
ReplyDeleteThis might be possible (although I must stress that Taine-Cheikh lists this word as /nəʔkk/, which, in isolation is probably meaningless, but I expect that if followed by a vowel this geminate would surface.
The "glottal stop" in Zénaga is probably closer to a vowel feature, so more of a 'glottalized schwa' a creaky off-glide maybe? Or just an abrubt closer of the glottis, but very much a part of the vowel. This might make the cluster /nəʔkk/ less problematic to you.
But, back to the actual subject, regardless of what the actual realization of the cluster is, it might still be possible that it is the result of PB *ḱḱ in final position. This is, of course, very difficult to prove, since, this is literally the only context in Proto-Berber where final *ḱḱ occurs. But there is a nice analogous example of a cluster that does occur often:
Final *-t-t (a result of a feminine suffix placed after a word final root, or a *-t-final root.)
final *-t-t result in Zng. /ʔḏ/, so maybe that idea works!
"Well they are definitely different articulations"
ReplyDeleteI would like you to qualify that statement. How are they different? What articulatory features are different?
I could imagine that *if* I should trust the orthographer and there does so happen to be a difference, perhaps -kk is pronounced with final release while -'k is not...?? Aside from that, I see no other perceivable difference possible. Btw, hearing a shared recording online of Zenaga would help resolve things quickly. Specialists, please get on that. :o) Perhaps I'll look for Zenaga recordings right now just in case.
"The "glottal stop" in Zénaga is probably closer to a vowel feature, so more of a 'glottalized schwa' a creaky off-glide maybe?"
If so, then you're reinforcing my doubts over the clarity of this orthography since a creaky vowel is audibly different from a schwa-plus-glottal-stop sequence, the former being able to carry the feature of voice throughout its vocalization without break.
"This is, of course, very difficult to prove, since, this is literally the only context in Proto-Berber where final *ḱḱ occurs."
This reinforces my doubts about that Proto-Berber reconstruction, particularly odd considering that this is a fairly common word, a pronoun no less, that would contain such an exotic feature. Unusual. And I do believe the hypothesis flies in the face of Zipf's Law and its related expectations.
I'm not really sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but, [kː] and [ʔk] simply are different phonetic realizations, just like [kː] and [tk] would be. What is exactly the issue with this?
DeleteEven if both would have a final release, [kː] would be a closure of the velum with the back of your tongue, held there for a while and then released. [ʔk] would be the closure, and subsequent release of the glottis followed by the closure and subsequent release of the velum with the back of your tongue.
Those are different articulations that do give a different phonetic spectrum.
Is the issue that you don't know of a natural language that contrast these two sequences? Or is it specifically that sequence in coda?
If so, then you're reinforcing my doubts over the clarity of this orthography since a creaky vowel is audibly different from a schwa-plus-glottal-stop sequence, the former being able to carry the feature of voice throughout its vocalization without break.
Maybe the orthography, from a IPA perspective is unclear, but as a way of showing a meaningful contrastive difference, be it a vocalic feature or consonantal, it is sufficient.
Sadly, I am also without recordings, and hope to hear them one day too. Just an interesting point to note about the behavior of phonemic word final /ʔ/:
Word-final /aʔ/ and /əʔ/ are written orthographically as a and i, which are the phonetic realizations.
/a/ and /ə/ are written ah and ih respectively.
As soon as a verb with a final glottal stop is followed by a consonant, the glottal stop reappears, while this does not happen with verbs that end in phonetic /a/ and /ə/.
So apparently, both final glottal stop and a final vowel, are pronounced quite differently in word final position than in pre-consonantal position. Whatever this difference may be, is currently up for discussion until we hear recordings.
This reinforces my doubts about that Proto-Berber reconstruction, particularly odd considering that this is a fairly common word, a pronoun no less, that would contain such an exotic feature. Unusual. And I do believe the hypothesis flies in the face of Zipf's Law and its related expectations.
The problem is that, this absence of final *ḱḱ is not only absent in other words, also in all modern Berber languages the resulting clusters kk, čč and šš are incredibly rare. I don't think kk is ever found in any other word in the languages that have this as a reflex of *ḱḱ. Final čč and šš also exist in a few forms the verb 'to eat', but no other context.
This isn't so much an issue in reconstruction, but a typologically rare feature of modern Berber languages, it is probable that, since most Berber languages have this rare feature (not all, some languages shorten the final consonant, but do this consistently with all long final consonants), that this rare feature goes back to Proto-Berber.
A cluster *ky doesn't solve this issue as it creates another unattested feature in Proto-Berber, namely, a -CC coda where the second C isn't the -t of the feminine noun circumfix.
"Is the issue that you don't know of a natural language that contrast these two sequences? Or is it specifically that sequence in coda?"
ReplyDeleteI was already very specific about "word-final" geminates which are quite rare in typology. A word-final *palatalized* geminate, therefore, is *positively* rare (and therefore highly implausible by Occam's Razor if simpler solutions exist). It's not hard to figure out why one might object to such rare features and place blame squarely on the theorist rather than the data.
As for Zenaga, I'd like to know the **exact** realization of this alleged contrast of [kː] and [ʔk] in WORD-FINAL POSITION. And how can I trust the orthographical representation of this rare language spoken by only 200 people? I somehow doubt they get a lot of foreign tourists ready to record and document the language. So am I correct that we rely therefore on a very small group of elite specialists to record this tongue, errors and all?
"A cluster *ky doesn't solve this issue as it creates another unattested feature in Proto-Berber, namely, a -CC coda where the second C isn't the -t of the feminine noun circumfix."
How have you proved that word-final clusters are impossible for Proto-Berber? An empty decree isn't good enough for me. In fact, your rule of "a -CC coda where the second C isn't the -t of the feminine noun circumfix" can stand to benefit from a simplification to "a -CC coda is allowed" in Proto-Berber.
I think you have it backwards. For you to insist on a more complicated rule, the onus is on you to prove the justification for that added complexity. So what facts show that a -CC coda is indeed restricted to feminines in Proto-Berber and nowhere else?
Note Dmitrieva, Geminate typology and perception of consonant length (2009): "Geminates are preferred cross-linguistically [...] in word-initial but not word-final position (Thurgood 1993)." Did Berberists get the message?
DeleteOh dear, I'm having trouble letting go. Hahaha.
DeleteIn further response to:
"A cluster *ky doesn't solve this issue as it creates another unattested feature in Proto-Berber, namely, a -CC coda where the second C isn't the -t of the feminine noun circumfix."
If Kossmann has reconstructed "heart" as *ulHʷ, why then should I be held to a rule that other Berberists don't even recognize? Do my eyes deceive me or do I see an offending word-final cluster in his root?
So am I correct that we rely therefore on a very small group of elite specialists to record this tongue, errors and all?
ReplyDeleteIt is exactly one person. Catherine Teine-Cheikh.
Not due to elitist exclusionism, but because the Zénaga speakers insist on hiding the fact that they speak Zénaga (this is apparently common place among many different peoples and language in Mauritania).
About one thing, we can be certrain though.
"Geminates are preferred cross-linguistically [...] in word-initial but not word-final position (Thurgood 1993)." Did Berberists get the message?
True, but word-final geminates, at least on a phonemic level, can be shown to exist in Berber. Utterance-final, of course, it will be almost completely impossible to distingish between -CC and -C, but in many Berber languages, the schwa is not a phoneme, but a sound automatically inserted into place due to context.
I'll take an example from Riffian Berber (from Kossmann's "De menseneetster. Berbersprookjes uit Noord-Marokko")
ijj ən ənnhaa ʕawəd.
"one week later"
The vocalization rules of Riffian Berber spread accross the whole utterence, not just across a single word.
The rules are illustrated below:
1. In a string of two consonants schwa is inserted, insertion is from right to left
2. schwa cannot occur in open syllables
3. a long consonant can be ambisyllabic, and cannot be dislocated
If the word-final germinate of ijj wasn't there, the above phrase would look like this:
**ij n ənnhaa ʕawəd.
Does that mean that utterence final ijj is phonetically [ijj]? No, it isn't, it's almost certainly [ij], but in non final position, as seen above, you not only hear a difference in length, it is actually visible by looking at the way the schwa is inserted.
Phonemically we must postulate /ijj/.
Another example from the same story is
ixəṣṣ əssəyyd ənni yucrən xadənt a dd ixəšš řuxa da
"He wished that the man who had stolen the ring would come here"
Had ixəṣṣ been ixəṣ, it would look like this:
**ixṣ əssəyyd ənni yucrən xadənt a dd ixəšš řuxa da
I hope that clarifies why Berber linguists postulate long final vowels, despite there obvious rarity. in the languages of the world.
How have you proved that word-final clusters are impossible for Proto-Berber? An empty decree isn't good enough for me. In fact, your rule of "a -CC coda where the second C isn't the -t of the feminine noun circumfix" can stand to benefit from a simplification to "a -CC coda is allowed" in Proto-Berber.
You are right to say I haven't proven this completely. All I can say is that, in modern Berber languages -CC is avoided, unless it is a cluster with -t, and even such clusters are avoided by several languages (Tuareg and to some extent Zénaga), this is the reason why the Tuareg language is known as Tamahăq and not **Tamahăġt besides the Northern cognate word Tamaziġt.
But, at least several Tuareg languages do still have /ulh/ for heart, so final CC clusters do exist to some extent. You are correct.
There is no attested proof for a final cluster Cy, though.
To conclude:
Several Berber languages certainly have word-final geminates, there is no example of a word-final cluster Cy in modern-berber languages, which is not to say that it didn't exist in Proto-Berber, because certainly 'something' must have happened to the radical *y, considering it's relative rarity in Berber words.
My argument of no-CC was unfounded, and I have actually proven myself wrong in my own reconstructions. All I can say about it, is that it is rare.
Comment was too long, now some stuff on Zénaga:
ReplyDeleteThere is no non-phonemic schwa in Zénaga like there is in Northern Berber, but there are other arguments to be made for word-final geminates.
first of all, niʔK "I", also has a rarer lengthened form niʔKäh, this time, not in final position. But I have to concede that this group remains problematic, and that /ʔk/ maybe the underlying phonemic form, despite sounding 'long' in certain contexts. Maybe it is the regular reflex of *ky.
Yet, there are other examples of word final geminates.
There is quite extensive allophony in Zénaga between long and short consonants.
The short Zénaga /ẓ/ is pronounced as [θˁ], while /ẓẓ/ is pronounced /zˁː/.
Now, if we take the word anäffuẓ /anaffəθˁ/ "qui a l'hab. de mâcher". The feminine applies a t-...-t circumfix, this forms tanäffuẒ [tanaffəzˁ]. Taine-Cheikh writes Ẓ because of her own scepticism on hearing [ẓẓ] in isolation in word final position, but other than that, the phonetic allophony, is exactly the same as if it was lengthened. So, while, phonetically, the consonant isn't long, in pronunciation, it behaves as if it was. There are more consonant that behave this way. /k/, is technically one of them too. In all cases single *k has become /g/, while the lengthened form is /kk/. So, if you run into a single /k/ at all, per definition it is an indication of a lengthened kk. But I believe that this allophony of k is a bit less clear, and sometimes it has merged with *g, while in other cases *g shifted to ġ. This has made the allophony of *k obscure. One should really look into that shift sometimes. Once I'm done with my work on Aujila, I probably will do just that.
I hope that makes some sense. Either way, this wednesday I'll collect Taine-Cheikh's more extensive articles on the Zénaga phonology, I'll try to scan them, so you can have a look at them as well.
"It is exactly one person. Catherine Teine-Cheikh. Not due to elitist exclusionism, but because [...]"
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand. Well good. As long as Taine-Cheikh is sharing her findings pro bono online, openly with the public that she naturally feels obligated towards for having been granted the privileged status of academic, and not, say, extorting 68 euros from each of her students, neither she nor the institution she is a party to can be accused of financial elitism or unjust exclusion from information. :o)
It's vital that this information be shared, not commodified. The language is too rare and precious for such hypercapitalist nonsense.
"True, but word-final geminates, at least on a phonemic level, can be shown to exist in Berber."
I never said otherwise and the nature of Berber's verb morphology demands such cases. The topic is the first person pronoun so please don't stray by overgeneralizing my statements and turning them into strawmen.
My above points are meant to serve ONLY the argument specifically against reconstructing a 1ps pronoun in Berber as *nǎḱḱ. I think I've already made clear that the compounding of absurdities (ie. rarity of word-final gemination crosslinguistically, paucity of evidence for Berber *ḱḱ, the use of relatively exotic sound sequences for commonmost vocabulary) is sufficient to dismiss it for something better.
This better form may or may not be my *nəky, but we know it can't plausibly be (*)*nǎḱḱ.
By the way, what other Proto-Berber words are you aware of allegedly containing *ḱḱ?
"There is no attested proof for a final cluster Cy, though."
This statement has no weight. Some used a similar false argument against reconstructing laryngeals in Indo-European before the discovery of Hittite evidence. Languages change so there's no guarantee that a sound will be "attested" without change in a later daughter language.
For that matter, it's too easy for one Berber dialect to innovate and then spread the innovation across the whole language area, giving a false impression to a modern linguist that the feature in question is inherited from the protolanguage. The post-Proto-Berber innovation I allude to is of course the gemination of consonant-plus-glide sequences.
Was not my intention to strawman you, I can see how you perceived it as such. Anyway, I think we're back on track, and I fully understand your reluctance to reconstruct (*)*nǎḱḱ.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what other Proto-Berber words are you aware of allegedly containing *ḱḱ?
I'll cite the words that Kossmann 1999 mentions
*ḱḱal "cailler"
*ḱḱaʔt "frapper (int.) (presumably with a glottal stop due to Ghadamès kkot besides most other languages kkat/ššat.)
*nǎḱḱǎne (or something similar) "nous", maybe this is the origin of the rare final *ḱḱ cluster? A long cluster in a pronoun might still be unattractive, but at least it is not in a final position.
A rather difficult to reconstruct word for 'worm' has this sequence.
Probably to be reconstructed as *tawəḱḱa, but some languages point to *takəḱḱa.
*azǎḱḱa "tomorrow"
*tazəḱḱa "comb"
*vǎḱḱ "donner (int.)"
*nǎḱḱ "moi"
I would like to add that, 68 euros is hardly enough to even break even for Rudiger-Köppe verlag. Authors in that series don't even receive any money for having their books published.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of books printed is so incredibly small, that the process to create them is just really expensive. (We're talking under a hundred copies).
Obviously, this is the fault of academia, putting so much relevance on printed copies, rather than digital distribution(Although, permanent storage in the digital world still leaves much to be desired, which definitely is one of the reasons why the academic world is so reluctant to switch to digital distribution).
The only way to drive the prices down of such books, is if the government pumped money into academia. Considering the economic crisis, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
It's vital that this information be shared, not commodified. The language is too rare and precious for such hypercapitalist nonsense.
Absolutely, but the government is at fault here, they should be putting huge amounts of money into education, while instead, they're pulling it away.
"Strawman" is a description, not an attack. You now understand my position so the problem is solved. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteGiven this list of examples with *ḱḱ then, what facts disallow the possibility that at least some of these terms can be reinterpreted as having a simpler sequence of *ky instead (eg. *azǎkya "tomorrow", *tazəkya "comb", *vǎky "give", *nǎky "me", etc.).
As an aside, albeit one deserving a separate discussion...
ReplyDelete"Absolutely, but the government is at fault here, they should be putting huge amounts of money into education, while instead, they're pulling it away."
Or is it our faults for relying on a government we've given our own power to and relying on an economic model that's ill-equipped for the Internet Age?