term, as opposed to a personal name, or a de sc rip ti ve phrase ( l i k e , f o r example, 'my mother's mother's b r o t h e r ' ) , when he is sure that the r e la t i o n s h i p between himself and the person referred to is clear to the hearer. This means, in e f f e c t , that the speaker is r e s t r i c t e d to using kin terms to r e fe r to in d iv i d u a l s (or narrowly defined sets of them, say, a group of mother's brothers) who are closely re lated kin. Again I want to emphasise tha t because i n d i v i d u a l s , more often than not, do know one another's l i f e - h i s t o r y in a certai n amount of d e t a i l , reference by means of a kin term may be possible even when genealogical connections between the speaker and the referent are very tenuous. So th a t i t is p e r f e c t l y reasonable f o r A to r e fe r to an unrelated big man who has looked a f t e r him since his infancy as 'my f a t h e r ' when conversing with B who knows tha t A regards the big man as his fat her .
The t h i r d mode of use I want to discuss is the one in which the primary denotatum o f a kin term is most frequently the only plausible candidate f o r the object being discussed. I have called t h i s mode of use ' a t t r i b u t i v e ' because i t is s i m i l a r to the category of th a t name discussed by Donellan (1971). Donellan wishes to d i s ti n g u i s h between occasions on which a d e f i n i t e des crip tio n is used to i d e n t i f y a
p a r t i c u l a r in d iv id u a l and occasions on which i t is used to designate an i nd iv id ua l as the person to whom the description properly applies. In the r e f e r e n t i a l use i t is the i nd iv id ua l who or which is important f o r the purposes o f the discourse whereas in the a t t r i b u t i v e use i t is the a t t r i b u t e of being the so-and-so which is (Donellan 1971:102). This category of use seems to be necessary because in many instances Mianmin speakers do indeed intend t h a t they be taken to be t a l k i n g
4 about the r e la t i o n s h i p rather than the ind iv id ua ls involved in i t . The cl ea re st cases i l l u s t r a t i n g t h i s use of kin terms are those in which a d i r e c t claim is made, "Bagarabe is my fa th er " or "The man s i t t i n g smoking over there is my mother's b r o t h e r " . In questions too a speaker may use a kin term a t t r i b u t i v e l y as in 'Who is Bagarabe's fa th er ?" . I f one does ask a Mianmin who his or her fa t h e r is one does not get a l i s t of a l l the people who are addressed as a i. Once again the reply is not i n v a r i a b l y the name o f the man who impregnated the person's mother or the mother's husband. This is simply a consequence of the f a c t tha t sometimes other men perform the functions in
r e l a t i o n to an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i f e t h a t , under ordinary circumstances, the person's fa t h e r would perform. With allowances f o r these
exceptions i t remains the case tha t in a t t r i b u t i v e uses the genealogical 3
basis o f the kin terms is most apparent. I t contrasts most stro ngly with vocative usage in which the immediate concern to define the s i t u a t i o n in te ra c ts with the broader range o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r expressive s ub tle ty tha t face -to-fac e i n te r a c ti o n permits, to produce a f r e e r and less l i t e r a l use of kin terms. Nevertheless i t seems cer tai n th a t the understanding of kin terms tha t the a t t r i b u t i v e use most c l e a r l y displays is the basis of a l l t h e i r uses.
This conclusion immediately raises the question of the exact nature of the understanding the Mianmin have o f genealogical
connectedness. Conception Beliefs
The basic tenets o f Mianmin conception theory are s i m i l a r to many found in Papua New Guinea. There are also one or two contrasts with b e l i e f s o f people l i k e the Melpa (Strathern 1972:9-13) who hold th a t the foetus is i n i t i a l l y formed by the in te ra c ti o n of blood and semen. The Mianmin hold th a t the foetus is formed by the in t e r a c t i o n of male and female genital secretions - emphatically not menstrual blood. Men say th a t a l l white male substances are important, which is why those who are a c t i v e l y engaging in intercourse with t h e i r wives do not wash beneath the prepuce, allowing the smegma formed there to remain. Semen and smegma mix with the 'vaginal j u i c e s ' of the woman to form the body of the foetus. Repeated acts of intercourse are required, the foe tal body being formed in stages, beginning f i r s t with the head, then the neck and chest, and so on.
A ll the substances tha t form the body of the foetus are white and they derive from the various white bodies found in the genital regions o f the abdominal c a v i t i e s o f both men and women. (The Mianmin pride themselves on t h e i r anatomical knowledge which, they say,
derives from t h e i r long experience o f butchering slain enemies). I presume these are the seminal vesicles and the various exocrine glands found near the genital organs.
When the body is complete, which, quite accurately, they say does not take too long, the mother's blood infuses i t . At t h i s point intercourse should cease, l e s t the f a t h e r ' s penis damage the head of the c h i l d . The most strongly emphasised a r t i c l e o f b e l i e f is th a t the bones of the foetus are formed exc lu s iv e ly by the male substances.