Mun de la? (Mun na = munna ?) | why

Hello, in this video I noticed how the word mùnna (why) split up into its original words mǔn and la/na can be used to say ‘why’. Ex: Mǔn de la?
This raises a question for me:
-Is the word mùnna pronounced the same way as mùn na because when they are used, they have the same tones
-Is mùnna not really a compound word, we just write it like this in the dictionary to show the translation of ‘why’ in Bambara?

1 Like

Hi! It’s an orthographic convention (for some) to write the Bambara equivalent of “why” as one orthographic word munna instead of mun na. There is no pronunciation difference between the two.

The literal meaning of mun na is “what on” and it is made up of two distinct (linguistic) words.

For this reason, you can insert de (the focalization marker) in between the two. And when you do so, the postposition na reverts back to its main form la.

In the example of the video, you could also translate it into English in other ways that would be closer to the Bambara’s original/literal meaning:

Mun de la?

‘What for?’ OR ‘On what grounds?’

(Lit. ‘On what?’ with stress on ‘what’)