Kaiārahi means: Leader, captain.
The example sentence in Te Aka is “Manaakitia mai ā tātou kura māhita, ngā kaiārahi i ā tātou tamariki, i ngā mokopuna me te iwi” (Look after our teachers, the counsellors of our children, grandchildren and the people.)
This sentence makes use of the pūriro takitini (plural possessive particle) “ā tātou”. Possessive forms have been mentioned briefly in the earlier post about koe (focusing on the construction of pūriro takitahi or singular possessives), tō, focusing on neutral possessives as well as mentioning n-m possession in the posts on kawhe and kaputī but I haven’t explored a pretty huge kaupapa in these posts yet, which is a/o categories of possession.
In my study, we’ve historically covered this subject in relation to whakapapa, but we’re only now about to dive into how it applies to the rest of te ao (the world). At the same time, I’ve picked up a copy of Mai i te Kākano from Te Wānanga o Raukawa which has a section on a/o categories other sources refer to as authoritative, but is entirely in te reo Māori, so it’s taking me a long time to read.
A/O categories can be one of the trickiest elements of te reo Māori for second language speakers to grapple with. When we’re using our pūriro (possessive particles) or our tūkapi riro (possessive pronouns) we are describing the relationship between two things. Whether we’re using ā/ō, nā/nō, mā/mō, tāku/tōku, etc. we must* consider whether the nature of the relationship belongs to te karangatanga ‘o’ (‘o’ category) or te karangatanga ‘a’ (‘a’ category). For example if you want to say “my mother” you would say “tōku māmā” because your relationship to your mother is an ‘o’ category relationship, while saying “my child” would be “tāku tamaiti” because your relationship with your child sits in te karangatanga ‘a’.
*I say must although there are neutral forms of describing possession, because the neutral forms cannot always be used.
Harlow’s grammar explains that the most important central idea in the discussion of the a- and -o categories is control, whether the possessor is independent of the possessum and in a position of dominance and control over it or not. This a common way of expressing the central premise in these categories, but I don’t find it to be the most valuable lens to consider them through, as there are also considerations for the direction of responsibility, obligation, shelter and support between the two entities described.
To support this, Mai i te Kākano notes: Ā, hei whiriwhiri ko tēhea te kupu tika (ko te ‘o’, ko te ‘a’ rānei), me mōhio anō te tangata ko tēhea o aua mea e rua e noho rangatira ana, e noho whakamarumaru ana, e arataki ana, e taki ana rānei i tērā atu hanga, i roto āno i te kaupapa e kōrerotia ana. [Rough translation that gets the vibes across] In order to choose the right word (‘o’ or ‘a’) one must know which of these two things is dominant, sheltering/protecting, guiding, leading the other in the topic being discussed.
The horopaki (context) of the conversation is key. Some guides will attempt to place different objects into categories as if the a/o label is a property of the object, but it’s important to understand that it’s describing a property of the relationship between two things. Mai i te Kākano gives the example that a house might be in te karangatanga ‘o’ when describing it as somewhere that shelters you, but te karangatanga ‘a’ when describing the relationship between it and the person who builds it (to shelter someone else).
In my next post, I’ll go on to describe some examples of relationships that fit in te karangatanga ‘o’ me te karangatanga ‘a’, but that’s enough for now.