NavList:

It is encouraging to see some discussion of Polynesian navigation.  As someone born and raised in New Zealand, I am sorry to say that while there has been some excellent work in this field, the common culture in New Zealand leans more towards quasi science, whereby several rather dubious claims are presented as historical fact.  The excellent work by academics in New Zealand and elsewhere is, regrettably, ignore by many as perhaps inconvenient.

One assertion which can be found widely across the internet and, sadly, in some materials intended for student education in New Zealand is the "fact" that the Polynesian navigator Tupaia was instrumental in Cook "finding" New Zealand in 1769.  Cook wrote very favorably of Tupaia (spelled as Tupia or in his journal), and of his knowledge of the islands and navigation within the tropical southern hemisphere Polynesian islands.  However he also wrote this on August 15, 1769...

The farthest Island to the Southward that Tupia hath been at, or knows anything of, lies but 2 days' Sail from Ohetiroa, and is called Moutou,* (* Tubuai.) but he says that his father once told him that there was Islands to the Southward of it; but we Cannot find that he either knows or ever heard of a Continent or large Track of Land. 

[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8106/8106-h/8106-h.htm]

This simple statement of course cannot be taken as definitive in isolation, but I do not believe any scholar has concluded that Tupaia's presence played a role in navigation from the Endeavour's departure from the island group about 350 nm south of Tahiti in mid-August, towards New Zealand, where he made landfall on October 7, 1769. Indeed on that same day, August 15, Cook recorded that Tupaia had encouraged him to sail west, to islands Tupaia knew to exist. Cook concluded that these were likely islands already known to the British and not of immediate interest to him. Yet many New Zealanders will tell you that Tupaia navigated to New Zealand, fully believing that to be fact.

Another one that gets me every time is the claim that Polynesian navigators followed birds to New Zealand.; As a broad statement, this has merit, and is well addressed in scholarly study. But there is a specific reference now somewhat ubiquitous in New Zealand: that navigators followed the New Zealand Long-tailed Cuckoo. The irony is that, as far as I have been able to find by reference to primary source 19th century records (by Europeans) of Maori oral history, the reference to this species as a key navigation tool does not arise. They feature in the oral histories, just not in connection with navigation. The earliest reference I have found was not from Maori oral history, but from a European, who had observed the migration of the bird from the tropics and its arrival in New Zealand seasonally. He jumped to the conclusion that Maori waka (canoes) may have followed this species. See Taylor White, The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Volume 16, 1907, p92-93. That appears to have been borrowed as "fact" by many N.Z. sources.

None of this is meant to knock Polynesian navigation, which is a subject I have been fascinated with since childhood and consider worthy of study. I just call out a couple of the more dubious claims.

Frank - I am impressed by your te reo (Maori language). Your example highlights a difference in the sentence structure between different dialects of the Polynesian languages, whereby in Maori the number "toru" is at the end of the sentence. This is somewhat debatable today (and in this I will gladly defer to an expert), though it is correct in teaching materials. As Maori has reemerged as a living language in N.Z. I have encountered a sentence structure which is similar to English, with the number in front of the noun (the "motu").   Ngā in this structure indicates the plural, which is a usage not seen in the Tahitian or Tuamoti version. I must look into this - I suspect if I look at the history I mind find that the Moari sentence structure has retained an older form which, in isolation, did not evolve in the same was as in tropical Polynesia. But I digress. (I learned Maori for two years as a young man, but certainly do not claim fluency or expertise).

Anecdote time:

When I first moved to the United States (a long time ago) I was required to obtain a U.S. review of my academic and professional qualifications and a statement of equivalency to U.S. degree/professional certifications. This was necessary for work, the applicable visa and for further graduate study in the U.S. A number of commercial organizations will review and report on academic and professional equivalency and these are accepted by the federal government and by universities.

The first one I approached sent me back a letter stating that they would need an official translation, into English, of my academic tramscript. I telephoned, and spoke to somebody who claimed to understand the requirement.

The conversation went something like this. 

Me: My package contains my transcript. It is in English.

She: Yes, but it does not contain the certification by the translator. We need a certified translation.

Me: It is not translated. It was issued in English.

She: So somebody must have translated it.

Me: No, I don't think you understand. English is the lingua franca of New Zealand. We speak English there. Documents are in English.

She: No it is not. May-or-ree is the language there. We need an official translation.

I gave up, and chose another organization.