<html><body><font face="Tahoma" size="2">Michael,<div><br></div><div>Yeah, I kind of know that. However, the archaeological excavations in the Gaspé Peninsula are still so lacking that it is problematic to advance that there was no one there when the PEA arrived on the territory. I am aware that my claim might be weak, yet there seems to be a missing link somewhere and it has yet to be discovered. I find it hard to accept the notion that the Gaspé Peninsula remained empty during so many millennia after having been populated and been the seat of very active trade along the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There must have remained someone there. And the enigma of the difference between Micmac and other EA might find an explanation there.</div><div><br></div><div>See, for instance, David W. Anthony, 1990, "Migration in Archeology: The Baby and the Bathwater". in American Anthropologist. It is really food for thought.</div><div><br></div><div>Danielle</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><div>Dr. Danielle E. Cyr, Senior Scholar at York University</div><div>339, boul. Perron ouest</div><div>New Richmond, QC, <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>G0C 2BO</div><div>dcyr@yorku.ca - 418.392.7271</div></font><br><blockquote style="border-left: solid 2px #000000; margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px">---- Original Message ----<br><b>From</b>: Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe@indiana.edu><br><b>To</b>: algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org<br><b>Sent</b>: Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:49 PM<br><b>Subject</b>: Re: [Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?<br><br>Danielle,<br>
<br>
There is quite a time discrepancy between the Plano Culture, which is <br>
late Paleo-Indian/Early Archaic and came to end around 6000 BC, and <br>
Algonquian, whose ancestral tongue Proto-Algonquian is thought to have <br>
been spoken in the Late Archaic around 2000 B.C. So, who the ancestral <br>
Mi'gmaq shared languages with is a pretty open question, is it not?<br>
<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" <dcyr@yorku.ca>:<br>
<br>
> The case of the spread of the uvular in Europe is a great example. And a<br>
> well studied one. Of course it happened at a time when German culture was<br>
> immensely prestigious, namely through its music, science and literature.<br>
> So, I guess, anyone who could speak her/his own language with a scent of a<br>
> german accent was to be considered high class.<br>
> This kind of setting does not sound likely among paleoindian cultures.<br>
> I think that we are back to Peter Denny's hypothesis of a prolonged<br>
> linguistic and cultural contact with a non Algonquian population.<br>
> While doing some reading on the topic, I realized that there is still a<br>
> wide gap between archaeology and linguistics. Wouldn't it be time that we<br>
> address that ? Well, I think we are addressing it right now through this<br>
> conversation.<br>
> Best to All,<br>
> Danielle<br>
> Dr. Danielle E. Cyr, Senior Scholar at York University<br>
> 339, boul. Perron ouest<br>
> New Richmond, QC, G0C 2BO<br>
> dcyr@yorku.ca - 418.392.7271<br>
> ---- Original Message ----<br>
> From: David Costa<br>
> To: "Algonquiana"<br>
> Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:03 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?<br>
><br>
> One reason why I think it would have taken more than just proximity for the<br>
> nasal vowel to pass from Iroquoian into Algonquian is because the<br>
> Iroquoian/Algonquian border is a much more formidable barrier than that<br>
> between German and French, or German and Danish, let alone Danish and<br>
> Norwegian. I?ve never seen any indication that Iroquoians and Algonquian<br>
> learned each other?s languages with any kind of frequency, and there are<br>
> no documented Iroquoian loans in Algonquian that I?m aware of (not even<br>
> in Mahican). In fact, it?s hard to pin down any non-Algonquian influences<br>
> on any Algonquian language (precontact, of course), aside from a few stray<br>
> Siouan loans. So I suspect if Mahican acquired a whole new vowel from<br>
> Mohawk, it took more than just both groups being in the Hudson Valley.<br>
> Dave<br>
> Folks,<br>
><br>
> I have to disagree with Monica. There are good examples where the<br>
> history is well understood. It isn't magic clouds touching, but it need not<br>
> be as intimate as intermarriage. Here's the best known example.<br>
> There has been a lot of work done on the uvular r in Europe, which<br>
> spread from Paris to northern Germany and Denmark. Here's the wiki map,<br>
> which looks about right.<br>
> Distribution of guttural R (e.g. [? ? ?]) in Continental Europe in the<br>
> mid-20th century.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttural_R#cite_note-1)<br>
> not usual only in some educated speech usual in educated speech<br>
> general<br>
><br>
> Two things to note: 1) the distribution does not coincide completely with<br>
> any language boundary. 2) where it is not general, it is a marker of<br>
> educated speech.<br>
> From early on (The Uvular r in French, Ernest F. Haden Language, Vol. 31,<br>
> No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1955), pp. 504-510) the literature argues for<br>
> sociolinguistic factors in the spread to neighboring languages (Italian,<br>
> pg. 506-7 and German pg. 508). The conclusion being that the cultural<br>
> prestige alone is enough to spread a phonological trait.<br>
><br>
> You don't have to marry a French woman to learn an uvular r. (Or a Mohawk<br>
> woman for that matter.)<br>
> Jane Hill made a similar argument about the Northwest Coast, but with the<br>
> wrinkle that having languages with (near) overlapping inventories made the<br>
> learning of other languages easier in times of environmental distress where<br>
> the ability to shift identity/allegiance could be a crucial survival tool.<br>
> I just can't lay my hands on the reference at the moment.<br>
> Rich<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Monica Macaulay wrote:<br>
> There?s a nice quote from Weinreich that I?ve always liked, on this<br>
> topic: ?The locus of language contact is in the mind of the<br>
> bilingual.? When I was an undergrad I kind of imagined these two clouds,<br>
> Language A and Language B, and then magically they touched, and shared<br>
> features. Well, no. ;-) That contact is in the mind of the bilingual, or<br>
> even better, in the minds of a bunch of them.<br>
> > On Nov 20, 2014, at 12:38 PM, David Costa wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Generally what?s needed for this kind of borrowing is extensive<br>
> bilingualism. That can take the form of large numbers of people from the<br>
> ?other? group marrying in, or by a community gradually switching<br>
> languages. The longer the period of bilingualism, the greater the<br>
> influences that can be passed from one language to another. If the nasal<br>
> vowel passed from Mohawk to Mahican (probably the most geographically<br>
> plausible option), that might indicate that there was a large group of<br>
> Mohawks somewhere who switched from speaking Iroquoian to Algonquian. Once<br>
> the feature was established in Mahican, it would have been much easier to<br>
> pass into other Algonquian languages, specifically Abenaki. (It?s already<br>
> been established that there are Mahican loanwords in Western Abenaki.)<br>
> ><br>
> > David<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >> Yes. Trade languages and their aboriginal use, I'm aware of. But I'm<br>
> squeamish about accepting the notion that a handful of foreign terms<br>
> borrowed into an unrelated language can have such a far-reaching effect<br>
> phonologically on that language. Perhaps my imagination is limited. I will<br>
> keep gnawing.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Michael<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Quoting John Steckley :<br>
> >><br>
> >>> Michael:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Another potential source of that influence could be trade languages<br>
> >>> or lingua franca. When I worked on Gabriel Sagard's dictionary and<br>
> >>> discovered the presence of the dialects of Wendat plus St. Lawrence<br>
> >>> Iroquoian, I found that the St. Lawrence Iroquoian came in the form<br>
> >>> of a trade language, with certain key items--awls, grapes,<br>
> >>> beads--highlighted. Trade languages existed in a variety of areas in<br>
> >>> pre- and post-contact Aboriginal North America. In addition to what<br>
> >>> I found with the St. Lawrence Iroquoian example, there was Mobilian<br>
> >>> (which included Algonquian and Iroquoian entries) in the southeast,<br>
> >>> and, of course, Chinook on the West Coast. Being fluent in a trade<br>
> >>> language used between Iroquoian and Algonquian speakers could cause<br>
> >>> there to be some phonetic influences.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> John<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> >>> From: Algonquiana<br>
> >>> [mailto:algonquiana-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
> (mailto:algonquiana-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org)] On Behalf Of<br>
> >>> Michael McCafferty<br>
> >>> Sent: November 20, 2014 12:55 PM<br>
> >>> To: algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
> (mailto:algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org)<br>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Thank you so much, Ives, for your comments and, at least for me,<br>
> >>> clearing away some of the fog.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> What I just cannot wrap my head around, though, is how a sound in one<br>
> >>> language can influence the sound system of totally unrelated language.<br>
> >>> All I can get at is that women from one language group married into<br>
> >>> or were captured by another group speaking an unrelated language, and<br>
> >>> in learning the unrelated language use sounds that were in their<br>
> >>> native language that over time get adopted into the sound system of<br>
> >>> their husbands. Is this the mechanism for this transfer?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Michael<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Quoting "Goddard, Ives" :<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>> On Eastern duals.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> This subject was broached if incompletely treated in my 1967 papers<br>
> >>>> (NMC Bull. 214:9-10, 104-105, with a reference to the issue having<br>
> >>>> been earlier raised by Siebert in AA 42:331-333 and to his having<br>
> told<br>
> >>>> me that he no longer thought it was an Eastern archaism). An Ottawa<br>
> >>>> parallel for the formation of the Eastern AI triplural is cited, but<br>
> >>>> more information on this would be welcome. (I haven?t<br>
> >>>> looked.) In Delaware these marked plurals are commonly made as<br>
> >>>> collectives, and many examples are to be found in O?Meara?s Munsee<br>
> >>>> dictionary (his label is ?emphatic?), as if built on the causative<br>
> >>>> finals PEA *h and *r. See entries for kchíiw and matáhkeew.<br>
> Western<br>
> >>>> Abenaki also appears to have the longer forms as marked (used for an<br>
> >>>> indefinite number) but not as consistent triplurals. I recall that<br>
> >>>> the duals are used in Micmac for the people in a boat (always a<br>
> >>>> countable number). The comparative evidence shows this<br>
> dual-triplural<br>
> >>>> contrast gradually emerging and firming up within the Algonquian<br>
> >>>> languages, becaming fully grammaticalized as such in the languages<br>
> >>>> furthest from the Iroquoians.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Independently, Unami Delaware has a dual-triplural contrast in<br>
> >>>> imperatives, at least for some speakers: mi:tsí:t:am ?let?s eat (I<br>
> and<br>
> >>>> you sg.)? vs. mi:tsí:t:amo:kw ?let?s eat (I and you pl.).<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> The nasalized vowel.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> On the other hand, it seems likely that the nasalized reflex of PEA<br>
> >>>> *a: in Mahican, SNEA, and Abenaki reflects the influence of Mohawk,<br>
> >>>> which has a nasalized vowel of exactly the same odd quality as what<br>
> >>>> these languages seem usually to have (PAC 39:282 and n. 74).<br>
> >>>> Penobscot Eastern Abenaki has (mostly) denasalized this vowel but<br>
> >>>> retained this caret-vowel-like quality. There will be a little more<br>
> >>>> on this in my eventual ?Loup? paper in PAC 44.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Ives<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> From: Algonquiana<br>
> >>>> [mailto:algonquiana-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
> (mailto:algonquiana-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org)] On Behalf Of<br>
> >>>> Conor Quinn<br>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:59 PM<br>
> >>>> To: John Steckley<br>
> >>>> Cc: ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<br>
> (mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG)<br>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Dia dhaoibh, a chairde!<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> If I'm not mistaken, the notional dual contrast is found in most<br>
> >>>> (all?) of Eastern Algonquian, and definitely at least as far south as<br>
> >>>> Western and Eastern Abenaki.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> It's a tricky pattern, because the "duals" are actually just the<br>
> >>>> familiar verbal plurals of the rest of Algonquian. E.g. they reflect<br>
> >>>> the various plural person markings (among them reflex of PA *-aki<br>
> >>>> (with Idp) or the EAlg version of PA *-wa·-t, i.e. *-h?ti?-t).<br>
> While<br>
> >>>> the more-than-dual plurals are limited to AI stems, with an added<br>
> >>>> stem-extensional element---most but not all arising historically from<br>
> >>>> transitivization (= TA), then reciprocalization (= AI again)---which<br>
> >>>> then takes the same pluralization morphology as the "dual".<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> So the contrast looks like it emerges from a notion of a minimal<br>
> >>>> plural (= just the general Algonquian plural morphology) vs. an<br>
> >>>> extended/non-minimal plural (= this new stem-extensional element<br>
> added<br>
> >>>> in).<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> What's particularly striking about these systems is that they're not<br>
> >>>> in fact strictly dual vs. strictly (more-than-two) plural. The<br>
> >>>> familiar-Algonquian-type simple plurals generally do get a dual<br>
> >>>> reading...but if the stems inherently imply more-than-two -type<br>
> >>>> participants---e.g. if they incorporate a number 'three' or above, or<br>
> >>>> refer to collective/mass action---they very often do not use the<br>
> >>>> stem-extensional element, and so superficially have a "dual"<br>
> >>>> pluralization pattern.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> As far as I know, the only place where there's a completely strict<br>
> >>>> dual vs. plural distinction is in the Mi'gmaq motion verbs, where<br>
> >>>> -ie/-a' and -a'si (roughly, 'go..., change...') are systematically<br>
> >>>> replaced with -a'ti for dual, and -(i)ta' for plural.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Apropos of the original question, I think Ives might have suggested a<br>
> >>>> possible Iroquoian contact influence in one of his two papers on the<br>
> >>>> "intrusive nasal" reflex of PEA *a?. But I might be thinking of some<br>
> >>>> other source; and it's always struck me as a little tenuous given<br>
> that<br>
> >>>> the N. Iroquoian languages I'm aware of systematically have<br>
> >>>> contrastive nasalization only in vowels other than /a/. So the<br>
> >>>> contact effect would be oddly indirect/abstracted.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> David Pentland and I have both independently noted some possible<br>
> cases<br>
> >>>> of lexical borrowing. Off the top of my head, 'eel' and 'great horned<br>
> >>>> owl' in the northeastern-area Algonquian languages (i.e.<br>
> >>>> Mi'gmaq gat(ew)-, PsmMl ka?t(e); Penobscot tiht?k?li, PsmMl<br>
> >>>> tihtiko?l) may have Iroquoian links. I don't have the relevant<br>
> >>>> Iroquian material at hand, though, and David likely has a more<br>
> >>>> extensive list.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Hope that helps!<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Till later, keep safe and sane.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Slán,<br>
> >>>> bhur gcara<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> P.S. Is the Denny article the one that suggests PA *?entiy-<br>
> 'conifer'<br>
> >>>> as a possible loan from/with Siouan? And points out the<br>
> >>>> calque-cognacy (functional equivalence) of *wiki-wa·-hm- with<br>
> t?i-pi?<br>
> >>>> If not, who wrote that?<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> Algonquiana mailing list<br>
> >>> Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
> (mailto:Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org)<br>
> >>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana<br>
> (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana)<br>
> >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and attached material are intended<br>
> >>> for the use of the individual or organization to whom they are<br>
> >>> addressed and may not be distributed, copied, or disclosed to other<br>
> >>> unauthorized persons. This material may contain confidential and/or<br>
> >>> personal information subject to the provisions of the Freedom of<br>
> >>> Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of<br>
> >>> Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and/or the Personal Health<br>
> >>> Information Protection Act. If you receive this transmission in<br>
> >>> error, please notify me immediately and delete this message. Do not<br>
> >>> email, print, copy, distribute, or disclose this email or its<br>
> >>> contents further. Thank you for your co-operation and assistance.<br>
> >>><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> Algonquiana mailing list<br>
> >> Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
> (mailto:Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org)<br>
> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana<br>
> (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana)<br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Algonquiana mailing list<br>
> > Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
> (mailto:Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org)<br>
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana<br>
> (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana)<br>
> Monica Macaulay<br>
> University of Wisconsin<br>
> Department of Linguistics<br>
> 1164 Van Hise; 1220 Linden Dr.<br>
> Madison, WI 53706<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Algonquiana mailing list<br>
> Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
> (mailto:Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org)<br>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana<br>
> (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana)<br>
> --<br>
> Richard A. Rhodes Associate Dean, Undergraduate Division College of<br>
> Letters and Science 206 Evans #2924 University of California Berkeley, CA<br>
> 94720<br>
> The case of the spread of the uvular in Europe is a great example.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Algonquiana mailing list<br>
Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana</blockquote></div></font></body></html>