A peculiarity of the Kamloops Wawa shorthand writing system

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Zvjezdana  Vrzic wrote:

> 	In fact Le Jeune clearly distinguishes between 'e'
> and 'i'.=20

Oops, Zvjezdana, I've missed that entirely, then!  Do you mean that he
actually used 2 distinct shorthand symbols?  --Or that he distinguished
these vowels in his Roman transliterations?  --Or both?

What I'm seeing in Le Jeune (1924) is a single Duployan symbol being
employed for both the <e> and <i> of his Roman transliterations. =20

True, he consistently writes one or the other of those 2 vowels in his
transliterations.  But when one is reading his Duployan CJ, how can one
determine which vowel is intended?  Bear in mind too that sometimes it's =
a
schwa that he's marking with this shorthand symbol, whether he
transliterates it as <e> or <i>.

Was this ambiguity a feature of Duployan before LJ applied it to the
Jargon?

As you are acquainted with his shorthand writing system, I'd like to ask
you an additional and related question.  Does it look to you as though he
is writing the vowel symbol twice in succession in e.g. "eit" (meaning
"eight")?

I'm going back to my copies of Le Jeune's stuff to double-check on these
things...  Fascinating stuff to think about.

Thanks for your message!  Hayash mash masi kupa mayga munk ts'em!

Dave

PS -- I am more or less planning to give a short course on the Duployan
shorthand at the September Jargon gathering.  I'd like for the people
interested in the language to be able to read all of the meagre texts =
that
remain to us.  Any suggestions from you would be gratefully accepted; can
you point me to sources from which to get copies of pre-1924 "Kamloops
Wawa"?

> However, when the symbols connect with other
> vocalic or consonantal symbols, the distinction is sometimes not =
clearly
> observable which is just the fact about the shorthand (and not, I =
believe,
> the sound system of KW CJ). However, the transliterations in his 1924
> dictionary always clearly show the existence of both vowels. I =
discussed
> this a little bit in my paper on the Salish conference, and I think, I =
put
> some examples on my handout. If you don't have it, I could send it to =
you
> if you wish. So, I don't know about Le Jeune capturing 'an important
> phonological rule' of KW CJ, although he did seems to have been a =
pretty
> good linguist.=20
> Best, Zvjezdana Vrzic
>=20
> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, David Robertson wrote:
>=20
> > Hello everyone,
> >=20
> > A little note.
> >=20
> > The shorthand writing system used by Father Le Jeune for his =
mimeographed
> > newspaper "Kamloops Wawa" from about the 1880's to 1920's has one
> > peculiarity I'd like to muse upon..
> >=20
> > There is just a single symbol in this writing system for both vowels =
"i"
> > and "e".
> >=20
> > For example, the word "lazy" was borrowed from English into this =
variety
> > of the Jargon, and was spelled by Le Jeune as "lisi" in shorthand =
(but as
> > "lezi", I believe, in the transliteration he provides in his 1924
> > "Rudiments").
> >=20
> > The same vowel symbol is used for "i" sounds in innumerable words, =
and for
> > "e" in others.
> >=20
> > Now, in Le Jeune's native French, there is of course a difference =
between
> > the two sounds,and he'd never confuse them.  Ditto in English, which =
was
> > also spoken in the Kamloops area.
> >=20
> > So -- Did Le Jeune capture an important phonological rule of Kamloops
> > Jargon by using his writing system in this way?
> >=20
> > I believe that many or most Native languages of the region tend to
> > oscillate between "e" and "i" in realizing a single high-front =
phoneme...
> >=20
> > Blah blah (sorry, nonlinguists!) -- But your thoughts are most =
welcome.
> >=20
> > Best regards,=20
> > Dave