'Practical alphabets' ...was...Re: CJ phonemes

[Henry Kammler]

> Na-tEmtEm, msayka kEmtEks hayash na-tIki wawa khapa ukuk!  I reckon you
> all can tell I love to talk about this subject!

doesn't stir too much interest, though  ;-)
but i'm sure this list won't get as sleepy as SALISHAN is at the moment...

> Ukuk tIlxam tEmtEm, tEmtEm, pi munk chxi Lush wiXEt pus munk-c!Em yaka
> shawash lalang.  This person thought very hard and created a good new way
> to write his Indian language.

Yes. And it shows that there are probably a lot of individuals that are
worried about their vanishing language and that it shouldn't get lost. So they
do what they can within their personal sphere. There should be a way, however,
to join all the creative minds that go undiscovered. There's another
"official" orthography now, so we have to stick to it, though I imagine it
might make some people shy away from it because the phonetics look, er...,
weird.

> WEXt nayka tEmtEm kakwa mayka; khapa ixt shawash wawa (pus ya-mILayt khapa
> nsayka IlI7i), dreht Lush pus <d, g, ds, b> munk-c!Em uk tEnEs-wa /t!, k!,
> c!, p!/.  I too think as you do that for an Indian language (from our
> region here), it's an excellent thing to write <d, g, ds, b> representing
> the sounds /t!, k!, c!, p!/.

If there are no voiced stops there, yes.

> Na mayka kEmtEks uk Eula Petite, ixt Grehnd Rawnd lamiyay, anqEti
> munk-c!Em <gkow> pus /k'aw'/, pi <towen> pus /t'u7wEn/?  Did you know that
> Eula Petite, an elder of Grand Ronde, wrote in Chinook Jargon <gkow> for
> /k'aw/ "tie someone or something up", but <towen> for /t'u7wEn/ "have"?

No problem for a fluent speaker probably.

> Kakwa, wEXt yaka munk ixt chxi wiXEt pus munk-c!Em ChInUk Wawa.  So she
> also invented a new way of writing her language.

Who knows, maybe there are other people, too, that kept notes like that. I
mean, there were a lot of reasons in the past not to speak up in public about
one's ability to speak CJ (not necessarily in GR).

> Xluwima ukuk:  Wik ya-munk kakwa <gkow> *kwanEsEm*.  But the difference
> is: She didn't *always* write e.g. <gkow>.

Now, totally hypothetically, would that be a possibility to write GR wawa? cf.
"gkaw", "dtu'wen", "munk-dtsem" (???)
Anyway, the apostrophe is a neat little device that you even find on English
typewriters: c' k' p' q' t' ...

Lush san,
Henry