Why did _Kamloops Wawa_ go unresearched for so long?

[Jim Holton]

Even though its taken me a while to respond, I wanted to make a few comments
on Dave’s questions regarding _Kamloops Wawa_ (KW).  When I came across KW as
part of my research into Jargon, I passed on seriously delving into the
shorthand work for several reasons.  The obvious ones were:

1) I was interested in Jargon as a whole and wanted examples from as many
speakers as I could.
2) KW seems to be the work of one man and there was some Roman script from him
in Chinook Rudiments.
3) There was a learning price to pay to read it (and to be honest, being an
ex-Catholic, the subject matter wasn't that exciting).
4) The shorthand doesn't seem to be anymore or less accurate than the various
Roman systems being used if you devote some study to them.

 The fact that LeJuene was white didn't eliminate him, in fact, I would love a
transcription of the Jargon he spoke, but we, despite the volumes he produced,
don't have that. As a matter of fact, we're seriously short of recordings or
transcriptions of non-Natives speaking Jargon - I have only one person who was
recorded on two separate occasions.  What we have with KW is more of a
literary work that may or may not represent his Jargon. While thinking about
Dave’s question I decided to conduct a simple experiment.  I wanted to compare
LeJuene's work against other people's Jargon.  I picked one simple feature -
the use of a subject pronoun in addition to a subject noun and checked for
frequency in usage.  It’s a rather small experiment, but it might serve to get
us thinking in the right direction about KW and how it fits into Jargon as a
whole.  Basically, it seems that written Jargon may have differed from the
spoken variety just like spoken English differs from the babel that I am
producing right now. You might even include the letter (by the non-Native in
this experiment) into this if you think how most letters are written (well
planned at first, but more spontaneous latter on).  OK, so here's the study,
let me know what you think - and don't laugh, huh! :-)   If I get the feeling
that this is a valid approach I’d like to expand the study to include more
speakers, larger samples, and more grammar features.


Purpose: Determine the prevalence of the Chinook Jargon “pattern” of  (subject
noun)–(subject pronoun)–(predicate) in selected text.  For example, determine
which of the two following sentences would be dominant for each speaker and
look at the differences between various classifications:

A. John yaka klatawa.
B. John klatawa.

Note: I have put everything into “Gibbs” spelling for standardization only.

The basic methodology will be to identify sentences within the selected
examples that have a noun as a subject and record whether there is also a
subject pronoun associated with the predicate.  Avoiding poetry quotes, I have
attempted to gather 10 usage examples from each source.   Sentences are
collected sequentially from the beginning of each source.

1.) Determine prevalence of pattern among a selected group of oral recordings
(Hudson–Jacobs, McLeod–Giles/Moore).  Group includes a Native and a non-Native
speaker assumed familiar with Jargon.
2.) Determine prevalence of pattern among a selected group of literary works
(Kamloops Rudiments, St. Marks, Klahowiam, Mr. Smis).  Group includes a Native
and two non-Natives that are assumed familiar with Jargon.

These are details on the text and the results from each text.

Hudson-Jacobs. Taken from “Rabbit Races Mud Turtle,” page 14. With the first
ten sentences that have a subject noun, 9 of these include a subject pronoun
prior to the predicate.  Within the test range, one sentence that had a
subject was skipped because it was somewhat more complex than the simple
pattern (“He and mud turtle both ran now”; ‘Alta klaska–cooley konamokst
eetlekwa’) although it does seem to follow the pattern. The only sentence that
didn’t include a subject pronoun included an adverb in front of the verb
(“Then Long Ears ran faster, he kept on running”; ‘Alta youtlkut–kwolann
hyas–cooley, alta weght yahka–cooley).  This sentence seems to omit the
subject pronoun.  In a previous sentence with a similar meaning, the “ran
faster” is translated as ‘yahka–cooley–hyas.’  So for this one, prevalence of
the pattern is 90%.  Note: I choose this speaker, John Hudson, because he
doesn’t appear to me to speak the form of Jargon that incorporates proclitic
pronouns.

McLeod–Giles/Moore. McLeod was born in 1903 on Dalls Island in Alaska.  I am
using transcriptions from an interview/paper produce by Robert Moore in 1989
and from notes that I took from an interview/transcription made by Andrea
Giles around 1992.  Andrea worked with Barbara Harris on the Chinook Project
at UVIC.  The translations are my own.  The Chinook Jargon examples in both
these works are sporadic and often incomplete. Despite the fact that the
notes/papers for McLeod are difficult to work with, I wanted to include them
in the sample because they are the only known sources where a non-Native was
being recorded who did not participate in the final product, that I have.  For
this test, I’ll list each sentence that I used for the test, as I don’t know
the availability of the texts to anybody who wants to try to duplicate this
experiment.  Also, please note that the word “yahka” often replaces the word
“klaska” in the following sentences.  I believe this is “legitimate.”  I will
have to research my records, but I believe I’ve seen this usage elsewhere
regarding the Jargon in Alaska.

These are from Robert’s paper:

1. okoke time hyiu saumon kanaway kah ikta kopa okoke illahie.
(At that time there was lots of salmon everywhere at that place.)

2. one haul okoke boat delett pahtl salmon
([With] one haul the boat was full of salmon)

3. kanaway kah okoke boats yahka–cooley, yahka chako, halo yahka loaded.
(Everywhere the boats went, [where] they [the salmon should have??] came, they
weren’t loaded.)

4. 
, okoke doctor yahka–wawa kopa nika kloshe.
(The doctor talks to me nicely.)

5. okoke doctor yahka–kloshe
(That doctor’s good.)

6. okoke man yahka–kumtuks nika
(That man knows me.)

7. salmon yahka–cooley ‘n yahka chako,
(Salmon went and came.)

8. Japanee yahka–iskum halo yahka chako.
(The Japanese took [them so] they didn’t come [anymore].)

These sentences are from part of Andrea’s work:

9. Okoke time nika tenas hyiu tilikum yahka–tikie muckamuck yahka.
(When I was little, lots of people liked to eat it.)

10. Okoke time nika tenas konaway people yahka-tikie iskum chickamin.
(When I was little, everybody wanted to make money.)

11. Chinook konaway kah

(Chinook was everywhere)

12. 
tilikum yahka–cooley yahka tikie mamook halo hyiu mamook ahnkuttie.
(people went and they wanted to work, before there wasn’t a lot going on.)

I kind of went overboard with collecting more than ten sentences as I wanted
to include more than two from Andrea’s work.  Nine out of twelve sentences fit
the pattern. So for this one, prevalence of the pattern is 75%.


St. Marks.  This is from “St Mark’s Kloosh Yiem kopa Nesika Saviour Jesus
Christ,” which contains a lot of Chinook Jargon.  I somehow am under the
impression that this was written by Charles Tate but don’t have any
documentation to that fact.  Could anybody confirm that or set me straight. If
it was Tate, he was known to have spoken Jargon well.  Starting with chapter
one, I took the first ten sentences with nouns as subjects.  Only one of them
also used a subject pronoun.  This was in paragraph 4.  The other sentences
(in paragraphs 2,6,7,9 (2x), 12,14,15, and 17) did not use the pronoun. So for
this one, prevalence of the pattern is 10%.


Klahowiam Mr. Smis.  This text is from a letter written by a Native American.
Barbara Harris analyzed it in a paper.  Although it differs in genre from the
two other “literary” pieces I am analyzing, I have included it because it is
the only literary piece produced by a Native during the height of Jargon usage
that I have.  In the letter there where six sentences that had nouns as the
subject.  Four used subject pronouns.  In Barbara’s paper the two sentences
that didn’t have subject pronouns where 1 and 2.  While 15, 16, 17 and 18 used
the pronoun.  The grouping makes me wonder if there wasn’t something going on
beyond what can be quantified -– perhaps the first part of the letter is more
“planned” or thought out than the latter parts.  So for this one, prevalence
of the pattern is 66%.


Chinook Rudiments.  I have taken the text from Chinook Rudiments, page 21.
This is probably not the best text, but unable to read shorthand, this is what
I have to work with right now.  This would be a good one for somebody who is
familiar with the shorthand to try and duplicate.  However, if we take the
first ten sentences that have a subject noun we get none that follow the
pattern.  So for this one, prevalence of the pattern is 0%.


Conclusion:  The two literary pieces produced by the non-Natives differ from
the other pieces in the prevalence of the pattern.  These other pieces, which
include two oral transcriptions and a letter, originated from both Native and
non-Native sources and have a higher prevalence of the feature for which we
were testing.

Ok, That’s it,

LaXayEm,

Jim