<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Klahowya Sihks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well, speaking for myself
:-) some of us do feel a bit thick when we try to
think... ;-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Duane does say that it is for a "different" type of
thinking, but doesn't explain it further than that; he does contrast it with
tumtum (heart == mind). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I could conceive of it being used to differentiate
between the way that "whites" think (head/brain centric) with the way that First
Peoples think (heart centric).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Which brings up another question. I have
studied Duane's material quite a bit (and enjoy it a lot). What do people
think of it as a reference point? How good is his scholarship?
I notice in particular that his spelling is generally quite different from the
spellings that I usually see on this list.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Erik</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=fericzobor@YAHOO.COM href="mailto:fericzobor@YAHOO.COM">Francisc
Czobor</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=CHINOOK@listserv.linguistlist.org
href="mailto:CHINOOK@listserv.linguistlist.org">CHINOOK@listserv.linguistlist.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 14, 2006 8:33
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> pittuck</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Klahawya kanawi klaksta !</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>I had from some time a suspicion, but today I dare to put this question
to the Chinook List.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>It is about a word used by Duane Pasco in “Moola John”: the word
_pittuck_ “to think”.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Looking in all the sources available for me (the on-line dictionaries
listed and linked on Jeff Kopp’s and Leanne Riding’s sites), I found something
similar only Hibben & Carswell: “Dictionary of Indian Tongues” (1862),
namely _pithick_ “think”.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>But the same word, _pithick_, appear with the translation “thick” in
two otherwise closely related “dictionaries”, namely Hutchings &
Rosenfield: “Vocabulary of the Chinook Jargon” (1860), and Macdonald: “Chinook
Jargon and English Equivalents” (1863). In fact these three vocabularies (I
can not term them “dictionaries”, since the entries are not ordered
alphabetically) are virtually identical, apart of some typos. And one of these
typos seems to be “think” instead of “thick”, as translation for _pithick_.
(In two sources it’s “thick”, and in one “think”).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Moreover, _pithick_ is in fact one of the many spelling varinats of the
CW word _piLEL_ “thick” (other variants being: pitlętl, pitlilh, pithlil,
pitlil, pitlhil, pelte, pelhte, petlelh, petlet, piltlilth, pitlilth). In
fact, _pithick_ looks as an adaptation of the CW word to the English
“thick”.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Thus, my question is: is _pittuck_ “think” an real CW word, or a “new”
word arisen from a typo?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Hayash mersi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Francisc</FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low <A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com">PC-to-Phone
call rates. To respond to the CHINOOK list, click 'REPLY ALL'. To respond
privately to the sender of a message, click 'REPLY'. Hayu
masi!</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
To respond to the CHINOOK list, click 'REPLY ALL'. To respond privately to the sender of a message, click 'REPLY'. Hayu masi!