ELL: RE: Re: indigenous
julia at TORTEVAL.DEMON.CO.UK
Thu Jun 21 22:06:27 UTC 2001
Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but does it matter whether
a language (or people) is indigenous or not?
Yours helpfully (I hope)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Golla" <vkgolla at ucdavis.edu>
To: <endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: ELL: RE: Re: indigenous
> Curtis gives us another instance in which "pre-European expansion"
> is inadequate as a replacement for "indigenous":
> > Or Navajo and Apache, which apparently didn't arrive in the
> > southwest of the United States until after Spanish did.
> This is unlikely. Most of the evidence (which is admittedly
> indirect) points to the Southern Athabaskans arriving in the
> Southwest no later than 1350-1400 AD, although they came to
> occupy their historic territories subsequent to that -- after
> 1865 in the case of most of the Navajo Nation.
> But whatever the dates, are the Southern Athabaskan languages
> to be considered less "indigenous" than Zuni and Hopi? -- The
> distinction seems an invidious one, prompted by the ideological
> implications of the word. Are not the modern social and
> political facts--sovereignty over reservation land, legal status
> as "recognized" Indian tribes, etc.--far more important than
> (putative) antiquity?
> --Victor Golla
> Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
> Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
More information about the Endangered-languages-l