etymology of MANDAN

[Alan H. Hartley]

Jimm,

Thanks for a thoughtful message with lots of helpful points.

> As a result, today, some tribes are taking it upon themselves to correct
> history, such as seen by the Winnebago (Hochank).
...
> Amazingly, some of these early non-Native appelations continue to show up
> in contemporary writings, either ignoring the Native designations, or
> sharing them in parenthesis
...
> In over 45years, I've not heard Pawnees EVER use the above terms among
> themselves.
...
> And  while it is interesting to know of the
> early trader terms, and their origin, I find it much more facinating to
> learn the original Native terminology, and its source of origin if
> possible.

As your message is addressed to list-subscribers with a wide variety of
interests, I thought I'd let you know my point of view in my work for
the Oxford English Dictionary (without presuming to speak for the OED in
any official way). The OED is a descriptive and historical dictionary,
which means that it aims to record the history of English words (in my
case, usually ethnonyms) as they have appeared through the years in
printed sources. The body of an entry in the Dictionary thus consists
primarily of quotations arranged in chronological order, chosen to
illustrate the evolution in the form and meaning of the word; the
etymology of the word is just the logical point of beginning for most of
the word-histories. Our job in constructing the Dictionary is to record
scrupulously how a word has developed and been used, and is emphatically
NOT to prescribe how it should have developed or how it now should be
used (nor what words should be used in place of it). For example, that
many (but not all) Ojibway/Chippewa now prefer to be called Anishinabe
should have no effect on the Dictionary's treatment of the word OJIBWAY
(and its variant CHIPPEWA). (That is not to say that there is not now
sufficient support in print for a new entry ANISHINABE--I believe there
is.) There are many words in the OED that are grossly objectionable to
many people for a wide variety of reasons (profanities, sexual terms,
obnoxious ethnic epithets etc.), and many whose origin, history, or use
seem illogical. But they exist, or have existed, in the English language
and so deserve a place in the OED.

It is only natural that an ethnonym should be borrowed from a
neighboring language: people very often come to be known through their
neighbors rather than directly. Many peoples have no generic term for
all the speakers of their own language, and as language is often the
salient distinguishing characteristic in initial contacts between
peoples, it is also natural that a foreign name should sometimes come to
be applied to all those speaking the language. Should the Ojibway give
up their name for the Dakota (Natowessiwak (pl.), whence Eng. Sioux),
and do their best to imitate a Dakotan self-designation? In many cases,
such imitation is difficult because of dissimilarities in the
sound-systems involved. (Think of the problems in adopting Salishan
names into English!)

In sum, I would argue for keeping an honest record of our language
(English, in this case), whatever our present agendas may be.

> the original Singing Group of Mandaree Singers

Where does "Mandaree" come from?

Thanks again,
Alan