[Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?

Thu Nov 20 22:35:45 UTC 2014

Dia dhaoibh, a chairde!

Some preliminary discussions with speakers at Listuguj suggest that Mi'gmaq
there also has the "complicated" dual-plural contrast I mentioned earlier
re Penobscot and Passamaquoddy-Maliseet (I think Phil LeSourd has some
specific examples for the latter either in his 2006 Language paper or his
1993 dissertation)----i.e frequent exceptions to triplural use with when
the stems are inherently semantically non-dual.  (As in
numeral-incorporating verbs, verbs of mass/collective action.)  Here I
don't think the actual distribution is completely understood yet, even
though dual vs. plural works well most of the rest of the time..

I would guess that since there's next to no trace of the triplural
stem-extender in the other Algonquian languages---as far as has been
reported---Ives's view of it as an Eastern Algonquian innovation is the
most plausible account, given current data.

One thing I have noticed is that Mi'gmaq Finals seem to be much more
identifiably Algonquian: I know of relatively few of them that aren't at
least cognate with Penobscot and Passamaquoddy-Maliseet, or failing that,
cognate with Central Algonquian.  This fits with Rich Rhodes's observations
that it's the Initials that change the most from language to language.  And
indeed, it's in the Initials that I see the most Mi'gmaq elements for which
we have no so-far-attested Penobscot and/or Passamaquoddy-Maliseet cognates.

But overall, at least from comparison to Passamaquoddy-Maliseet and
Penobscot, the 50% non-cognacy claim strikes me as very high.  Just from my
dim, second-language levels in these two languages, and going from there to
learn Mi'gmaq, I generally find that more polymorphemic stems than not are
familiar---i.e. all or most of the  Initials, Medials, and Finals are
cognate.

While this doesn't count as a real statistically backed-up claim, it's at
least telling that the lexical overlap has been enough to get me pretty
quickly to following basic spoken Mi'gmaq.  Beyond the Initials, though, it
also seems that the other main locus of not immediately obviously cognate
elements is the less obviously analyzable nominals---i.e. things like peju
'cod', etc.

Here we should also consider the rich use of sound symbolism as a
lexeme-creating device.  E.g. if the Root (i.e. non-diminutive material) in
go'gwejij (go'gwe'ji'j?) 'spider' isn't in fact cognate to anything
Algonquian (and it might originally be; see the next example), this go'gwe-
material might not be a substrate word, but simply an affective,
sound-symbolic form.

Compare also jujij 'insect': this probably is relatable as an affective
reduction (perhaps originating as a hypocoristic) of the accentually most
prominent final foot in a stem relatable to Penobscot awəhαnətohsis,
Passmaquoddy-Maliseet wahantuhsis 'bug, insect'.

So hopefully the online Passamaquoddy-Maliseet dictionary---and the
Penobscot dictionary we're currently working on---will help narrow down
what is uniquely Mi'gmaq lexical material.

(All of this gets complicated by the other clear contact/diffusion
effects.  E.g. that Passamaquoddy-Maliseet evidently (and unsurprisingly)
shares a substantial chunk of lexical material more or less uniquely with
Mi'gmaq---though I wouldn't jump to claim the directionality of the loaning
there---and that some of it then filters back at least as far west as
Penobscot.  Underlining this contact scenario is the observation that the
apparent Basque loan for 'shirt' is found only in Mi'gmaq and languages
(south)west of it as far as Caniba  I.e. if post-contact loans travel this
route so easily, then that's a big window for earlier (and later) lexical
diffusion.

Taboo effects could be a cause of lexical replacement of core vocabulary,
but lots of other motivations exist, and which are likely to be found in
any human speech community: simple creativity/boredom, cool-kid slang,
humor/joke terms, poeticisms, etc.  And the mere fact that Mi'gmaq is
predominantly in a coastal corner---rather than surrounded by close kin
languages on all sides, as many other Algonquian languages are---could in
itself be a strong contributing factor to it developing and retaining a
noticeably higher degree of unique lexical items.

And its replacement strategies might be pretty mundane.  E.g. replacing PA
*maxkwa we have fully Algonquian-morpheme-cognate mui'n (pl. mui'naq),
shared with Passamaquoddy-Maliseet as muìn (stem muwine-).  These lexemes
point back to a notional pseudo-pre-form *mawīnēw 'berry-eater'.  I.e.
*maw- 'eat', *-īn (< *mīn 'berry') *-ē 'AI abstract Final'--- i.e. this is
the familiar [VERB-Root-e·] construction discussed most recently by Rhodes,
Slavin, and the UW-Madison crew, among others----plus the agent nominalizer
-w.  (The seemingly ahistorical vowel length in Mi'gmaq mui'n is a minimal
word constraint effect, same as in wa'w 'egg', ta'n 'how...?', and gi's
'already'.)

(Cf. the Penobscot replacement for PA 'beaver': təmahkʷe from notional
*təmāxkwēw 'wood cutter' i.e. təm- 'sever', -āxkw 'wood', and the same
remaining material as for mui'n above.  Again, taboo effects would be only
one of many ways such alternative terms could come to the fore.)

So it's more likely than not that multiple expressions are floating around
the various speech communities---for who knows how long---and then at
various points get "core" status for any number of sociolinguistic
reasons.  Hence Penobscot awehsohs 'bear' is effective cognate to a term in
Menomini, if I recall correctly.

I also agree that long-term significant multilingualism is the most likely
source of convergence.  That's usually what's claimed for various other
Sprachbunds of the world.  Certainly it's pretty amazing how much deeply
unrelated languages like Hmong and Thai share---phonologically,
lexicogramatically, etc.----due to a mix of both shallow and deep
multilingualism, along with their other neighbors in mainland Southeast
Asia.  Same again for, say, originally only distantly related Bulgarian,
Romanian, and Albanian in the Balkan Sprachbund, and for the relentlessly
multilingual corners of Australia: convergence galore.

And Penobscot oral literature reports extensively of long-term captivity in
both directions---even explicitly noting that a captive Mohawk leader
learned to speak Penobscot before being sent home---and while enmity and
warfare between Algonquian- and Iroquoian-speaking communities are the
famous parts of history, we have little way of knowing how much other
contact continued to occur on a friendlier, even more
multilingualism-inducing basis.  Certainly lots of other cultural practices
(wampum, ceremonial dances, etc.) got shared around extensively, and so
we'd expect linguistic practices to follow suit: if nothing else, the many
particular parallels in basic phonology, especially in phonotactics,
phonation, and prosody.

Slán,
bhur gcara

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Danielle E. Cyr <dcyr at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Yeah, I kind of know that. However, the archaeological excavations in the
> Gaspé Peninsula are still so lacking that it is problematic to advance that
> there was no one there when the PEA arrived on the territory. I am aware
> that my claim might be weak, yet there seems to be a missing link somewhere
> and it has yet to be discovered. I find it hard to accept the notion that
> the Gaspé Peninsula remained empty during so many millennia after having
> been populated and been the seat of very active trade along the Gulf of St.
> Lawrence. There must have remained someone there. And the enigma of the
> difference between Micmac and other EA might find an explanation there.
>
> See, for instance, David W. Anthony, 1990, "Migration in Archeology: The
> Baby and the Bathwater". in American Anthropologist. It is really food for
> thought.
>
> Danielle
>
>
>
> Dr. Danielle E. Cyr, Senior Scholar at York University
> 339, boul. Perron ouest
> New Richmond, QC,  G0C 2BO
> dcyr at yorku.ca - 418.392.7271
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> *From*: Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>
> *To*: algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Sent*: Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:49 PM
> *Subject*: Re: [Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?
>
> Danielle,
>
> There is quite a time discrepancy between the Plano Culture, which is
> late Paleo-Indian/Early Archaic and came to end around 6000 BC, and
> Algonquian, whose ancestral tongue Proto-Algonquian is thought to have
> been spoken in the Late Archaic around 2000 B.C. So, who the ancestral
> Mi'gmaq shared languages with is a pretty open question, is it not?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" <dcyr at yorku.ca>:
>
> > The case of the spread of the uvular in Europe is a great example. And a
> > well studied one. Of course it happened at a time when German culture was
> > immensely prestigious, namely through its music, science and literature.
> > So, I guess, anyone who could speak her/his own language with a scent of
> a
> > german accent was to be considered high class.
> > This kind of setting does not sound likely among paleoindian cultures.
> > I think that we are back to Peter Denny's hypothesis of a prolonged
> > linguistic and cultural contact with a non Algonquian population.
> > While doing some reading on the topic, I realized that there is still a
> > wide gap between archaeology and linguistics. Wouldn't it be time that we
> > address that ? Well, I think we are addressing it right now through this
> > conversation.
> > Best to All,
> > Danielle
> > Dr. Danielle E. Cyr, Senior Scholar at York University
> > 339, boul. Perron ouest
> > New Richmond, QC, G0C 2BO
> > dcyr at yorku.ca - 418.392.7271
> > ---- Original Message ----
> > From: David Costa
> > To: "Algonquiana"
> > Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?
> >
> > One reason why I think it would have taken more than just proximity for
> the
> > nasal vowel to pass from Iroquoian into Algonquian is because the
> > Iroquoian/Algonquian border is a much more formidable barrier than that
> > between German and French, or German and Danish, let alone Danish and
> > Norwegian. I?ve never seen any indication that Iroquoians and Algonquian
> > learned each other?s languages with any kind of frequency, and there are
> > no documented Iroquoian loans in Algonquian that I?m aware of (not even
> > in Mahican). In fact, it?s hard to pin down any non-Algonquian influences
> > on any Algonquian language (precontact, of course), aside from a few
> stray
> > Siouan loans. So I suspect if Mahican acquired a whole new vowel from
> > Mohawk, it took more than just both groups being in the Hudson Valley.
> > Dave
> > Folks,
> >
> > I have to disagree with Monica. There are good examples where the
> > history is well understood. It isn't magic clouds touching, but it need
> not
> > be as intimate as intermarriage. Here's the best known example.
> > There has been a lot of work done on the uvular r in Europe, which
> > spread from Paris to northern Germany and Denmark. Here's the wiki map,
> > which looks about right.
> > Distribution of guttural R (e.g. [? ? ?]) in Continental Europe in the
> > mid-20th century.[1] (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttural_R#cite_note-1)
> > not usual only in some educated speech usual in educated speech
> > general
> >
> > Two things to note: 1) the distribution does not coincide completely with
> > any language boundary. 2) where it is not general, it is a marker of
> > educated speech.
> > From early on (The Uvular r in French, Ernest F. Haden Language, Vol. 31,
> > No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1955), pp. 504-510) the literature argues for
> > sociolinguistic factors in the spread to neighboring languages (Italian,
> > pg. 506-7 and German pg. 508). The conclusion being that the cultural
> > prestige alone is enough to spread a phonological trait.
> >
> > You don't have to marry a French woman to learn an uvular r. (Or a Mohawk
> > woman for that matter.)
> > Jane Hill made a similar argument about the Northwest Coast, but with the
> > wrinkle that having languages with (near) overlapping inventories made
> the
> > learning of other languages easier in times of environmental distress
> where
> > the ability to shift identity/allegiance could be a crucial survival
> tool.
> > I just can't lay my hands on the reference at the moment.
> > Rich
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Monica Macaulay wrote:
> > There?s a nice quote from Weinreich that I?ve always liked, on this
> > topic: ?The locus of language contact is in the mind of the
> > bilingual.? When I was an undergrad I kind of imagined these two clouds,
> > Language A and Language B, and then magically they touched, and shared
> > features. Well, no. ;-) That contact is in the mind of the bilingual, or
> > even better, in the minds of a bunch of them.
> > > On Nov 20, 2014, at 12:38 PM, David Costa wrote:
> > >
> > > Generally what?s needed for this kind of borrowing is extensive
> > bilingualism. That can take the form of large numbers of people from the
> > ?other? group marrying in, or by a community gradually switching
> > languages. The longer the period of bilingualism, the greater the
> > influences that can be passed from one language to another. If the nasal
> > vowel passed from Mohawk to Mahican (probably the most geographically
> > plausible option), that might indicate that there was a large group of
> > Mohawks somewhere who switched from speaking Iroquoian to Algonquian.
> Once
> > the feature was established in Mahican, it would have been much easier to
> > pass into other Algonquian languages, specifically Abenaki. (It?s already
> > been established that there are Mahican loanwords in Western Abenaki.)
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >> Yes. Trade languages and their aboriginal use, I'm aware of. But I'm
> > squeamish about accepting the notion that a handful of foreign terms
> > borrowed into an unrelated language can have such a far-reaching effect
> > phonologically on that language. Perhaps my imagination is limited. I
> will
> > keep gnawing.
> > >>
> > >> Michael
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Quoting John Steckley :
> > >>
> > >>> Michael:
> > >>>
> > >>> Another potential source of that influence could be trade languages
> > >>> or lingua franca. When I worked on Gabriel Sagard's dictionary and
> > >>> discovered the presence of the dialects of Wendat plus St. Lawrence
> > >>> Iroquoian, I found that the St. Lawrence Iroquoian came in the form
> > >>> of a trade language, with certain key items--awls, grapes,
> > >>> beads--highlighted. Trade languages existed in a variety of areas in
> > >>> pre- and post-contact Aboriginal North America. In addition to what
> > >>> I found with the St. Lawrence Iroquoian example, there was Mobilian
> > >>> (which included Algonquian and Iroquoian entries) in the southeast,
> > >>> and, of course, Chinook on the West Coast. Being fluent in a trade
> > >>> language used between Iroquoian and Algonquian speakers could cause
> > >>> there to be some phonetic influences.
> > >>>
> > >>> John
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Algonquiana
> > >>> [mailto:algonquiana-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > (mailto:algonquiana-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org)] On Behalf Of
> > >>> Michael McCafferty
> > >>> Sent: November 20, 2014 12:55 PM
> > >>> To: algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > (mailto:algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org)
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you so much, Ives, for your comments and, at least for me,
> > >>> clearing away some of the fog.
> > >>>
> > >>> What I just cannot wrap my head around, though, is how a sound in one
> > >>> language can influence the sound system of totally unrelated
> language.
> > >>> All I can get at is that women from one language group married into
> > >>> or were captured by another group speaking an unrelated language, and
> > >>> in learning the unrelated language use sounds that were in their
> > >>> native language that over time get adopted into the sound system of
> > >>> their husbands. Is this the mechanism for this transfer?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Michael
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Quoting "Goddard, Ives" :
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Eastern duals.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This subject was broached if incompletely treated in my 1967 papers
> > >>>> (NMC Bull. 214:9-10, 104-105, with a reference to the issue having
> > >>>> been earlier raised by Siebert in AA 42:331-333 and to his having
> > told
> > >>>> me that he no longer thought it was an Eastern archaism). An Ottawa
> > >>>> parallel for the formation of the Eastern AI triplural is cited, but
> > >>>> more information on this would be welcome. (I haven?t
> > >>>> looked.) In Delaware these marked plurals are commonly made as
> > >>>> collectives, and many examples are to be found in O?Meara?s Munsee
> > >>>> dictionary (his label is ?emphatic?), as if built on the causative
> > >>>> finals PEA *h and *r. See entries for kchíiw and matáhkeew.
> > Western
> > >>>> Abenaki also appears to have the longer forms as marked (used for an
> > >>>> indefinite number) but not as consistent triplurals. I recall that
> > >>>> the duals are used in Micmac for the people in a boat (always a
> > >>>> countable number). The comparative evidence shows this
> > dual-triplural
> > >>>> contrast gradually emerging and firming up within the Algonquian
> > >>>> languages, becaming fully grammaticalized as such in the languages
> > >>>> furthest from the Iroquoians.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Independently, Unami Delaware has a dual-triplural contrast in
> > >>>> imperatives, at least for some speakers: mi:tsí:t:am ?let?s eat (I
> > and
> > >>>> you sg.)? vs. mi:tsí:t:amo:kw ?let?s eat (I and you pl.).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The nasalized vowel.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On the other hand, it seems likely that the nasalized reflex of PEA
> > >>>> *a: in Mahican, SNEA, and Abenaki reflects the influence of Mohawk,
> > >>>> which has a nasalized vowel of exactly the same odd quality as what
> > >>>> these languages seem usually to have (PAC 39:282 and n. 74).
> > >>>> Penobscot Eastern Abenaki has (mostly) denasalized this vowel but
> > >>>> retained this caret-vowel-like quality. There will be a little more
> > >>>> on this in my eventual ?Loup? paper in PAC 44.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ives
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Algonquiana
> > >>>> [mailto:algonquiana-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > (mailto:algonquiana-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org)] On Behalf Of
> > >>>> Conor Quinn
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:59 PM
> > >>>> To: John Steckley
> > >>>> Cc: ALGONQUIANA at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
> > (mailto:ALGONQUIANA at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG)
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dia dhaoibh, a chairde!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If I'm not mistaken, the notional dual contrast is found in most
> > >>>> (all?) of Eastern Algonquian, and definitely at least as far south
> as
> > >>>> Western and Eastern Abenaki.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's a tricky pattern, because the "duals" are actually just the
> > >>>> familiar verbal plurals of the rest of Algonquian. E.g. they reflect
> > >>>> the various plural person markings (among them reflex of PA *-aki
> > >>>> (with Idp) or the EAlg version of PA *-wa·-t, i.e. *-h?ti?-t).
> > While
> > >>>> the more-than-dual plurals are limited to AI stems, with an added
> > >>>> stem-extensional element---most but not all arising historically
> from
> > >>>> transitivization (= TA), then reciprocalization (= AI again)---which
> > >>>> then takes the same pluralization morphology as the "dual".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So the contrast looks like it emerges from a notion of a minimal
> > >>>> plural (= just the general Algonquian plural morphology) vs. an
> > >>>> extended/non-minimal plural (= this new stem-extensional element
> > added
> > >>>> in).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What's particularly striking about these systems is that they're not
> > >>>> in fact strictly dual vs. strictly (more-than-two) plural. The
> > >>>> familiar-Algonquian-type simple plurals generally do get a dual
> > >>>> reading...but if the stems inherently imply more-than-two -type
> > >>>> participants---e.g. if they incorporate a number 'three' or above,
> or
> > >>>> refer to collective/mass action---they very often do not use the
> > >>>> stem-extensional element, and so superficially have a "dual"
> > >>>> pluralization pattern.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As far as I know, the only place where there's a completely strict
> > >>>> dual vs. plural distinction is in the Mi'gmaq motion verbs, where
> > >>>> -ie/-a' and -a'si (roughly, 'go..., change...') are systematically
> > >>>> replaced with -a'ti for dual, and -(i)ta' for plural.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Apropos of the original question, I think Ives might have suggested
> a
> > >>>> possible Iroquoian contact influence in one of his two papers on the
> > >>>> "intrusive nasal" reflex of PEA *a?. But I might be thinking of some
> > >>>> other source; and it's always struck me as a little tenuous given
> > that
> > >>>> the N. Iroquoian languages I'm aware of systematically have
> > >>>> contrastive nasalization only in vowels other than /a/. So the
> > >>>> contact effect would be oddly indirect/abstracted.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> David Pentland and I have both independently noted some possible
> > cases
> > >>>> of lexical borrowing. Off the top of my head, 'eel' and 'great
> horned
> > >>>> owl' in the northeastern-area Algonquian languages (i.e.
> > >>>> Mi'gmaq gat(ew)-, PsmMl ka?t(e); Penobscot tiht?k?li, PsmMl
> > >>>> tihtiko?l) may have Iroquoian links. I don't have the relevant
> > >>>> Iroquian material at hand, though, and David likely has a more
> > >>>> extensive list.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hope that helps!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Till later, keep safe and sane.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Slán,
> > >>>> bhur gcara
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> P.S. Is the Denny article the one that suggests PA *?entiy-
> > 'conifer'
> > >>>> as a possible loan from/with Siouan? And points out the
> > >>>> calque-cognacy (functional equivalence) of *wiki-wa·-hm- with
> > t?i-pi?
> > >>>> If not, who wrote that?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Algonquiana mailing list
> > >>> Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > (mailto:Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org)
> > >>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana
> > (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana)
> > >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and attached material are intended
> > >>> for the use of the individual or organization to whom they are
> > >>> addressed and may not be distributed, copied, or disclosed to other
> > >>> unauthorized persons. This material may contain confidential and/or
> > >>> personal information subject to the provisions of the Freedom of
> > >>> Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of
> > >>> Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and/or the Personal Health
> > >>> Information Protection Act. If you receive this transmission in
> > >>> error, please notify me immediately and delete this message. Do not
> > >>> email, print, copy, distribute, or disclose this email or its
> > >>> contents further. Thank you for your co-operation and assistance.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Algonquiana mailing list
> > >> Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > (mailto:Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org)
> > >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana
> > (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana)
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Algonquiana mailing list
> > > Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > (mailto:Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org)
> > > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana
> > (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana)
> > Monica Macaulay
> > University of Wisconsin
> > Department of Linguistics
> > 1164 Van Hise; 1220 Linden Dr.
> > Madison, WI 53706
> > _______________________________________________
> > Algonquiana mailing list
> > Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > (mailto:Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org)
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana
> > (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana)
> > --
> > Richard A. Rhodes Associate Dean, Undergraduate Division College of
> > Letters and Science 206 Evans #2924 University of California Berkeley, CA
> > 94720
> > The case of the spread of the uvular in Europe is a great example.
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Algonquiana mailing list
> Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Algonquiana mailing list
> Algonquiana at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/algonquiana/attachments/20141120/43606156/attachment.htm>