Grand Ronde spellings and others for CJ -Reply

[Linda Fink]

Sorry I'm several topics behind. I can't keep up with email.


Tony's explanation makes sense to me. Since Chinuk-wawa (see, I'm trying,
Tony!) was a trade language, it must have been universally understood. When
I figure out what sounds the various weird spellings represent, I can
understand what any of you write once I sound it out -- except for the words
I just plain don't know.

Eula often said that her spellings were just approximations, and that some
sounds just are not in our English alphabet. So the sound some of you
represent by x we just learned by hearing. Now that Dave explained what x is
for me (thanks Dave!) I can read, for example those odd manifestions of
tillikum (tilxem). But I'm still confused as to which one is Tony's
orthography. I hope I am able to get the notes from the workshop!

Hyas mahsie kuba mesika kumdux, kuba wawa kunamokst. Niga dtiggy kumdux pbe
niga iskum kumdux klawah, klawah.

Linda F.

At 12:28 PM 1/12/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>kanawi-Laksta,
>
>I have a few general comments regarding recent discussions on our list.
>Forgive the variety of topics I seldom have the time to respond.
>
>As I have stated previously I do not believe that there were forms of
>Chinuk-wawa that were unintelligible to others.  I acknowledge that
>there were distinctions, but I believe that Chinuk was mutually
>intelligible.  Certainly there were many variations in vocabulary,
>idiomatic expression, etc., but not in the base intelligilbility of the
>language.  I believe the most important difference, and that which has
>led to this recent discussion of dialect, is the varying abilities of
>individuals to properly write the language as spoken by both Indians and
>non-Indians.
>
>I have had the chance to read and listen to transcripts and tape
>recordings of Native speakers of Chinuk-wawa from various locations in
>the NW.  As a person who is conversant in Chinuk I have found all of
>these to be intelligible and in most cases quite similar to the Chinuk
>of Grand Ronde and the Lower Columbia River.  The age of these materials
>vary as widely as their location of origin yet the intelligibility
>remains.  I believe it was the inability of individuals to correctly
>represent the language as spoken, by themselves as well as Natives, that
>has encouraged this confustion.
>
>I should clarify that in Grand Ronde we acknowledge numerous variations
>in pronunciation of our Chinuk.  However it always is mutually
>intellibible.
>
>Regarding the development of our Chinuk orthography:
>
>The recommendations as made by me regarding orthography is based on our
>form of the language.  I believe, as many Chinuk speakers have stated
>from outside of our region, that the most expressive form of Chinuk was
>utilized in the Lower Columbia river area.  This fact and that we are
>actively using the language makes Grand Ronde's contribution to this
>discussion valuable.
>
>An orthography that acknowledges the  influence of non-Native sounds
>allows proper representation of the full language as spoken today.  This
>does not prevent us from noting, or even speaking, the language as
>spoken with less of this influence.  The need for this orthography is
>also apparent because of the horrible corruptions that stem from the
>dictionaries of Chinuk that were previously published.  Even our own
>elders who have written the language, with a English based alphabet,
>could easily be misunderstood by those not familiar with spoken Chinuk.
>This is why a phonetic orthography is convenient to teaching.  I'm using
>the "what you see is what you get" approach.  Despite this our prefered
>forms of words within our lexicon are often represented more
>phonemically than phonetically.
>
>Some of the best older speakers of Chinuk did exhibit the limited vowel
>inventory as represented by our older languages.  However, others who
>were speakers of their older languages spoke Chinuk as influenced by
>Non-Indian languages.
>
>An interesting note is that while Melville Jacobs did not mark these
>distinctions in his printed texts he did note them in the original
>versions in his field notebooks.
>
>Finally, the argument that there is no proper pronunciation or grammar
>of Chinuk is alarming.  We should be careful to note that there are
>variations within the language, but it should also be noted that there
>was an ideal form that Native Chinuk speakers throughout the NW were
>striving for.  I don't believe we all have to speak or write Chinuk the
>same, but we should strive to speak good Chinuk.
>
>Lush pus mesayka munk k!Ilapay c!em khapa nayka.
>
>
>LaXayEm--Tony
>
>