"J.M.J. Chinook Dictionary, Catechism, Prayers & Hymns"

[David Robertson]

LaXayEm,

khapa Modeste Demers pi F.M. Blanchet Laska bUk (Montreal, 1871), nayka
nanIch ukuk Ikta:

1)  <kopa kaX> (our /khapa qha/) appears to be used as the relative
counterpart of the conjunction <kaX> (qha) "where".  See page 53.

2)  <tlatoa helehi> "to fall down":  not *tlatoa kopa helehi (/LatEwa
khapa IlI7i/) which would be a more literal rendition, i.e. "fall (go) to
earth".  Compare in the handouts from Tony Johnson at the 1998 ChInUk
Lu7lu:  Eula Petite's story "tLatLak" (Grasshopper) has the verb form
<mosh tsuk>, /mash cEqw/, "to throw into the water", also lacking a
preposition.  I might suppose the preposition is optional, and it's marked
so in Mrs. Petite's story.  But the *lack* of /khapa/ looks as though it
impart a meaning to the verb phrase making it distinct from the version
*having* that preposition.  Thus <tlatoa helehi> means "to fall down"
while *<tlatoa kopa helehi> might mean "go on/by land".  Your reactions?

3)  This book contains the only examples I can recall of the interrogative
enclitic particle, here written <na> after a comma, being used in a sense
different from "yes/no" questions.  Specifically, it's used with
WH-questions, meaning "who/what/where/how/when" and so on.  Examples:

	(p.47)	Ikta, na...?
	(51)	Pus kansiX lele, na...?
	(52)	Ikta [NOUN], na...?  (i.e. ikta as adjective)
	(52)	Tlaksta, na...?  (also pp.54, 64)
	(52)	Kata, na...?  (also p.56)

Compare these with, respectively:

	(48)	Ikta...?
	(48)	KansiX ai"u...?
	(54)	Kopa tlaksta [NOUN]...?
	(47)	Tlaksta...?
	(49)	Kata...?

...and with examples of <na> marking yes/no questions scattered throughout
the book.

In other words, <na> is used in both ways:  The usage better known to me
from the CJ literature is as a yes/no marker, but also *optionally* it's
used as an adjunct to WH-questions in Demers and Blancet.  Very
interesting.  Since this book is very frequently considered the finest
document of its kind, it is likely that this use of <na> is not an error
or innovation on the part of the priests who wrote it, wigna?  Does it
reflect e.g. Old Chinook influence?

Best,
Dave




 *VISIT the archives of the CHINOOK jargon and the SALISHAN &
neighboring*
		    <=== languages lists, on the Web! ===>
	   http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/salishan.html
	   http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/chinook.html