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

[Jim Holton]

Dave, Here's a few observations on your points:

1)  In my workshop notes I have noted that "kopa" has two meanings, one is as
the prepositon that we're familiar with and two it means "over there."  I
actually have a slightly different pronunciation for each.  The preposition is
"khapa" and the "over there" is "khaba:."  "kopa kaX"/"khaba: qha" would be
"over there where."   I've seen the "over there" usage in Jacob's and Zenk's
work

2) In both Jacob's (e.g., "The Origin of Death") and the Shaw line of
dictionaries, "mahsh kopa illahee" has a special connotation in that it means
"to bury" somebody as in they are dead.  The phrase "mahsh illahee" might have
been used to avoid confusion, but I've also noticed that sometimes spoken
Chinook seems to clip things as if they are understood (kopa nayka kwolan) so
I don't know....  If Demers was using it on purpose to avoid saying "to bury",
he might have been using the pattern as a general rule for "mahsh" things and
substituting the word "chuk" as in fall/throw down in water (instead of land).

3.  In a recent conversation I've had with Tony, he relayed to me that "na"
was/is often used at GR as not really making a sentence a question, but to
confirm that the speaker had understood the previous sentence.  It was sort of
a "roger" at the end of a sentence.  The "wigna/wik na" is an offshoot of this
usage. I've noticed that when "na" is used to turn a sentence into a question
in the various books that it seems to appear right before the verb, like
"mayka na klatawa kopa mahkok house?";"Are you going to the store?"  An idea
(probably without any basis :-)) is that it might have dropped out of the GR
Wawa because it conflicted with the embedded pronoun "na";first person.

The points you've brought up are kind of interesting because they point out
(in my opinion) that Wawa seems to have been very stable from at least the
1830s, when Demer's had been learning it, until the present day.  These shades
of meaning are not things that different people would have "come up" with in
an attempt to use a set of words to communicate but must have been learned and
used not only in terms of idiom but also very subtle and specific "grammar
patterns" (remember, I'm not a linguist).

Now here's something for you........

I was reading a book by Leanne Hinton, "Flutes of Fire -Essays on California
Indian Languages."  This is a good book.  She discusses the history and
present state of Native American languages in California which I think many
people in this forum would find very interesting.  There's alot about the
various efforts people are making to keep the languages alive. In the book she
talks a little bit about Wintu nouns.  Wintu nouns are not required to state
whether the object is plural or singular, rather they state whether something
is generic or particular.  Particular meaning that the object has some
importance to the speaker so it stands out from the general class. The
particular can translate a "a thing," "the thing," "that thing," etc. as long
as the speaker wants to refer to a particular thing. Speakers will often use
this tool as a way of stressing their relationship to things - sometimes using
the generic when you'd think they'd use the specific to distance themselves
from the object.  This kind of reminds me how nouns are treated in Wawa with
the use of "ukuk."  It seems that nouns in Wawa are generic unless they are
preceded or followed by "ukuk" and that the lack of a plural state is not
really a "simplification" of the English plural/singular system but could be
based on this other grammar/pattern as often inferred.  Sometimes the standard
"that"/"those" translation of "ukuk" sounds a bit off / hokey to me (that's
scientific :-)  )so that's why I have been thinking about this. I'd don't know
much about the other Native American languages in the NW, but is this pattern
found in Old Chinook or any of the other languages?  I'd be interested in
getting yours and other peoples thoughts.

I've also noticed another thing in Demer's book that kind of relates to the
first part above.  He has the word "ton" which means "to put away."  Is this
the same word as the present GR Wawa "'tuwan/t!u?wEn" which means not only to
"put away/up" but also "to have/possess."  I've noticed that the other place
that uses this word is Kamloops.  Puget Sound - Coastal BC - Alaska Wawa
doesn't have this word.  I've also noticed a similar trend with "dret/d'let"
in GR and Kamloops, but primarily "delate" in Puget Sound - Coastal BC -
Alaska.  There's a conclusion I'd like to jump to - but I won't.  Anyhow,
interested in your thoughts on this.

hlaXayEm, Jim



David Robertson wrote:

> 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