[Fwd: Returned mail: Cannot send message within 5 days] (fwd)

[David Robertson]

 *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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 09:26:48 +0200
From: Henry Kammler <henry.kammler at stadt-frankfurt.de>
To: David Robertson <drobert at TINCAN.TINCAN.ORG>
Subject: [Fwd: Returned mail: Cannot send message within 5 days]

Hi Dave,

I got this from our daemon and I don't quite understand. Obviously my posting got delivered to the
list. Still, I had this bouncing back.
(Maybe my msg. was for some weird reason sent as attachment? Does your server refuse attachments?)

Cheers,
Henry

***********************
Mail Delivery Subsystem schrieb:

> The original message was received at Tue, 25 May 1999 09:26:06 +0200
> from iktffm.stadt-frankfurt.de [194.172.24.1]

NB!

>
>    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> <CHINOOK at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU>
>
>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> <CHINOOK at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU>... Deferred: Connection timed out with linguist.ldc.upenn.edu.
> Message could not be delivered for 5 days
> Message will be deleted from queue
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reporting-MTA: dns; mail2.stadt-frankfurt.de
> Arrival-Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 09:26:06 +0200
>
> Final-Recipient: RFC822; CHINOOK at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU
> Action: failed
> Status: 4.4.7
> Remote-MTA: DNS; linguist.ldc.upenn.edu
> Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 09:34:43 +0200
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Betreff: Re: Chinook Wawa pe Alaska Boston Wawa
> Datum: Tue, 25 May 1999 09:25:21 +0200
> Von: Henry Kammler <henry.kammler at stadt-frankfurt.de>
> Firma: Museum f|r Vvlkerkunde, Frankfurt am Main
> An: David Robertson <drobert at TINCAN.TINCAN.ORG>
> CC: CHINOOK at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU
> Referenzen: <Pine.SUN.3.95.990523224849.14534A-100000 at tincan.tincan.org>
>
> LaXayEm kanawi-Laqsta,
>
> another *brash* msg. from Henry
>
> > ?-hoochinoo, hooch
>
> This is probably Tlingit. It refers to the Hutsnuwu (xucnu:wu) people of
> Angoon. They were the first ones to set up a distillery and for a while all
> the locally produced booze poured out of the Hutsnuwu community, hence
> "hooch(inoo)".
>
> > Exceptions to the latter rule prove it, I feel.  For example, among some
> > Indian groups (interestingly including Athapaskans, it seems to me) in
> > Alaska, there were traditions equivalent to the "potlatch" common farther
> > south on the Pacific Coast.  Thus that term was used in Alaska as well,
> > and in fact extended for specific local usage e.g. among the Athapaskans
> > where the "stuff potlatch" (giving away of gifts proper) became
> > distinguished in regional English from the "food potlatch" (distribution
> > of quantities of food).
>
> This is interesting because it also reflects ethnolinguistic reality. Probably
> all NWC languages distinguished "feast" and "potlatch". Only the latter served
> as a channel of transmission of hereditary rights/titles and accompanying
> wealth. While the Whites put both events under the generic term "potlatch",
> from the native point of view these gatherings fell into quite different
> categories, though both shared the feature of giving away great quantities of
> food. Interior nations as the Ahtna, Tahltan and Wetsuwet'en came to be
> involved into the potlatch system and thus probably also developed the two
> categories of give-away gatherings.
> Sorry if I stated the obvious...
>
> > Furthermore, I suspect that use of Chinook Jargon was never even attempted
> > by whites for communication with Aleut and Inuit people.  Guidebooks of
> > the time of the American and Canadian influx to Alaska routinely propose
> > the Jargon for use with "Indians", as an "Indian" language.  It seems to
> > have been implicitly understood that these other two groups were not
> > Indians.
>
> This is what keeps puzzling me. The somewhat arbitrary distinction between
> Eskimo/Inuit/Yuit and "Indians" seems to have a very long tradition. As if the
> Saami ("Lapps") where not Europeans...
>
> Lush San,
>
> Henry K.