Kiksht

[Dell Hymes]

Rob Moore's comments are very useful, but I would have to disagree on
certain aspects of them.

The reason the distinction of Kathlamet from the other parts of Chinookan
did not 'take' is presumably that no one besides Michael and I has a close
knowledge of the linguistic material.  I have in fact seen an
acknowledgement of the distinction but for the moment forget just where.

'Don't confuse us with the facts' is a poor principle for a serious discipline.

One can see how in the utterance from Wishram Texts 'kiksht' might seem
virtually an adjective.
Overall there is an analog to the common construction, noun +
possessed-noun, in which the second element is an attribute,  analogous to
an adjective in English'
'The boy his-sickness' = 'the sick boy'.

So here, all those Kiksht their-speech = Kiksht their-speech all those,
perhaps better  'all those (who are ) Kiksht speakers

But it would seem that kiksht their-speech is to be taken together as a unit,
that the attribute of 'all those' is not represented by 'kiksht' alone.

			all best,

				Dell Hymes