Hypocoristic phrases (in Chinuk-wawa?)...was...Re: Fun withgrammar

[Mike Cleven]

Dave Robertson wrote:
 [snip]
> In the study of contact languages (pidgins, creoles, and so on), there's now a common term, "TMA markers", which is an abbreviation for "tense, mood, and aspect".  Were we to construct such a category for Chinuk-wawa, we would find lumped into it words like /alhqi, anqati/ (seen as having more or less abstract values like "FUTURE, PAST"), /hay(u/a)/ ("PROGRESSIVE" or something like that), and /munk, chaku/ ("CAUSATIVE, PASSIVE").  Note that many or all of these words might, in an alternate and also popular view, be termed "Adverbs", for example.

technical issues aside, I'm curious here; the Seattleite prononciation -
so far as I know - of "alki" is al-kie (as in pie) - isn't it?; I
haven't noticed when in GR that there it's al-kee (or alhqi).  This gets
into that either/or stuff about what's "correct" Jargon or not; no doubt
there's such a thing as Chinuk-Wawa, but I remain divided as to whether
any variation is "incorrect" or not; alkie or alkee; does it matter,
i.e. outside of Chinuk-Wawa proper (i.e. GR)>?


> In the same sort of approach as the former, we might find a separate category of "Verbs", being the words that can be given more specific meanings by the use of the TMA markers.  There would also probably be "Nouns" and "Adjectives" (or "Stative Verbs" or some such).  I say
> 'probably' because this is a Northwest language, and in this region of the world the point has been hotly debated as to whether all languages actually have a Noun/Verb distinction, or whether alternatively any root-form can be employed freely as either.  Nuu-chah-nulth languages (Nootkan) have been the subject of particularly energetic discussion in this light.

|-+    (eyes glazed over, lips pursed)

>
> Categories of words that are easy to defend in Chinuk-wawa are "Interjections", "Pronouns", and "Prepositions".  The latter category, incidentally, includes more words than the "ahnkuttie" popular accounts of Chinook Jargon would have us believe--aside from /khapa/ (kopa), for example, it seems clear to me that /pus/ "for" is one of many other PREP's in this language.

not a conjunction?  or is there a difference?