Tlingit CJ sound system? Q's about S.V. Johnson thesis

[Mike Cleven]

>
>Hello, tillicums,
>
>Samuel V. Johnson in his thesis "Chinook Jargon: A Computer Assisted
>Analysis of Variation in an American Indian Pidgin" (U. of Kansas, 1978),
>page 211, discusses Tlingit speakers of Chinook Jargon in Alaska. This is
>the only discussion I have heard of such alteration of the CJ sound system
>by Indians. Can any of you give me more information about this, since
>Johnson does not name consultants or locations?

How's that again, Dave?  "This is the only discussion I have heard of such
alteration of the CJ sound system by Indians."  By that I take it you mean
_academic_ discussion; my own concerning this continue to be ignored by the
very people who keep on making the (false) assertion that there was a
consistent sound system used in CJ by Indians; it's one thing to say that
Indians pronounced the Jargon in an Indian way (the same as a Swede would
pronounce it in a Swedish way, or a Chinese in the Chinese way etc.); it's
another to claim that the CJ was spoken across the board by natives using
the same sound system throughout the region.

The pointed example that I will bring up is the hard 'k' heard in BC Jargon,
whether by natives or non-natives, in the word "skookum", which is at marked
variance with the soft k (sounds like g to me) used in GR-native Jargon;
this can not only be heard in the Georgia Strait recordings provided by
Barbara which are on the CD that Jeff produced (hi Jeff! still got me
killfiled?).  It was also markedly evident in the term "skokum hiyo" that
Lisa and I encountered in Siska BC, this being the name of the Jargon used
by the elder of the fellow we were talking to there.

I'm starting to think that all this talk about a native sound system for the
Jargon is really only being put forward to justify the promulgation of GR's
creolized Jargon as some kind of standard, as well as to establish the
higher "validity" of native-spoken Jargon over non-native spoken Jargon; and
to entrench the GR-defined IPA script that, again, seems to be being hyped
as some kind of standard when in fact it cannot be (outside of GR itself).
I'm not alone in this complaint, although I am indeed vocal about it -
having been insulted and drubbed over being non-native in this group
extremely unfairly.  Why is the idea that a "native sound system" was used
pan-regionally so important to you people, if for no other reason than
these?  All I see coming of such arguments is the division of the Jargon
into "the better kind" and "the non-native kind"; despite Tony's assertions
that there is "only one Wawa" (and Henry's contradictory claims about native
Jargon, somehow backing himself up by referring to Tony).

It's all very confusing; and not very unifying; sure, some of you will
complain that it's _me_ that's doing the dividing; but if you weren't
constantly trying to push the non-native history and culture of the Jargon
aside then you wouldn't be at fault, which TMM you are.

If it's simply an academic question of the tautology that "native people
spoke the Jargon using the sound systems of their individual traditional
languages", i.e. that natives spoke the Jargon in a native way, then it's
not a very interesting proposition to start with.  Even if it were, what
about the countless mixed-bloods (I prefer the term "halfbreed" but of
course the PCers no doubt don't like that one; and Metis is inaccurate if
now legally descriptive and definitive in Canada) and frontier non-natives
(some native or mixed by culture)?  They, too, had their own particular ways
of speaking the Jargon.  Why no interest in them?  Or don't they count in
the native-centric view of the Jargon that seems to be becoming the expected
(demanded) standard around here?

MC



>
>Here is the relevant passage:
>
>"Tlingit dialect [i.e. of CJ] does not have labials, i.e., /p/ and /m/,
>though it does have /w/, which is a labialized velar. Also Tlingit [i.e.
>the Tlingit language?] does not have /l/, though it does have /L/ [i.e.
>voiceless lateral fricative]. When Tlingit speakers borrow lexemes from
>other languages **and when they learn CJ,** they tend to replace /p/ with
>the labialized back stop /kw/. They also tend to replace /m/ with /w/ and
>replace /l/ with /n/." [emphasis added]
>
>I have many questions about this brief passage, for example,
>
>-- How many Tlingits would have been learning Chinook Jargon circa 1975;
>
>-- How many would have been hitherto monolingual in Tlingit, lacking
>exposure to English (which would certainly equip them to say [p], [m], and
>[l], assuming that such sounds are indeed markedly difficult) (compare
>perhaps the pronunciations of CJ by speakers of the nasalless languages of
>the circum-Puget Sound region, in most or all of which in fact nasals are
>pronounceable, e.g. in "affective" or diminutive versions of words);
>
>-- And indeed why Johnson presents the above statements, since he does not
>make further reference to these points elsewhere in his thesis.
>
>Further discussion of the implications of the above for language
>universals, for Indian-to-Indian transmission of the CJ phonological
>system, and for limiting effects (due to mutation of the phonology, likely
>reducing distinctions between lexemes) on the geographic spread of CJ,
>would be very warmly welcomed, if you have time.
>
>Best wishes, Dave
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.