camas & pre-CJ trade vocabulary

[Mike Cleven]

"Scott Tyler, M.D." wrote:
>
> I like your 'brand name' concept as an explanation for word similarities.
>
> This may be particularly true for trade items such as the canoe--most
> commonly used
> was the Nootkan style from Columbia river, up to the top of Vancouver
> Island, and into Puget sound.
> Common called  chapac' = this term does appear in Gibbs as a Wawa term for
> Canoe along with kanim.
>
> bukwach, maawich for deer is another term that is wide spread.

Likewise moolack.


>
> oopooch  at Neah Bay, to opich at Nisqually for  'behind, bottom, or gluteus
> maximus.
>   an  oopooch is something which every member of every tribe has--provided
> there has been no trauma or major birth defect.
>
> hum, um,  =  stink or feces is wide spread in pretty much the same area--the
> use of the term in describing a baby as in, ''the baby is hummy"
> is occassionally used in Lapwai on the Nez Perce reservation--though they
> (Nez Perce ) have their own terms.  The may be explained by
> intermarriage with coastal tribes, or even words borrowed from Makah Indian
> missionaries who moved there early in the last century.
>
>  hykwa =  Dentiliaum is a similar object--it is found in one or two places
> on Vancouver Island (Ehaitesaht or in Nuchatlet villages).  This was Indian
> money, much wanted,  a rare commodity.  The Wawa word is likely of
> Nuchanulth origin.  My guess is there should be a similar term from Alaska
> to Northern California on the
> coast, and spreading inward to the Dakotas.  Does any one know of an studies
> done on the etymology of  Hykwa? How wide spread is the term or variations
> of it?
> It would be interesting if it spread so far as the east coast.

Interesting that Hykwa, as a sort of currency, would retain its name
through different languages; similarly camas etc.  Makes me wonder if
the term for "coppers" (whatever it was; I don't mean the metal, but
rather the embossed shields that served somewhat like currency) also had
a continuous name across different languages; of course each copper had
a name proper; but I mean the term for them.
>
> This same concept may be applied to some aspects of Native belief.
>   A very wide spread cultural concept is found in Native Mythology--the
> first people were animal people before the people (Indians) we see now
> arrived.
>  Then as story would be told how eagle did this, owl said that, mouse used
> his power to do such and such. etc.

Which raises the issue of "frog" if not "duck"; both names in CJ are
onomatopaeic (haht-haht being pretty much like quack-quack); but the
existence of frog clans throughout the region might (?) suggest
something other than onomatopaeic continuity, rather a recognition of
kinship between clan members across different language/culture groups.
This doesn't happen in the case of eagle, bear and killer-whale clans,
though, so....
>
> A cultural symbol may demonstrate a common origin like "the little girl in a
> rain coat on a brand of salt" or the 'triangular emblem on a Mercedes car".
> A native artistic symbol is the Swastika.  It is spread throughout the
> Americas.  It is also spread through out Asia.
> The swastika is found among Hindus, is on Buddhist art--visit the temple in
> Bellevue, Washington there is a large red one interwoven beautifully on a
> silk tapestry there.  The swastika is found on Zoroastrian art--the original
> religion of Darius in the Bible, the ruler of ancient Persia.  The Three
> Magi  also called the Three Wise men (not 3 wise guys) who came to Bethleham
> to find Christ were Zoroastrian priests who were astronomers waiting for a
> star to appear in the west of Persia.
>
> The swastika did not become part of Christian symbols--I do not think Adolf
> Hitler counts--though he may have been a Catholic, and the head of
> predominantly Lutheran nation.  The  Nazis did ruin a perfectly good
> religious symbol (the swastika) as it became inextricably bound to the
> concept of genocide, racial superiority
> and wide spread oppression.

It's worth commenting that the Nazi Swastika is in the _reverse_
direction of the Hindu-Zoroastrian one, which represents "life"; the
reversal of this is obviously "death".  Unfortunately most people today
can't tell the difference, other than esotericists....

MC
>
> Part of the devolopmental assessment of a human child 1-2 years of age, is
> the ability to make an X  or a cross shape--see denver developmental screen.
> This goes for all humans.  A two year old can make a cross and if he gets
> bored he will extra lines and before you know he has made a swastika.
> This design could have spontaneous occurred any where in the world made by
> any child, but its ties to religion especially far eastern religion is
> interesting.
>
> Scott
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David D. Robertson [SMTP:ddr11 at COLUMBIA.EDU]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 2:59 PM
> > To:   CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
> > Subject:      Re: camas & pre-CJ trade vocabulary
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > Thanks to Alan, Scott B., Scott T., Dell, and many others for a good
> > discussion of both "camas" and a possible pre-CJ trade vocabulary.  We've
> > touched just lightly on the latter idea in previous conversations here, so
> > I wonder if folks may have more to say on that subject now.
> >
> > In light of some excellent work on "Nootka Jargon", "Haida Jargon", and
> > etymologies of some of the first words recorded from the core Chinook
> > Jargon region along the Columbia River, it's fascinating to consider a
> > possible pre-contact trade-centered lingo.
> >
> > What vocabulary can we infer, and what can we reconstruct, of such a
> > lingo?
> >
> > How much shall we discount the occurrence of area-wide terms for certain
> > concepts, given that the Pacific Northwest is a classic
> > linguistic "Sprachbund" (a region where even unrelated language families
> > share a significant set of characteristics)?
> >
> > For example, terms for "frog" and "duck" are uncannily similar throughout
> > NW languages, but that's no proof of any particular sort of relations
> > among 'em.  Of course frogs and ducks aren't human social phenomena, which
> > as Dell et al. rightly point out, are among the most promising materials
> > to
> > look at for evidence of intercultural contact.  Items we know were
> > exchanged through trade networks are particularly likely to have had
> > widely
> > understood names.
> >
> > Brand recognition!
> >
> > As you can see, I'm very interested in the question of discerning various
> > kinds of language contact:  Neighborly relations through centuries; abrupt
> > mutual discovery; long-distance trade networks; and so forth.
> >
> > Your thoughts?
> >
> > Dave