Cathlaminimin

[Alan H. Hartley]

Well, I work faster than I thought!

Gary Moulton, in his footnote on p. 31 of vol. 7 of the Lewis and Clark
journals, derives the name Cathlaminimin (the prevailing modern form)
from g-a-La-namn+namn 'ones who have whole(ness) of something', whereas
Lewis (p. 26) spells the name Clan-nah-min-na-mun. (Moulton acknowledges
Moore & Silverstein for help with Chinookan.)

Dell Hymes writes:
"Sapir has a slip with na:'mEn 'whole, a whole, 'all, entirely' in
Wishram Texts
and na':mEnmox 'whole ones'  (E for schwa, o with caret over it (= a).)
Walter Dyk has a separate slip with  namin 'whole, complete'; e.g.,
itcaqwc na:min 'the whole pine tree'  (where c =sh)
>From Hiram Smith, I have namn (the final n marked as syllabic)  'whole
(one piece)'"

Lewis' form Clan-nah-min-na-mun suggests initial L (vl lateral fric.)
and has Dell's namn reduplicated (though Dell knows of no case of redup.
of namn), so it accords well with Moulton's etymology.  I don't know
just what "ones who have whole(ness) of something" means, though! (Dell
suggests lots of fish as a possibility, and Lewis remarks on the great
quantities of eulachon, sturgeon and wapato on Multnomah (Sauvie)
Island.)

It's not clear whether Moulton means to imply (as I took it) that the
two forms are etymologically equivalent, or just that they have the same
referent. In looking more closely, I believe that the shorter, modern
form of the name (without -na-) is simply a result of a copyist's error.

In 1811, the _Annals of Astoria_ (1999, p. 29) and Franchère have the
full form Cathlanaminimin, and in 1822, Morse _Rep. to Secy of War_ has
Cathlanamenamen.

Hodge (HAI I.664) quotes an interesting form that lacks even the La-
prefix: Namanamin (1850, Lane).

The problem perhaps arose in 1821 when Stuart, in _Nouvelles Annales des
Voyages_ X.23, wrote Cathlaminimim, leaving out the first -na- (and
changing the final -n to -m). I assume this is a mistake, because he
later (p. 115) wrote the full form, Cathlanaminimin. His error is
probably copied by later writers (Kathlaminimim (Framboise) 1841;
Katlaminimin (Hodge) 1907; Kathlaminimin (Swanton) 1952). (All these but
Swanton are from Hodge.)

So I suggest the modern form without -na- may be simply a mistaken
shortening of the older, complete form.

Alan