Whiskey jack, the bird, and high muck

[Jeffrey Kopp]

This is an interesting thread to start (or possibly a can of worms to open).  I am not familiar myself with all the intricacies and ramifications of "language death" and preservation, but to me "survivable status" for the Jargon would be that (1) the Northwest's general public would know (once again) what the heck it is, and a fair number would at least recognize (and hopefully understand) its key terms, (2) a sufficient number of people would be able to speak it that the Jargon would retain currency (at least in a segment of the PNW population) and therefore be passed on to new generations.

For anybody new here (or hasn't paid close attention), there is considerable contention about just which of the many flavors of Jargon should be concentrated upon for revival and preservation through research, reconstruction, documentation and teaching.  But that's one of the things that keeps this list and "our group" going.  Adding necessary, functional contemporary terms to the Jargon is difficult, and while Tony has demonstrated creativity and ingenuity in coming up with understandable terms for modern things like telephone and office, some devices and concepts (like computers) remain difficult, as they are so far removed from the Jargon's day and limited vocabulary that constructing "authentic" Jargon terms may prove impossible, and require resorting to arbitrary invention of a whole new words.

The Jargon has suffered a bad rap for a century for a number of reasons:  While it was a vital tool on the frontier, it was always an expedient, makeshift necessity, and never developed a literature or substantial body of story and legend (here overlooking the quirky Kamloops Wawa, as well as modern efforts--although some basic traditional Native tales were translated into Jargon, which survive in fragments).  It served well for trade and day-to-day affairs, but people who attempted using it to explain abstract concepts (i.e., the missionaries) developed a distaste for it and complained of its severe limits.  I'm sure the Natives had fun with it as well as enjoyed its functionality, but certainly also found it lacking as a means of cultural transmission.

I've found whites (the few who know what it is) are kind of embarrassed by the Jargon as (1) it reminds us that we displaced an aboriginal population and (2) vain Seattleites have always been eagerly forward-looking (they threw a World's Fair; pushed Smith Tower, the Seafirst Building and Columbia Center into the sky; build jet aircraft) and remain more than a bit shy about the relative recentness of their rustic origins (lumbering, the waterfront).  Bill Spiedel's jokey and sarcastic book "Sons of the Profits" and "Seattle Underground Tour" narrative reflect this insecurity in their defensively preemptive (and some feel distasteful and unnecessary) ridicule of Seattle's less than glittering past.

I suspect the Natives were less than enthusiastic about the Jargon because (1) it was a pidgin, crude compared to their own elegant and complex languages; and (2) a reminder of their days of decline by epidemic and the resultant shattering of their culture and displacement by whites.

Well, now that we've crossed into the 21st century, the past disdain for the Jargon has mostly died out along with almost all who remembered it, so now we are scrambling to keep it alive, as a different, brighter light shines on it today.

In regards to Dave L's difficulty getting professors to accept Jargon terms or Native concepts in writing, I'd suggest perhaps terms whose meaning might seem obvious to him might merely require a bit more explanation.  While the profs may know well what you're talking about, they may regard the terms as obscure today, and simply want to see the ideas developed further in writing, with a view toward their being properly understood by a reader who may lack familiarity with the subject (as well as to ensure the student using the terms properly understands them as well--that's what teachers do.)

Regards,

Jeff

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:17:59 +1000, Colin Bruce <cbruce at SMARTLINE.COM.AU> wrote:

>I'm interested in what people believe "restoring CJ to a survivable status"
>would mean to the members of this list.

>David Lewis <coyotez at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG> on
>11-07-2002 03:53:43

>If a word comes into regular English usage, does it become less Indian?
>Maybe, if the general public is not educated in the true histories of the
>lands they live on. However in indian communities it is not less indian,
>because we continue to pass on our histories to our children. This is an
>interesting question and maybe a subject that deserves some action on the
>part of this listserve, those people who are most interested in finding the
>origins of Indian words and restoring CJ to a survivable status. Indeed, I
>have found professors here at UO questioning my use of terms like potlatch,
>giveaway, gifting, and the like. they do not see these words and ideas as
>legitimate in academic writing.
>David
>