[fwd from A. Grant] re: "sikhs" / "paramour"

[David D. Robertson]

[A note from your moderator:  I often forward messages from Anthony to the
list because he has preferred to send them to my address, not because I'm
the primus censor inter pares.  Also note that Nadja's messages to the list
come up with unusual-looking subject lines because she's sending them as
replies to the daily digest version of CHINOOK, rather than to individual
messages posted.  Anyone with questions about these issues is encouraged to
contact me.  Hayash masi  --  Dave R.]

From: "Anthony Grant" <Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com>
To: "The Chinook List" <CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re:  CHINOOK Digest - 15 Nov 2002 to 17 Nov 2002 (#2002-164)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:28:42 -0000

Regarding Nadja's question:  tillikum/tilXam used to mean 'male' at least at
one time in CJ, as H Hale in 1846 gives a form which we may spell
/tilXam-mama/ as meaning 'father'.  His CJ usage reflects the speech of Ft
Vancouver c. 1841.  In Chinook proper. mama means father (as it does in
georgian), so that the sense would have confused anglophone and francophone
people who associated 'mama' with mothers.

I hope this helps a little.

Keep up the good work

Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
To: Recipients of CHINOOK digests <CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:00 AM
Subject: CHINOOK Digest - 15 Nov 2002 to 17 Nov 2002 (#2002-164)


> There is one message totalling 57 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. A further question?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Sat, 16 Nov 2002 19:01:41 -0800
> From:    Nadja Adolf <yakimabelle at YAHOO.COM>
> Subject: A further question?
>
> Date:    Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:56:15 -0500
>               From:    "David D. Robertson"
> <ddr11 at COLUMBIA.EDU>
>               Subject: "Friend"...was...Re: CHINOOK
> Digest - 9 Nov 2002 to 14 Nov
>               2002
>                        (#2002-162)
>
> Klahowya:
>
> My question is this - Tony once told me that Sikhs was
> always applied only to men. Was this only at GR? Or is
> it acceptable for women to use it to apply to other
> women?
>
> I had used tillikum for a female friend - and received
> suggestions that this was unintelligible, and sikhs
> was suggested - but it is masculine only.
>
> Sikhs opitska was also suggested, but that seems to
> imply sweetheart or paramour.
>
> Or has this information been updated?
>
> Lost in the woods,
>
> Nadja
>
>               Nadja, lhaXayam,
>
>               The sense "paramour" for "sikhs" may be
> most likely if a woman is
>               speaking
>               of a man or vice versa; I may be wrong.
>
>               If not wrong--a woman calling a woman
> "sikhs", or a man calling a man
>               this,
>               might be good ol' neutral "friend".
>
>               Depends on your preference, I reckon.
>
>               --Dave