Thanks Linda!

[Jeffrey Kopp]

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 06:51:27 -0800, Nadja Adolf <yakimabelle at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>On the idea that the the Wawa is being modified by end
>users, isn't there an authority similar to the French
>Academy for the Wawa?
. . .
>A clear example
>of this is that the term I had always heard and used
>for rabbit was "kwitshadie"; but until the last Lu?lu
>there was no information available to me that the term
>was incorrect - until someone kindly corrected me at
>the last Lu?lu. 

I think Nadja's message pretty well illustrates the absurdity of language snobbery; when applied to the Jargon, it's ridiculous.  It is a pidgin, an expedient, fluid trading language, which evolved on the fly.  Words joined and faded from the Jargon as they were needed and then  supplanted or lost their usefulness.

If Nadja heard Jargon speakers use "kwitshadie" for "rabbit," who meant to use it that way and were understood, who's to say it's "wrong"?  On the frontier, everyone spoke the Jargon a bit differently, with individual color, pronunciation and vocabulary, reflecting the speaker's original language--whether they be Chinook, from another tribe, a Boston or a Pasiooks--as well as their locale at the moment.  The point is that they made themselves mutually intelligible, and it worked.  Some flexibility and breadth of understanding are required to appreciate the Jargon, to do it justice, and accord it the proper respect it deserves as a significant component of our Northwest heritage, both Native and pioneer.

If someone wants to put a fence around their language or try to canonize it for political purposes (whether the French or the Chinooks), that's their business--but those outside the loop don't deserve to be sneered at for trying.  If an American learns to speak German badly (I understand hardly anyone but the German-born can ever fully master their incredibly complex language), at least they give him credit for trying to reach them halfway, instead of just expecting them to struggle to communicate solely in English.

It's not fair to take something anyone can pick up a book about and try to teach themselves (or try to relearn) and snatch it away, to keep tossing the ball back and forth over their heads in a mean-spirited playground game of "keep away."  I realize the Jargon continued to be used longer on the Grand Ronde than elsewhere (becoming a creole), developing more fully there, incorporating more elements of Old Chinook (reflecting their proportion of the population there).  Well, that's one Jargon, albeit the richest, and perhaps the benchmark for proficiency.  But there are still the upper Willamette Valley 1850s Jargon, the Seattle 1890s Jargon, the transplanted B.C. and lower Alaskan later frontier Jargons.  And the transitory, explorer-era mixed Nootka/Chinook Jargon.  All similar, but distinct, bearing additional historical insights for those who can recognize and understand the reasons for their differences.  And of course, there's the "pre-contact Jargon," which remains shrouded in mystery, presenting the challenge of a linguistic archeological dig.  (I believe it was as fluid and locally variable and everchanging as the post-contact Jargon, and that some arbitrary but necessary educated judgments will have to be made to establish a reference version of it.)

Now there's going to be a contemporary Jargon, contorted to include terms for cell phone and laptop.  That's fine, and it will serve useful purpose in preserving Native cohesion and cultural identity, as well as giving the Jargon a "future"--but in my view it still won't be any more "correct" than, say, the fractured Jargon employed by a Swede to communicate with a German on the Alaskan docks in 1910.  The Jargon lived and breathed: goods were exchanged by it; work was accomplished with it; fights and love were made in it.  People both Native and white at times survived by employing it.

I had hoped the Jargon would serve as an inviting portal for a contemporary public largely indifferent to American history and Native culture, a relatively simple, fun, "tinkertoy" language which would draw ordinary, modern people deeper into understanding what it was like out here before direct-dial long-distance, the transcontinental jet, and network TV; before the railroads; before the farmers and churches; before the first sailing ships.  The 300-word pocket-book Boston Jargon of the late 19th century may be crude and imperfect, but is still very well suited for this purpose.  If one listens hard enough to hear this faint echo of our past, one can begin to feel just a bit what it may have been like to be here then.  If we encourage (or even just allow) people to play with it, some may become intrigued and further interested, and begin to really learn something.  That's the point of my Web site (and I daresay also the Tenas Wawas).  I've learned a lot from it myself, and (perhaps most importantly) learned that there's more to it than I can ever hope to learn myself in the time I have left.

If it must be developed into something new for another purpose, that's fine.  But if we put a velvet rope around it and turn it into a "don't touch" museum exhibit, or a top-secret rocket-research project, then the great potential value of the Jargon as an instrument of public education--or dare I say, as a tool to gain popular support for contemporary Native issues--may be lost.  That would be a shame, and a waste.

Regards,

Jeffrey Kopp