Another question on the KW text containing SAIN

[David D. Robertson]

Klahawiam, Colin,

Thanks for your question.  The word /pus/ is part of the core of a little
study I've just written.  You've got a good insight into how /pus/ works,
I think: it does sort of give a verb a 'subjunctive / conditional' feel.
(Even more so among some speakers at Grand Ronde, but here I'm talking
about Kamloops Wawa.)  You could think of /pus/ as meaning 'that' in the
sense of '...that he (should) do it,' or 'for' in the sense of '(I
want)...for you to do it.'

So this is used, kind of like subjunctives in European languages, mostly
to talk about someone trying to manipulate somebody else to do something.
(Linguists: I'm borrowing and changing some of T. Givon's terms.)
Examples include ordering / asking / praying / gesturing for someone to do
something.

The original meaning of /pus/, as far as I know, is 'for' or 'if.'  The
word is still used that way in all varieties of Jargon.  Of course bear in
mind that some folks says /spus/ or /spos/ instead, and those folks often
seem to me like their Jargon is more influenced by English.  For example
they might say /spos/ for 'if,' but /kopa/ for 'for' (and maybe no word at
all where Kamloops Wawa would use the subjunctive /pus/).  Invented
examples:

/SPOS maika klatwa, wawa klahawiam./     'If you're leaving, say goodbye.'
/Yaka patlach naika iht dala KOPA ukuk musmus./     'He gave me a dollar
for that cow.'
/Nsaika tiki [NO WORD HERE] maika chako iakwa./     'We want you to come
here.'

Hope this brief sketch conveys some information.

Cheers,

--Dave R.



On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:03:42 -0800, Bruce, Colin
<Colin.Bruce at FRASERHEALTH.CA> wrote:

>I have a question about the use of "pus" of this scentence: "naika SAIN
iaka
>pus chako pi iaka chako."  Is it right that I've seen pus used as a
>conditional/subjunctive marker?  Is it used this way here or is it used as
>an infinitive marker.  What I mean is:  can we translate that phrase these
>ways?
>
>I signalled him to come...
>I signalled would he come...
>I signalled him [to see] if he would come...
>
>Now that I see what I've written it looks like overkill (asking too
detailed
>a question) but jargon seems to have a lot more  subtle nuances than just
>simple paraphrases.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From:  David D. Robertson [mailto:ddr11 at COLUMBIA.EDU]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:15 AM
>To: CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>Subject: Re: Sign component in Jargon
>
>Tlus son, kanawi tilikom,
>
>I'm reminded of a verb I recently found for the first time in "Kamloops
>Wawa" Jargon, /sain/.  This would be pronounced the same as
>English "sign."  Its meaning is clear from the context of the following
>longish anecdote from Medicine Hat, Alberta*, Canada:
>
>/Drit aias ukuk kan [ship],
>wik kata nsaika makmak sitkom;
>naika kwash pus chako masachi;
>pi trin stop kopa iht stishon,
>pi nsaika nanich iawa tanas saia,
>iht Sawash man,
>ayu pint iaka siahush:
>naika SAIN iaka pus chako pi iaka chako,
>pi nsaika patlach ukuk kan ship kopa iaka.
>Nsaika wawa kopa iaka,
>pi wik iaka komtaks,
>wik iaka komtaks Chinuk,
>wik iaka komtaks Inglish,
>pi wik kata nsaika komtaks iaka wawa,
>klunas Blakfut ukuk Sawash./
>
>"This can of ?chips was really big,
>and there was no way we could eat even half of it;
>I was afraid it would go bad;
>but the train stopped at some station,
>and we saw there a short way off,
>an Indian man,
>with his face all painted:
>I TOLD HIM IN SIGN LANGUAGE to come and he came,
>and we gave that can of ?chips to him.
>We spoke to him,
>but he didn't understand,
>he didn't know Chinook,
>he didn't know English,
>and we couldn't understand his speech,
>maybe this Indian was a Blackfoot."
>
>It's interesting to see this word used in a Jargon-only setting.  The
>writer expects his audience (which was largely First Nations people whose
>familiarity with English at the time of writing wasn't necessarily great)
>to understand the word.  It isn't clear whether the writer (a French
>priest) and his companions (a Shuswap and an Okanagan, both chiefs) were
>using an existing sign language or just making fairly obvious gestures;
>the question of the role of sign language in the Kamloops Jargon
>environment deserves more investigation.
>
>Incidentally the above passage tends to confirm that the Rocky Mountains
>were approximately the eastern limit of Jargon use.
>
>*Was Alberta still the Northwest Territory in August 1904?
>
>Cheers,
>
>--Dave R.
>
>(Thanks to Keith Carlson & SSHRC for supporting research on the above.)