Tsimshian <==> Chinookan (fwd from C. Bruce/C. Roth)

[David D. Robertson]

Subject:    Re: Simalgyax
  Date:    Mon, 12 May 2003 7:35 EST
  From:    cbruce at smartline.com.au
  To:    "David D. Robertson" <ddr11 at columbia.edu>
 « Previous  |  Next »





Just a bit more on my Simalgyax question.  Dr. Roth of the Tsimshian list
had a similar take some of
the comments on the chinook list. I just thought I'd forward them on as
they contain extra detail.

Christopher Roth <cfroth at EARTHLINK.NET>@LIST.UNM.EDU> on 12-05-2003 19:59:55

Please respond to Tsimshian language discussion list <TSIMSHIAN_LANGUAGE-
L at LIST.UNM.EDU>

Sent by:  Tsimshian language discussion list <TSIMSHIAN_LANGUAGE-
L at LIST.UNM.EDU>

As for the idea that Tsimshian and Chinookan are related -- presumably the
old idea that Tsimshian is Penutian -- I'm not skeptical so much because
I've really pursued the question but because I am generally wary of ancient
genetic relationships postulated on the basis of vocabulary items in
contemporary languages.  This is the trap that Joseph Greenberg fell into in
"Languages of the Americas."  What is needed instead is the careful
reconstruction of proto-languages of established families such as Sahaptian,
Tsimshianic, etc.  Edward Sapir long ago suggested Tsimshian might be
Penutian, and that assumption was later undermined, but Marie-Lucie Tarpent,
who works on Nisga'a and Southern Tsimshian, has lately come around to
agreeing with Sapir again.  Meanwhile, Michael Silverstein, who has worked
on Chinookan for some decades now, feels that Sapir's intuition was
incorrect (this is what he told me last time we discussed it) and that
similarities between Tsimshianic and Chinookan were due to similarities that
arise wherever there is split ergativity, which both languages have.  So,
it's a hot debate, but, wherever you come down on it, we should not be
comparing Chinookan and Tsimshian -- let alone Tsimshian and Chinook Jargon!
-- but instead should be comparing proto-Tsimshianic to proto-Chinookan,
proto-Sahaptian, proto-Penutian, etc.  That is a long painstaking process
and one which has not been undertaken completely.  I believe that Tarpent's
work on this is mostly not published, but I do refer anyone to her article
"Tsimshianic and Penutian: Problems, Methods, Results, and Implications,"
International Journal of American Linguistics 63(1) (1997):65-112.

CJ is one of the worst ways to get at Chinookan proper, since CJ's lexical
sources are so diffuse and since Chinookan itself has been so well
documented by Jacobs, Boas, Sapir, French, Silverstein, Hymes, et al.  It's
one of the best documented near-extinct languages.

As for the mama/papa universals, the funny thing about them is they're so
widespread that common genetic origin can't be what's going on.  Darned if I
DO know what's going on, though.  I refer people to Roman Jakobson, "Why
'Mama' and 'Papa'?," in Perspectives in Psychological Theory, ed. by B.
Kaplan and S. Wapner (1960), N.Y., International Universities Press.  Also:
Edmund Leach, "More about 'Mama' and 'Papa'," in Rethinking Kinship and
Marriage, ed. by Rodney Needham (1971), London, Tavistock.

Hope that helps.  Feel free to copy this into the CJ list if there's a
debate there on this.

Chris Roth