Why the southern boundary of Chinuk Wawa use?

[Maria Pascua]

Hi Leanne,
I just wanted to comment about the different spellings in the book.  For
those who may not be aware, the Kla-iz-zart tribe is in reference to the
kla-a-satX or 'Makah' tribe who made several trips to Friendly Cove while
Jewitt was in captivity there.  The dialectical differences must have been
challenging for Jewitt to understand.  We pronounce camas today [kwah-dis]
and the MuwachatX band then at Friendly Cove  probably pronounced the same
word with the [n] and a slight vowel change, [kwah-noos]; and the word for
expressing 'Mmmmm!' or saying something tastes good or sweet in Makah is
[cha-bas], and in the Nuuchanulth languages it is [cha-mas]. When people ate
the camas, they probably said of it 'Cha-mas!' 'This tastes so good!' so
perhaps Jewitt thought [cha-mas] was a synonym for 'camas'.
Maria

-----Original Message-----
From: The Chinook List [mailto:CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG]On Behalf
Of Leanne Riding
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10:10 PM
To: CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Why the southern boundary of Chinuk Wawa use?

Yeah I agree, and I seem to have left out some other huge gaps now that
I go back and read what I wrote last post. For instance I forgot to add
also the late 18th C. words recorded in Nootka Sound journals of Cook
(Kerr), Colnett/Martinez (Howay)

That last post of mine was very "eurocentric" (can't think of a better
word), wasn't it. I am in the "interpreting old journals" phase of my
personal development and that's all I know right now... I hope you'll
all bear with me ;)

One journal which looked excellent for the way it described trade was
John Rodgers Jewitt's journal based in Nootka Sound 1803-1806, in which
a lot of familiar sounding words are used. For instance he described
that the "Kla-iz-zarts" brought "an excellent root called by the
Kla-iz-zarts Quawnoose. This is the size of a small onion, but rather
longer, being of a tapering form like a pear, and of a brownish colour.
It is cooked by steam, is always brought in basket ready prepared for
eating, and is in truth a very fine vegetable, being sweet, mealy and of
a most agreeable flavour." Which in my opinion is Camas, possibly baked
rather than steamed. (Jewitt 95, 122) What I'd like to know, though, is
why the word is spelled so differently in the vocabulary in the back of
the book? "Chammass" (207). Does that indicate that someone else wrote
or influenced the list? Or is to do with Jewitt's handwriting?

- Leanne

Jewitt, John R. (John Rodgers), 1783-1821. A narrative of the adventures
and sufferings of John R. Jewitt: only survivor of the ship Boston
during a captivity of nearly three years among the Indians of Nootka
Sound : with an account of the manners, mode of living and religious
opinions of the natives. Ed. Richard Alsop, 1761-1815. (Middletown
[Conn.?] : Printed by Loomis, and Richards and reprinted by Rowland
Hurst, Wakefield, and published by Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown
... London ... , 1816.) Available at Early Canadiana Online.


David Lewis wrote:

> T
>
>
> Hi Leanne,
> Your Southern Boundary question is a good one. It seems to have been
> assumed that the Columbia River is a southern boundary. But I have
> records in the SWORP collections from Grand Ronde, Siletz and further
> south that indicate the Chinook Jargon was well know and used as far
> south as Northern California. This discussion needs to occur within
> concurrent discussions of the Fur Trade, Missionaries, The Shaker
> Church, etc. Because all of these historic themes served to help
> spread Chinook Jargon. If you look into resources on the Indian Shaker
> Church you will find that Chinook Jargon was the main language that
> was used in the Church and that it became the medium for spreading the
> "gospel" to Grand Ronde, Siletz, Klamath, Smith River, and Hupa.
>
> But this is a situation that occurred from 1880's to 1930's. There are
> previous significant historic movements that also helped spread
> Chinook Jargon, Catholic Missionaries, Fur trade etc.
>
> What I would like to focus on is the time before contact with
> Europeans. I have not seem any good research on the spread of Chinook
> Jargon before contact. there are many assumptions, based on Linguistic
> or History theories of the spread of native languages and the assumed
> amount of contact between native peoples. many of these theories are
> based on the premise that Native people did not travel too far from
> their homelands, an assumption which is odd as there are also many
> romantic theories that native peoples were wandering throughout the
> landscape... But we have accounts of Natives being traders bettween
> different tribes across vaste regions. Native people traded goods far
> afield of their homelands. In fact they know how to get places far
> away and communicate with other people which is one reason Natives
> were hired as scouts to lead voyageurs and Lewis and Clark westward.
>
> So taking these understandings to heart, there is no reason to assume
> that Chinook Jargon might not have been spread by Native peoples in a
> time previous to European contact. yes sign language would be a factor
> and yes that may have been impediments to some travel in some areas,
> but by-and-large native people spread their own trade languages over
> vaste areas. Of course, after contact, the Fur Trade helped spread it
> futher and changed the vocabulary significantly.
>
> This may be why, the Karuk of the Klamath River and the Tolowa of the
> coast knew and traded for Dentalium, which they called Aliqua, in
> Northern California, the trade route was an inland route that came
> down the east side of the Cascades and through the Klamath Tribes and
> down the Klamath river. They had at least words of Chinook Jargon in
> their regular knowledge. And George Gibbs, after learning Chinook
> Jargon at Astoria, was hired by Redick McKee in 1850? to be the
> Interpreter for the trip from Sutter's fort to the Oregon Border, and
> helped negotiate and sign treaties with the Indian Tribes along the
> way...
>
> This is a subject that deserves more research, with open eyes and with
> a good understanding of Native culture.
>
> Not that people would not do this nowadays, but it seems to me that
> many researchers become invested in a polemic position and stick to it
> at the expense of history.
>
> David Lewis
>
> To respond to the CHINOOK list, click 'REPLY ALL'.  To respond
> privately to the sender of a message, click 'REPLY'.  Hayu masi!
>

To respond to the CHINOOK list, click 'REPLY ALL'.  To respond privately to
the sender of a message, click 'REPLY'.  Hayu masi!

To respond to the CHINOOK list, click 'REPLY ALL'.  To respond privately to the sender of a message, click 'REPLY'.  Hayu masi!