R. Moore reply re: Kiksht

[Dave Robertson]

Hi,

I have of course noticed that the Ethnologue is wildly at variance with the very
clear consensus of scholars who have actually worked on Chinookan languages, but
haven't had the time to devote to the interesting forensic task of locating the
source(s) of the (mis-) information (in which the odd spelling 'Clackama' --
perhaps
a pseudo-singular created by back-formation from an erroneous parsing of the
word
'Clackamas' as an English plural -- would seem a valuable clue).

The classification of the Chinookan languages and dialects that I mentioned
in 2000
involves two large, roughly "language"-level groupings, Lower Chinook and Upper
Chinook, the former of which is subdivided into Shoalwater and Clatsop, the
latter
of which is divided on the one hand into Kathlamet, and on the other into
the set of
intergrading dialects known natively as Kiksht (including under this name the
relatively well-known Wasco-Wishram and Clackamas dialects as well as others for
which the documentation is spottier, e.g., Hood [or, Dog] River, Multnomah,
etc.)  

If people would consult the obvious published and widely available sources and
relevant reference works, they would find that the classification given
above (and
earlier by me in 2000) in fact reflects the consensus view among scholars. 
See, for
example, the Smithsonian Institution's Handbook of North American Indians
(vol 17,
Languages; vol 7, Northwest Coast, contains Silverstein's sketch of
"Chinookans of
the Lower Columbia"; vol 12, Plateau, contains David and Kathrine French's
sketch
for "Wasco, Wishram, Cascades"; note that the Handbook editors used
geographical and
'culture-area' criteria rather than linguistic ones in apportioning sketches to
different volumes).  

In fact, one finds this classification of the Chinookan languages with only
minor
differences of detail from Sapir's 1907 "Preliminary report on the language and
mythology of the Upper Chinook" (American Anthropologist, n.s., 9: 533-544)
through
to Silverstein's 1974 monograph on "Dialectal Developments in Chinookan
Tense-Aspect
Systems, an Areal-Historical Analysis"  (International Journal of American
Linguistics, Memoir 29 [= IJAL 40(4), part 2]), and beyond (e.g., Hymes's
1981 book
"In Vain I Tried to Tell You" [University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981]).  

I have no idea where the Ethnologue got its information (it is hardly a pressing
matter since all of the Chinookan languages with the exception of Kiksht are
long
extinct).  Let me know if you find out!

cheers,

Rob


--- On Mon, 6/30/08, David D Robertson <ddr11 at COLUMBIA.EDU> wrote:

> From: David D Robertson <ddr11 at COLUMBIA.EDU>
> Subject: Kiksht
> To: CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
> Date: Monday, June 30, 2008, 11:26 PM
> ave,
> 
> I tried to post the following a month ago but I don't
> think it ever
> appeared, did it?
> 
> Maybe you can cut and paste, then push the right buttons to
> make it so? :)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim
> 
> jlarmagost at verizon.net
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jlarmagost [mailto:jlarmagost at verizon.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:18 PM
> To: Chinook Studies List
> Subject: Kiksht
> 
> 
> The old pros will probably grind their teeth over this, but
> I've got to ask.
> 
> Rob Moore's posting to this list on 1/31/2000 gives the
> (Lower) Chinook
> dialects as Clatsop and Shoalwater and the Upper Chinook
> varieties as
> Kathlamet and Kiksht, where Kiksht is the dialect-cluster
> including
> Clackamas on the Willamette and all the varieties higher up
> the Columbia
> than Kathlamet).
> 
> On the other hand, the online version of Ethnologue, at
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=92410,
> shows the two
> branches of Chinookan as (Lower) Chinook and Wasco-Wishram
> (AKA Upper
> Chinook). (Lower) Chinook is said to have three dialects:
> Klatsop (Tlatsop),
> Clackama and Kiksht.
> 
> My question is why Ethnologue, which is supposed to be
> highly respected, is
> at such variance. Did somebody once use "Kiksht"
> as another name for
> Shoalwater? Did somebody once think that Clackama(s),
> despite its outlying
> location, is nonetheless most closely related
> linguistically to Clatsop and
> Shoalwater?
> 
> My head is spinning!
> 
> Jim
> 
> jlarmagost at verizon.net
> 
> 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!