phil's article...

[phil cash cash]

Hi Rob, enclosed is my edited document.  I have made some minor though key
changes on following up with your set of recent questions.  They were all good
questions so I made a focused attempt here to address them.  My notes on these
changes/additions are given below.

(I've also inserted your abstract. Does this still stand, or does it need
changing at this stage?)

My abstract was slightly modified & clarified given the expanded topical
information.

(p.1 You have Kawagley (1991). But this appears as Kawagely in your list of
Refernces. Please advise which is correct.)

Changed reference to: Kawagley.
(
(p.2 You have Hunn et al (1996). But it appears as 1998 in your References.
Which is correct?)

Changed citation date to: 1998.

(p.4 We'll need a page number for your Myth Locales quote please.)

Added page number: 10.

(The long quote on p.4-5 is drawn from Cash Cash (2004) Is this 2004a or 2004b?
Also we need a page number for the quote please.)

Added citation: (Cash Cash 2004a:11)

(The long quote begins: "The place [a rock art site] you are talking about was a
probably witness .."  Should this read "was probably a witness"? Or is the
former a direct representation of the Elder's actual words. If so, we probably
need <sic> inserted here.)

Added sic: "...probably [sic] witness to what happened..."

(You refer to Cash Cash 2004 in the paragraph following this long quote. Is this
2004a or 2004b?)

Added citation: Cash Cash 2004a:13.

(p.2 Re the sample of placenames fromt he Southern Columbia Plateau that you
refer to: * How was this sample chosen?)

The term "sample" was incidentally misused here.  I believe it has too strong of
an analytic meaning when all I intended here was to use representative examples.
 So I reshaped the text to reflect this.  I also clarifies where my data is
coming from by adding a new subheading.  So now two subheadings are paired
together under the main heading "Placenames from the Southern Columbia
Plateau".  Once I did this, I think it made all the difference.

(*Are the 90 names that relate to the Wallowa Mountains area all the names known
for this locality, or are there more? If there are more, how were the 90
chosen?)

This number represents all the known documented placenames for this region.

(* I find it remarkable that you are able to account for ALL the names in the
sample as belong to either of 3 simple categories. Were there no opaque names?)

Yes, there were at least 5-10 partially opaques placenames.  The descriptive
components of the these placenames were not immediately recognized by the
consultants.  I say 5-10 because we have been able to reconstruct some of these
since my research report was issued.  So I went ahead and added a simple
statement noting the presence of "a small number" of opaque placenames.  I
don't think it changes the percentages in any real way since the content is
attributable but not recognized.

(* are the 3 categories mutually exclusive? Or can a placename belong to several
categories at once (eg referring to both landforms and flora or fauna)?)

No, the categories can be belong the more than one of the categories.  An
example is given.

(The examples you provide are excellent. Would you be able to provide additional
examples that relate to landforms and hydrogeographic features and exampels that
refer to people?)

Yes, another examples is provided.

(Would you consider including the list of 90 placenames in an appendix to the
paper?)

No, my tribe is in the process of compiling for publication an atlas of all our
placenames, including the ones listed here.

(In the text (p.3) you identify the placename suffix as -pa 'at/on'. In examples
1) and 3) it appears as -pe. In example 2) it appears as -p. Is there an error
here, or are these allomorphs? If we do have allomorphy here, could you explain
it in a footnote please.)

I have included an added description of -p in the text.

Finally, I rechecked my examples and regularized everything to a consistent
practical orthography rather than a more technical one.  This should be easier
to handle since it now only has one unicode character X in example 1.

Btw, there are two strange bracket characters [ ] in the second paragraph in
page 2.  I try to delete them but no go.  But when I print the page they do not
show up anywhere.  So anyway, they seem a nuisance.

I hope all of these changes make for a clear and legible presentation.  Just let
me know if there is any additional changes/additions I should consider.

take care,

Phil

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CashCashedit8June.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 121344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20080613/658708fe/attachment.doc>