phil's article...

[phil cash cash]

My apologies, I sent this private message in error (both to the 
listserv and in
the subj line)!!  I am not sure how you can ignore it but just know that it
does not belong here. 
Phil Cash Cash
UofA
Quoting 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  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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20080613/d850aa17/attachment.htm>