Learning to speak Tlingit

[Richard Smith]

James,
This was a fantastic post, and you put it in such good words.
this concerns me alot and I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree.
To survive our languages need to be used when giving a sacred prayer
OR asking for bug repellent while scratching a mosquito bite.

I'm seeing some native languages already
being pulled out and dusted off ONLY for sacred ceremony
Reduced to an equivalent of Catholic Latin prayers.

Some can give a prayer or a blessing at the right time
but might not actually be able to say
    "My feet hurt"

Richard Zane Smith
Wyandotte Oklahoma


On 5/6/08 10:43 PM, "James Crippen" <jcrippen at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> 2008/5/5 Jordan Lachler <jordanlachler at gmail.com>:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1nPCGpQ86w
> 
> Goosú wé Lingít yóo xh'atángi, wéi video tóox'? Ch'u tleix' "Lingít"
> xh'axhwa.axhch khu.aa. The video is a disappointment in the end
> because other than using the word "Lingít" to index "Tlingitness",
> there's no Tlingit language spoken. None at all. Not even "Yéi áyá haa
> yóo xh'atángi" or something like it as an introduction.
> 
> The video does make a great point, however, one that bothers me a lot.
> In my personal experience talking to the various people working in
> Tlingit revitalization, there's lots of effort put into learning words
> for *things*, but not learning how to actually express meaning. This
> is partly because of the complexity of the language (it's really hard
> to learn!), partly because its grammar is still not well described
> (I'm working as hard as I can!), and partly because of the existing
> focus on teaching words and phrases rather than communicative ability
> (TPR is not the solution!).
> 
> But I fear that this issue will fly over the heads of the people who
> it's for, in that they *won't* start to think about how they're
> learning to talk. Instead, they'll see this video as reinforcing that
> the words and set phrases they've learned is really a sign that
> they're using the language.
> 
> "I can say the names of all the berries in Tlingit." "I can say 'we
> are cutting fish' in Tlingit." But can you say "I don't want to go and
> pick berries right now. Instead I want to stay home and watch TV
> because my feet hurt" in Tlingit? [1] Why not? What matters more to
> you?
> 
> People gain lots of pride and empowerment from learning a language,
> but then go on to use it only as an occasional token of identity.
> People speak the language, but they don't try to speak *in* the
> language. They learn lots of words and phrases and such, but don't
> ever learn how to even have a basic conversation about something as
> dull as what they did last week. The language becomes a mere tool,
> nothing any more ornamental than a button blanket. It doesn't get used
> out in a boat to ward off the cold, it doesn't get used to pad a rock
> for sitting on, it doesn't get used to wipe the steam off of a window.
> Instead it only gets taken out for ceremonial occasions, treated
> gently and with great respect. It only gets used to say "look here I'm
> Tlingit" when the people with money and power are looking, and is
> otherwise shoved back in a box for the next time someone needs to show
> it off.
> 
> The language isn't just some dead at.óowu passed on from elders to be
> cherished as a valuable artifact. It's the very life of being, it's
> the xh'aséikw of the people. Who cares if it gets used for
> introductions in a political speech? Who cares if it gets used at an
> immersion camp that cost tens of thousands of dollars to arrange and
> only brought twenty people? What really matters is if it gets used in
> the kitchen while making dinner, or at the store while buying
> potatoes, or in the car while driving to work. It needs to live, not
> be some dusty old mask in a box that people only take out to prove
> their lineage and status.
> 
> My point is that an endangered language like Tlingit isn't just a sign
> to index political and social alignment, it's a living thing that
> deserves to be used, deserves to have our breath pass through it. If
> we're supposed to be revitalizing a language, that means really saying
> things with it rather than saying things *about* it. And if people are
> going to say things with it, then they need to really learn how to
> speak and not just how to read phrases from a book.
> 
> I hear the same refrain over and over from people that revitalization
> costs too much, that there's just not enough support for it, or that
> it takes too much time to really learn to talk. Too often people focus
> on how to get money for a project, where the money should come from,
> who should control the money, who should control the people who
> control the money, ad nauseam. But revitalization shouldn't cost
> anything at all. If the language is important enough to save then
> people ought to be willing to put their own free time into keeping it
> alive, and not worrying about who's going to get the government
> cheese. It's not about how to look good, or to gain prestige or power
> or money. Revitalization is really about learning to speak the
> language because you care about it, because you love it and you love
> the people who speak it, and you want to keep that alive. There's no
> other reason necessary. Politics, identity, postcolonialism,
> education, government, autonomy, history, none of that other crap
> matters except for how to get around it so you can get on with keeping
> the language spoken.
> 
> Yéi áyá axh toowú.
> Jéiwsh
> 
> [1]: To be fair, here's my attempt: Axh xh'ús' yanéekw yáa yakyee. Ách
> áwé, tléil axh toowáa sigóo khukkhwak'eet'. Néilx' yéi xhat natee, TV
> kkhwalateen.