[Lexicog] Using moccasin, canoe or other words with other Native etymology

Wed Apr 9 00:36:44 UTC 2008

Susan Gehr wrote:

“it’s possible to write that kind of circumlocution”

Virtually any word you use conjures up an image. Ken McElhannon points out
that ‘violin’ and ‘fiddle’ are essentially the same musical instrument.
(There is a slight modification to the bridge.) But they conjure up very
different images, especially of the social situation in which they are used
(tuxedo in a concert hall versus suspenders in a barn). However it would
take a great deal of verbage to adequately describe the form and function of
a ‘fiddle’. It would be much more efficient to define a fiddle in terms of a
violin (or vice versa) and clarify the different social situations in which
each is used. In English we know that there are a variety of moccasins and
canoes. The use of these terms merely serves to more quickly identify the
type of object being described. If you use lengthy circumlocutions, the user
may have a hard time understanding what it is you are talking about. But
even lengthy circumlocutions are likely going to use words that conjure up
images. For instance your definition ‘soft leather heelless shoe’ uses the
word ‘shoe’ which conjures up its own image. In fact I wouldn’t call ‘a soft
leather heelless article of clothing worn on the feet’ a shoe. I would call
it a moccasin. The use of ‘shoe’ conjures up a quite different image.
Likewise a definition such as ‘a vehicle used to navigate lakes and rivers
constructed of bark sewn to a framework of wood
’ simply sounds silly. Using
some other generic term like ‘boat’ or ‘ship’ or (worse) ‘rowboat’ likewise
conjures up an image. Each of us has a prototypical image of a ‘boat’ along
with a range of instances of ‘boats’. I picture a gleaming white fiberglass
boat with a square stern on which is mounted a big outboard motor. I don’t
think this is a better image than the one conjured up by ‘canoe’.

So my recommendation is to pick the word in the analysis language that is
closest in meaning to the vernacular word and add any modifications
necessary to clarify the differences between (for instance) ‘éeyxuvik’ and
‘moccasin’. An option is to use the classic Aristotelian analytical
definition type in which you pick the generic term and then add criterial
features that limit the meaning. In the case of ‘éeyxuvik’ the generic
English term is ‘shoe’ or possibly ‘footware’. In this case your definition
would read, ‘a type of soft leather heelless shoe worn by the imusaan in
ceremony
’ But to me your original definition ‘type of moccasins worn by the
imúsaan in ceremony’  is superior.

But I suspect that the real problem is not the adequacy of the definitions,
but the attitudes of the speakers of the language. Your real problem may be
to educate your users to accept the use of borrowed words such as ‘moccasin’
and ‘canoe’ in the definitions. When a language has been suppressed or
neglected or demeaned, its speakers often want to rebuild its prestige. One
frequently seen reaction is to reject foreign loans and seek the “pure”
language. That may or may not be what is going on here. It is admirable that
the Karuk people have pride in their language and want to promote accuracy
and correctness in their dictionary. I just don’t think that rejecting words
borrowed into English from other Native American languages is a healthy way
to go about it. A better way is to write good descriptive definitions and
include nice pictures.

Ron Moe

SIL International

   _____  

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Susan Gehr
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:19 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Lexicog] Using moccasin, canoe or other words with other Native
etymology

I’m working with an advisory group on the second edition of the Karuk
dictionary, and several of the group members have expressed a concern with
using words like canoe or moccasin in the definitions of Karuk words.  

For example, the word éeyxuvik has the definition ‘type of moccasins worn by
the imúsaan in ceremony.’ 

They are a soft leather heelless shoe, and it’s possible to write that kind
of circumlocution in order to refrain from using words from other tribes.  

I think the feeling is that we want avoid using words that conjure up
non-Karuk imagery.  Is that a legitimate way of handling the concern of the
advisory group?

Thanks,
-- 
Susan Gehr
Karuk Language Program Director
Karuk Tribe of California
PO Box 1016, Happy Camp, CA 96039
(800) 505-2785 x2205  NEW FAX # (530) 493-1658

Karuk Language Resources on the Web - HYPERLINK
"http://www.karuk.org/"http://www.karuk.-org/
Karuk Section of William Bright's Site - HYPERLINK
"http://ncidc.org/bright/karuk.html"http://ncidc.-org/bright/-karuk.html
Karuk Dictionary - HYPERLINK
"http://dictionary.karuk.org/"http://dictionary.-karuk.org/

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.9/1364 - Release Date: 4/7/2008
6:38 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.9/1364 - Release Date: 4/7/2008
6:38 PM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20080408/c6679f92/attachment.htm>