Le Sanglais

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Louis Garcia wrote:
> The Dakota here at Ft. Totten use the term sahda, sometimes sahdas'a for
> the Metis. The Nakota (I know there are problems using this term) here
> say sagkda.

I think these follow the usual pattern for PreDa *kR (PS *kr) clusters.

> Years ago I asked James H. Howard about these terms and he said the term was
> from Gaelic, learned from the British soldiers during the French and Indian
> wars through the War of 1812.

It sounds as if he must have supposed the term to be related to
"sassenach," (sp?)  which doesn't seem to be in my Webster's desk
dictionary.  I think it is a Gaelic plural (maybe a pejorative?) of
"Saxon," i.e., Englishman, popularized in English in Scottish historical
fiction.

The usual view today is that it is ultimately from French les anglais.
The le- of les is lost, but the s from it, attached to anglais by liaison,
is retained, yielding 's anglais, or sangle, as it were.  Of course, the
attested forms look like it was actually sangla, and I don't know if this
change occurs in Algonquian or not.  I think so, because my undestanding
is that during the period that anglais was written anglois the oi wasn't
pronounced wa, i.e., it was sangle, not *sanglwa.

The final -s is silent in French, of course.  The -s^a at the end is
actually the Algonquian diminutive-pejorative suffix, and is consistent
with the attestation of similar forms - with this suffix - in various
Algonquian languages.  Thus the form is something like 'the contemptible
little sangle (or sangla)."  It's the same final fricative that produces
the s in Sioux < Nadouessioux, "the contemptible little snakes" or, if you
disagree with Siebert's assessment and agree with Ives Goddard's
original one "the contemptible little non-speakers (of Algonquian)."  The
Siouan languages borrowed the term from various Algonquian languages or
Algonquian-influenced pidgins, and not from French directly.

IO ragras^ "raggerash" (attested as a personal name) seems to be from the
singular l'anglais, but also via an Algonquian source, as indicated by the
final -s^.

> Was he correct?

If I understand what he meant, no, not at all.