St Nazarius & St Celsus (part 2)
(Image credit: MilanFinally.com)
More and more clues bring us closer and closer to a solution…
(Go back to Part 1, or keep reading…)
Comparing the manuscript & published versions
As promised, I’m going to jump in and compare the two versions we have of the Nazarius & Celsus story.
I’ll format this kind of like my usual “interlinearized” Chinuk Wawa texts, except that here, the first line will be from the manuscript, with my translation of it; then the closest equivalent line from the published version (Kamloops Wawa #159, page 185), and so on.
Starting with the first paragraph of each:
(MS) Nasariyus iaka papa iaka mitlait kopa Rom tawn ankati. Ayu iaka iktas. Ayu wiht iaka ilaitin.
‘Nazarius’s father lived in the city of Rome long ago. He had lots of belongings. He also had a lot of slaves.’
(PUB) Nasariyus iaka taii tanas man kopa Rom ankati. Ayu iaka iktas, ayu ilaitin.
‘Nazarius was an upper-class youth in Rome long ago. He had lots of belongings, lots of slaves.’
(MS) Nasariyus iaka mamuk kanawi ikta iaka tiki:
kiaka ayu sahali tomtom, kopit makmakiaka, kopit pli iaka
‘Nazarius did anything he wanted: he was quite arrogant, (and) it was only eating and playing…’
(PUB) Iaka mamuk kanawi ikta iaka tiki; iaka ayu sahali tomtom
‘He did anything he wanted; he was quite arrogant…’
(MS) …tomtom kakwa kanawi taii tanas man kopa Rom.
‘…that he thought of, like all the young nobles in Rome.’
(PUB) …kakwa kanawi taii tanas man kopa Rom. Iaka tiki kwanisim pli, kwanisim kaltash kuli, iaka tiki tlus iktas, tlus makmak, kakwa kanawi taii tanas man kopa Rom.
‘…like all the young nobles in Rome. He wanted to always play, always run around, he wanted fine things, (and) nice food, like all the young nobles in Rome.’
There’s an obvious strong resemblance between the two versions. The published version elaborates on some points, like the decadence of privileged young Romans.
Now the second paragraph:
(MS) Iht son iaka nanich Sin Pitir. Iaka kolan ikta Sin Pitir wawa kopa tilikom:
‘One day he saw Saint Peter. He heard what Saint Peter was saying to the people.’
(PUB) Iht son iaka nanich Sin Pitir, iaka k’olan ikta Sin Pitir wawa kopa tilikom.
‘One day he saw Saint Peter, he heard what Saint Peter was saying to the people.’(MS) Iawa iaka chako hloima iaka tomtom. Chako sik iaka tomtom kopa kanawi ikta piltin…
‘Then his heart changed. He became sad about all the sins…’
(PUB) Iaka chako komtaks ST, iaka chako komtaks ShK. Chako sik iaka tomtom kopa kanawi ikta piltin…
‘He came to know God, he came to know Jesus. He became sad about all the sins…’(MS) …iaka mamuk, pi iaka aias tiki chako wash. Iaka klatwa kopa Sin Pitir pus Sin Pitir
wamamuk wash… ‘
…he had committed, and he desired to be baptized. He went to Saint Peter for Saint Peter to baptize…’
(PUB) …iaka mamuk. Iaka klatwa ashnu kopa Sin Pitir; wik lili pi iaka chako wash.
‘…he had committed. He went to kneel before Saint Peter; soon he was baptized.’(MS) …iaka. Iawa iaka mash kanawi iaka iktas
iaka tilikompus iaka kuli kimta kopa ShK.
‘…him. Then he gave away all his belongings so that he could follow Jesus.’
(PUB) Iawa iaka mash kanawi iaka iktas kopa ukuk ilihi, pus iaka kuli kimta kopa ShK.
‘Then he gave away all his belongings in this world, so that he could follow Jesus.’
These second paragraphs contrast a more limited vocabulary and simpler sentences in the manuscript with the lexically and stylistically more complex published version. it’s as if the manuscript’s author was a relatively new student of Chinuk Wawa, compared with Kamloops Wawa‘s editor and publisher Le Jeune.
This is really a clue that Father Le Jeune was not the author of the manuscript version. Le Jeune definitely had the habit of clarifying other folks’ Chinook Jargon when he published their material in his newspaper, as I’ve shown in a research paper a few years back. But he himself was so busy pumping out large quantities of content for eager Chinook Writing readers (and as a consequence, so fluent in the Jargon) that he rarely if ever showed evidence of editing his own material.
I’m going to leave off for the day here. Tomorrow, expect larger chunks of the two versions, and the chance to make your own judgment about the Mystery of the Anonymous Chinuk Wawa Manuscript!
Pingback: St Nazarius & St Celsus (part 3) | Chinook Jargon
Speaking of editing in KW: was this transliteration of elaitin for elaitix, and ashnu for shenu in the original? Was this usual?
LikeLike
“ilaitin” seems like the perpetuation of a misreading, starting with someone faithfully representing the phonetics of /iláytix/ as < ilaitih >. That final “h” in all likelihood was Blanchet & Demers’s “h with a broken leg”, which I believe some later reader misinterpreted as an “n”, maybe due to a poorly legible copy of the B&D dictionary/catechism. One reason I gravitate towards involving B&D, who were earlier priests in the historical chain of Oregon Territory Catholic missionaries that (for us) culminated with Le Jeune up in British Columbia. Blanchet and Demers could easily have influenced the Chinuk Wawa of the somewhat later arrival (in the Yakama area) Paul Durieu, who we know taught Le Jeune the language.
About “ashnu” vs. “shenu”, an easy explanation would be that the former was a more comfortable or natural expression for French speakers to deploy. “Shenu” is from the French noun for “knee”; “ashnu” is from “on (one’s) knees”, a common expression in the Catholic culture associated with French. By contrast, saying just “knee” (with no article), or the Chinuk Wawa expression “mamuk shenu”, literally “make-knee”, for ‘kneel’, seems to me as if it’d be clunkier for a francophone. (I’m not the fluentest in French, but a moment’s googling suggests that “faire du genou” in fact means “to play footsie”!)
LikeLike
Haha, thanks for the setting right about these words. And the sketch of the historical chain of events. I have a copy of most of the dictionaries, I think. But I’ve yet to appreciate which preceded what, by whom, and for what purpose, and from what area to what audience.
Likewise, I didn’t know the Blanchet was by missionaries. Shenu/ashnu brings up an interesting issue, in that as these texts were mediated by rather extraordinary social positions, what sort of divergence in fidelity is in their presentation. Thomason’s presentation of Allen’s criticism of Gibbs being “too edumacated” comes to mind here, not merely as a point of Bowdlerizations in the texts, but to what degree did a publisher like Lejeune make substantive modifications or standardization to the language as spoken…?
LikeLike
My research suggests that Father Le Jeune altered other folks’ pretty spontaneous Chinuk Wawa a little bit for publication. Probably to his credit, most of those changes seem to have amounted to editing for style, making a text as clear and effective as possible. Which makes a decent amount of sense to me, given the real differences involved between seeing and listening to a person talk with you and trying to reconstruct elements like tone of voice and facial expressions from even the most eloquent written text!
LikeLike