This site just gives a fairly standard definition of what a pidgin is in the text.
The title is misleading, though, as Chinook Jargon is not mentioned in the entry. If they would have mentioned it, they could have used “jargon tchinouc”, which was used by Bolduc in 1848 and that was, as far as I know, the first time that “jargon” and Chinook were combined to denote the pidgin.
Peter: I must echo David, the whole entry is on the topic of Chinook Jargon lexicography. The author is no linguist and does not even pretend to be one, so we should not be surprised that his definition of “pidgin” is a pretty standard one, and a little inconsistent too (he seems to think pidgins cannot by definition become L1’s, when one of the pidgins he names, Nigerian Pidgin, has several million L1 speakers).
A little more concerning to me is a certain sloppiness involving history and geography: he mentions the Oregon Treaty of 1846, signed after the United States and Great-Britain had supposedly eliminated other Powers from the region, and which supposedly fixed the Canada-U.S. border. This is doubly incorrect, as the Alaska purchase took place much later, and the Alaska-Canada border was only fixed much later still, in 1903. Also, he writes that Father Demers arrived in Vancouver in 1838, which is NOT what the source he links to indicates: it indicates that he arrived at FORT Vancouver, located in present-day Oregon, in 1838 (The mark of a true foreigner in the Pacific Northwest: not knowing that Fort Vancouver and Modern Vancouver are different/distinct settlements, neither of which, naturally, is located on Vancouver island). And for a dictionary lover he is a little careless: he derives Chinook “Metsin” from French “médecin” instead of French “médecine”, for instance. He also seems to believe that Chinook Jargon remains alive as a community L1 in Grand Ronde, and that this nativization of a pidgin is otherwise unheard-of.
If I have the time later this week I may leave a comment on these and other rather problematic points on the gentleman’s blog.
Très intéressant. Merci, Dave.Chris
This site just gives a fairly standard definition of what a pidgin is in the text.
The title is misleading, though, as Chinook Jargon is not mentioned in the entry. If they would have mentioned it, they could have used “jargon tchinouc”, which was used by Bolduc in 1848 and that was, as far as I know, the first time that “jargon” and Chinook were combined to denote the pidgin.
…The whole entry is about Chinook Jargon, except the first few paragraphs, which explain what a pidgin is.
Peter: I must echo David, the whole entry is on the topic of Chinook Jargon lexicography. The author is no linguist and does not even pretend to be one, so we should not be surprised that his definition of “pidgin” is a pretty standard one, and a little inconsistent too (he seems to think pidgins cannot by definition become L1’s, when one of the pidgins he names, Nigerian Pidgin, has several million L1 speakers).
A little more concerning to me is a certain sloppiness involving history and geography: he mentions the Oregon Treaty of 1846, signed after the United States and Great-Britain had supposedly eliminated other Powers from the region, and which supposedly fixed the Canada-U.S. border. This is doubly incorrect, as the Alaska purchase took place much later, and the Alaska-Canada border was only fixed much later still, in 1903. Also, he writes that Father Demers arrived in Vancouver in 1838, which is NOT what the source he links to indicates: it indicates that he arrived at FORT Vancouver, located in present-day Oregon, in 1838 (The mark of a true foreigner in the Pacific Northwest: not knowing that Fort Vancouver and Modern Vancouver are different/distinct settlements, neither of which, naturally, is located on Vancouver island). And for a dictionary lover he is a little careless: he derives Chinook “Metsin” from French “médecin” instead of French “médecine”, for instance. He also seems to believe that Chinook Jargon remains alive as a community L1 in Grand Ronde, and that this nativization of a pidgin is otherwise unheard-of.
If I have the time later this week I may leave a comment on these and other rather problematic points on the gentleman’s blog.
Why am I unable to read the French text? This is the first time I have problems with what you share.
Etienne, My comment was to our host, not you.