Purposes & dialect differences
Whether there are dialects in Chinook Jargon used to be an actively debated question……And in my PhD dissertation defense, I was asked to justify my claims about them.
But I think we’ve learned so much more about the language over these past 20-ish years, that there’s simply no question.
Due to historical factors (no fur-trade pun intended!), Chinuk Wawa has many patterned differences in vocabulary and grammar between two main regions, an older southern one versus a newer northern one.
This amounts to a distinction between:
- The general lower Columbia River area where CW took form and, quite early, “creolized” from a trade lingo into a home language. (For excellent historical reasons, this includes western Oregon, which even overlaps slightly into northwest California.)
Examples below come from Grand Ronde’s 2012 dictionary. - Everywhere else that CW eventually took root — northeast Oregon, most of Washingon, British Columbia, southeast Alaska.
Examples shown will be from Kamloops Wawa.
Here I’ll demonstrate one of the grammar differences that helps you diagnose which dialect someone speaks: how they express purposes.
Lower Columbia River (“southern”) dialect:
NULL — motion for a purpose
áłqi na łátwa ____ nánich ya.
‘I’ll go (to) see him’
nayka cháku ____ ískam mayka.
‘I have come to get you (to give you a ride).’
Pus (spos) — all other purposes (A. nouns & pronouns; B. adverbs; C. verbs)
A. qʰá uk money cháku pus náyka?
‘Just where in the world does that money for me come from?’
B. na hayu-wáwa pus kʰə́ltəs.
‘I’ve been talking for nothing (to no effect).’
C. hílu-íkta pus múnk…
‘There’s nothing you need do…’ [‘There’s nothing to (be) do(ne)…’]
“Northern” dialect:
NULL — motion for a purpose
…< Pi ikta msaika klatwa ____ nanich? >…
‘…And what do you folks go (to) see?…’
< Klatwa ____ mamuk kopa naika wain olali ilihi. >
‘Go (to) work in my vineyard.’
Pus (spos) — verbs
… < naika mash naika lisash…, pus iaka mamuk tlus oihat >…
‘…I send my angel…, for him to make a good road…’
< Wik na naika taii pus mamuk kakwa naika tomtom? >
‘Aren’t I the boss to do as I like?’
Kopa — everything else (A. nouns & pronouns; B. adverbs; C. (predicative) adjectives)
A. … < nsaika mamuk oihat kopa iaka. >
‘…we make a path for him.’
B. … < alta pi kopa kwanisim. Amin.>
‘…now and for ever. Amen.’
C. … < wik mash [SIC] masachi tolo msaika, tlus msaika tolo masachi kopa tlus. >
‘…don’t let evil beat you folks, you should beat evil for the good.’
hayas tloosh okok! naika tiki spos maika mamook hayoo pipa kopa ḵata ẖuloima ilihi tilikum tlaska wawa chinuk wawa 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Flying Sheet #1 – The Kaltash Wawa
This is fascinating to learn about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
naika wawa masi (thank you), Carson!
Dave Robertson
LikeLike
Dave, are you sure that “kopa” can never take a verb to show purpose? I know there are examples of this out there, especially in northern stuff, but is it just bad chinook? For example in your own translation here:erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing;úkuk s(h)áwásh-tílixam ɬáska tíki mámuk yawá íxt-íxt tənəs-háws **kopa mamuk-tláy**Indian-people they want make there one-one little-house for make-dry‘these Indian people want to build some huts there for drying’
písh pi sámən; fish and salmon; ‘fish and salmon;
I know I’ve done this before too, but I’ve always been hesitant about doing it. I did it recently in a similar sort of way when I was looking at the Hobbit, and I’ve been wondering whether it was a mistake or not ever since. See here:mitlait tlus chir kopa sit dawn pi latam kopa kah iaka makmak. There were good chairs to sit down and a table to eat at. Am I actually tempted to talk like this because I am literally saying “there are chairs (IN WHICH) to sit down”. Like wise your sentence there is sort of “huts (IN WHICH) (one) dries fish.” A sort of slightly different thing that the “for” you’re talking about here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s worth doing more research on this question. For sure, yes, there are “kopa” expressions involving a verb (typically without any object I think) that’s being treated as nominalized. And I suspect they’ll turn out to be a specific type of phrase, a descriptor of the fundamental purpose of a noun. (Like the “chair in which to sit down”.)
LikeLike