Patl kopa is bad, mamuk patl kopa is good
“Full of”, in Chinuk Wawa, is just plain “full”.
Here I am, hammering on a lesson that English- and French-speaking learners of CW often need emphasized.
To say that stative verb (“adjective” in some folks’ view) ‘full of’, you only use the word for ‘full’, pʰáł (it’ll be written < patl > below in BC Chinuk Pipa spelling).
Unlike those northwest European languages, you don’t add a preposition to express ‘full of’ — so *pʰáł kʰapa* (*< patl kopa >*) is not fluent Jargon.
So for example, ‘Hail Mary, full of grace‘ comes out: ‘…< patl lagras >’.
How, then, will you understand it when I say that < patl kopa >, at the end of the following passage, is correct?
Kopa ikta nsaika tolo liiam, pi nsaika
‘With what do we defeat the Devil, and (thus) we’tlap ayu tlus lagras kopa ST? = Pus nsaika
‘receive much good grace from God? = When we’haha milalam, iawa nsaika tolo kopa liiam, mash
‘make confession, then we win against the Devil, throwing’iaka klahani kopa nsaika tomtom; pi pus nsaika
‘him out from our hearts; and when we’
iskom ⊕, iawa chako ST tanas mamuk patl
‘take Communion, then comes God the Son to fill‘nsaika tomtom kopa tlus.
‘our hearts with good things.’
— from the Chinook Book of Devotions, page 111
For me, the key to understanding this is that writer JMR Le Jeune is not saying *’…make our hearts (be) full of good things’*. That is, he doesn’t write * < mamuk nsaika tomtom patl kopa tlus >. He’s taking another path.
Which is…?
Well, his wording is ‘…fill (< mamuk patl >) our hearts ( < nsaika tomtom > ) with ( < kopa >) good things’. And with this active verb of transfer (‘to fill’), the only way to show what you’re filling those hearts up with (the “indirect object”, let’s say) is to use the preposition, < kopa >.
A nice clear distinction!
Very interesting.
i wonder if there could be any link with Nahuatl word “tecpatl” (sword).
Dave I’ve seen several instances of “patl kopa…” in the Kamloops Wawa where it means “full of” (no verb like you have in this example). Recently I’ve seen these:
“Mitlait wiht 290 haws patl kopa hwit pi hloima itka makmak.”
“kopa rom ankati klaska mamook kwenam tanas lek kah ayu bot patl kopa solshirs chako (??) pi fait kanamokst”
Link: https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04645_154/11?r=0&s=5
Do you think these are mistakes by Le Jeune then and not just another way of saying it?
Also if you see that second sentence do you know what he’s trying to write where I put the questions marks?
I see these as Le Jeune’s French “accent’ for sure, paralleling French plein de.
“Mitlait wiht 290 haws patl kopa hwit pi hloima itka makmak.” = ‘There are 290 more buildings full of wheat and other kinds of food.’
“kopa rom ankati klaska mamook kwenam tanas lek kah ayu bot patl kopa solshirs chako (??) pi fait kanamokst” = ‘In Rome long ago they made 5 ponds where lots of boats full of soldiers came and fought together.’
Makes sense. Thanks for the insight!
I once again went checking, and it’s extraordinarily hard to find instances in genuine CW documentation of < pahtl kopa >, < patl kopa >, pʰáł kʰapa, etc., involving the preposition. None in Gibbs 1863. None in Grand Ronde 2012. None in Demers-Blanchet-St Onge 1871. None in St Onge 1892. None in JK Gill, editions of which began in frontier times and continued long past. None in Jim Holton 1999, which is based on both Grand Ronde and other known usage.
Post-frontier: No “pahtl kopa” in Long 1909. Only one, I think, in Shaw 1909, thus an exception/mistake. El Comancho (Phillips) 1913, character that he always was, gives only “pahtlum” (drunk) but no mention of a word for ‘full’!