Drawing a different, silent moral from “A Stingy Girl is Taken Away by Mountain People”
I’ve recently come back to studying a certain tale by the Grand Ronde elder, Victoria Howard…
(Image credit: hippostcard)
…This is part of our truly wonderful Saturday “Snass Sessions” hosted at 8 A.M. Pacific time by Rein Stamm. You should ask about joining in!
In the Snass Sessions, our project is on revitalizing Chinuk Wawa as a BC language. So I often present a text from a BC source, such as < Kamloops Wawa >, or else I “translate” a southern-dialect source such as Mrs. Howard.
One side effect of such work is that I revisit southern, creolized texts that in some cases I haven’t read since years ago. In the intervening span, I’ve done a ton of research, and I feel I’ve advanced in my understanding of the language.
For instance, while the creolized southern dialect is in some respects more sophisticated (to use a non-technical word for it!), the pidgin northern dialect that developed out of it is sometimes even more developed. This is an insight that I hadn’t had in a terribly deep way, just a couple of years ago.
One feature that both dialects hold in common is the 3rd-person null pronoun, for non-animates. That includes “it”, as well as “some” and “they” when those words refer to stuff rather than folks. And, being a silent pronoun — yes, such a thing really does exist, according to linguists — it’s mighty hard to spot “Silent It” in a page of written Chinuk Wawa. It takes a lot of awareness of the flow of sentences, and a fair amount of thinking, to realize when “Silent It” is there & when (it’s) not.
In the instance of “Victoire’s” tale, whose published form is titled “A Stingy Girl is Taken Away by Mountain People” (Melville Jacobs 1936), I’m finding that my view of the entire plot is different — ever since I put in serious time understanding the CW null pronoun.
Frankly I’m returning to one particular section of that tale today because I found myself feeling confused — and when a story that someone is telling in their mother language doesn’t make sense to you, it’s on you to do some more thinking! So here’s some of my musings about the section that confused me.
Here’s the dramatic final scene as Jacobs published it with an English translation (1936:12), where the grandmother is trying to dig her granddaughter out after 4 mountain girls have danced her into the ground. I’ll interlinearize his English version, and put Mrs. Howard’s Jargon into current Grand Ronde spelling style, standardizing the spellings a little:
álta ya munk-ɬxwáp uk íliʔi, álta yaka hayu-t’ɬáp tənəs-tílixam,
‘She dug in the ground, she found the little one,’
kánawi-ikta. ya tə́mtəm, “ú ya t’úʔan tənás t’ɬúnas!” álta wə́x̣t ya
‘(with) all (its) things. She thought, “Why she must have had a little one!” She dug again’
munk-ɬxwáp íliʔi, álta ya hayu-t’ɬáp íɬʔwəl, tənəs-líli álta ya t’ɬáp uk ya kʰwiʔím.
‘in the ground, she found meat, a little later she found her granddaughter.’
ya hál-ɬáx̣ni kʰapa uk íliʔi, ya lu’lu kʰapa háws. kʰapá ya munk-t’úʔan.
‘She pulled her up out of the ground, she took her home. There she laid her down.’
Fortunately for us, this story is also published in the awesome Grand Ronde Tribes dictionary, updated with valuable additional information from Jacobs’s original field notes of it, for example punctuation marks that got left out of the published version. So here’s the same passage, as found there (2012:425), again with the CW just slightly modified by me to reflect current punctuation and to standardize the spellings:
álta ya munk-ɬxwáp uk íliʔi. álta yaka hayu-t’ɬáp tənəs-tílixam
‘Then she dug the ground. Now she is finding all kinds of BABY’
kánawi-íkta. ya tə́mtəm “ó ya t’úʔan tənás t’ɬúnas!”
‘things. She thinks, “Ohhh she must have a CHILD!” ‘
álta wə́x̣t ya munk-ɬxwáp íliʔi. álta ya hayu-t’ɬáp íɬʔwəl.
‘Then again she digs earth. Now she’s finding flesh.’
tənəs-líli álta ya t’ɬáp uk ya kʰwiʔím. ya hál-ɬáx̣ni kʰapa uk íliʔi.
‘In a little while then she found that grandchild of hers. She hauled her out from the earth.’
ya lúlu kʰapa háws, kʰapá ya munk-t’úʔan.
‘She took her home, there she put her up.’
There, we have the benefit of researcher Henry Zenk’s decades of intimate acquaintance with Grand Ronde Chinuk Wawa speakers, helping us to understand what’s intended by Mrs. Howard’s words. Read it and learn, my friends.
The CTGR 2012 edition of it captures more nuances of Mrs. Howard’s grammar, for example by taking tənəs-tílixam kánawi-íkta ‘all kinds of BABY things’ as a single, compound phrase — removing the comma that appeared in the middle of it in the published version. From this compound I imagine that by implication we could add a useful entry to our dictionaries, tənəs-tílixam-íkta ‘baby things, baby supplies’. (Note that the baby never turns up in this scene, which is why Grandma is merely surmising that Stingy Girl has had one.)
But as regards the remainder of the passage, I did catch myself wondering: “Does this story make sense to me?”
So I want to do that thing I sometimes do, where I revisit old Jargon texts with a critical eye, to apply the sum total of what we’ve learned about this language’s grammar and history. As I’ve done with material such as Franz Boas’s published collection of “Chinook Songs”, I’m going to show you a critical, analytic take on this little final scene of the “Stingy Girl” story, incorporating insights from CTGR 2012:
álta ya munk-ɬxwáp uk íliʔi. álta yaka hayu-t’ɬáp tənəs-tílixam
now she CAUSATIVE-hole the earth. now she PROGRESSIVE-find DIMINUTIVE-person
‘Then she dug into the ground. Then she was finding’
kánawi-íkta. ya tə́mtəm “ó ya t’úʔan tənás t’ɬúnas!”
all-thing. she think “oh she have child INFERENTIAL!”
‘all sorts of baby supplies. She thought, “Oh, she must’ve had a child!” ‘
álta wə́x̣t ya munk-ɬxwáp íliʔi. álta ya hayu-t’ɬáp íɬʔwəl.
now again she CAUSATIVE-hole earth. now she PROGRESSIVE-find flesh.
‘Then again she dug into the ground. Then she was finding (dried) [1] meat.’
tənəs-líli álta ya t’ɬáp uk ya kʰwiʔím. ya hál-ɬáx̣ni [2] kʰapa uk íliʔi.
DIMINUTIVE-long.time now she find the her granchild. she pull-out from the earth.
‘After a while then she found that granddaughter of hers (dead). She pulled it (the body) out of the ground.’
ya lúlu [2] kʰapa háws, kʰapá ya munk-t’úʔan [2].
she bring to house, there she CAUSATIVE-store.
‘She took it home, (and) there she stored it away.’
And now a couple of notes:
íɬʔwəl [1] can mean your ‘body’ or, as both Jacobs and CTGR 2012 have it, it can be ‘meat’. Now it’s time to catch you up on the action earlier in this story: Having already misbehaved by repeatedly serving her grandma only the smaller, less delicious roots from the batch that she digs every day, the Stingy Girl then disobeys grandma’s advice to stay away from a certain dangerous camas-digging place. The granddaughter is abducted by 4 female mountain people (skukooms, I reckon). To make her a fit wife for their brother, they teach her how to make ‘dried meat’. Now, at the end of the story, they’ve agreed to bring the homesick protagonist home to Grandma, and they drop her off near the house. But she now disobeys their advice to keep her baby swaddled up, and they’ve returned & danced her into the earth. Her terrified shrieks bring her elder running.
This leads us to the 3 occurrences of “Silent It” [2]. These all serve to emphasize that the disobedient granddaughter is now dead meat, if you’ll pardon my slang. And this detail doesn’t show up in the previous translations of this passage, both of which say that Grandma brings “her” (animate yaka, the girl) home, implying — I think falsely, because yaka is not used here — that she’s alive. Adding to the horror of the Stingy Girl’s fate, as I understand Mrs. Howard’s words she has turned into dried meat, which her unwitting grandmother is now taking home as valued food to be stored (which is the fundamental etymological meaning of t’úʔan) for times of need.
Sometimes it seems like nobody agrees what “the moral” of an Indian story is. I’ve been told that you draw your own conclusions. I might say that what I learn from my new “silent it” view of the Stingy Girl story is an ethics lesson: (A) listen to advice (remember, grandparents play a huge role in your upbringing, in traditional Indigenous culture), and (B) be generous with your bread or you might be turned into steak.
Interesting excursis, Dave. That “kʰapá ya munk-tʼúʔan” at the end of the story has often puzzled me. Personally, I think of this story as something more like a fairy-tale than a skukúm-yaʔim (evidently often told to scare children into behaving – two of Howard’s other Jargon tellings seem to fit that bill pretty well). Not that a fairy tale can’t have a “grimm” ending (ha ha), but Victoria Howard is not one to shy away from describing all manners of grimness in graphic detail, and that kind of detail is missing from the end of this story. While there aren’t a lot of examples showing munk- compounded to a transitive verb, there are some: there is kəmtəks ‘to know (something)’. Then there is munk-kəmtəks, to bring about a condition of knowing something, as in instructing, informing, teaching. This text has the only example of munk-tʼuʔan of which I am aware. But following a pattern: tʼuʔan ‘to have, possess (something)’, munk-tʼuʔan to bring about a condition of having or possessing something, as in keeping or caring for. It seems to me that the old lady is keeping or caring for her grand-daughter at the end of the story, although in precisely what way is not made explicit. This latest round made me go check the Clackamas version of the same story (Clackamas Texts pp 438-446). In the published translation, the end of the story reads: “ . . . she found her son’s daughter. She was just about gone now. She took her to their house. She brought her back, she laid her down. Now I do not know what they did. Now so much of that. Story story.” Seems a little funny that Howard would say she didn’t know what they did, if the ending is really as in your reading. The field version of the Clackamas text (Jacobs field notebook 68) reads (in rough interlinear translation, as written down by Jacobs directly from Howard as he read the Clackamas back to her; I insert slashes to show the Chinookan word separations – note: Jacobs observed that Howard spoke “clear English”): “she found/ her son’s daughter/ she was just about dead/ she took her/ to their home/ she took her home/ she lay her down./ then I don’t know/ what/ they two did./ now that’s all I remember./ story story.” What’s really weird is that underneath that ‘she lay her down’ Jacobs has written and then crossed out: “[she lived” (spelling as in original). I don’t know what to make of that – I mean, how to gauge what Victoria Howard herself thought the ending of the story was. Maybe she just didn’t remember it all as originally told to her and just left it blank? I would just have to say, the ending is open to interpretation!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s great that you bring in the Clackamas Upper Chinookan telling of this story by the same narrator. (My readers can click this link to it.) There too, the grandma does not find the baby, only the baby supplies (“diapers” there). And it’s made explicit that it’s dried meat that she finds. Then she finds her granddaughter, and here too it’s not phrased as finding her body. In section 37, Jacobs has in English “She took her [the granddaughter] to their house. She brought her back, she laid her down.” This corresponds to the Clackamas verbs ga-g-ú-kʷɬa, ga-g-ú-kʷɬam, ga-g-a-x̣íma, all of them containing, as far as I understand, a feminine (singular) object prefix -u/a-. Compare ga-č-a-x̣íma ‘he laid her down, on page 301, and ga-g-i-x̣íma ‘she laid it [a Chinook salmon, the masculine igúnat] down’ on page 376. All in all, I’m not getting any more positive evidence out of this than you are. (!)
So, next, I want to check how Clackamas grammar handles corpses — are they indeed considered to have the same gender as when they were alive, or are they perhaps neuter-gender “things” as in Chinuk Wawa? On page 318 we have “she will lay me (my corpse) behind the house”, and of course 1st person singular is inherently animate but it’s non-gendered in this language, so let’s keep looking.
On page 366, the noun for ‘dead person (corpse)’ is I think masculine i-ɬk’ášušu, but is represented by a neuter object pronoun -ɬ- in the verb č-ɬ-útGəmt ‘put it away!’
And on page 370, ‘the dead person’ is I think masculine i-ɬmímlust, but it’s crossreferenced on the verb as a neuter object: tg-ɬ-ugálmamt ‘they went to get [it]’.
On page 301, a male character finds his young niece’s dead body, then ‘he laid her down’, feminine in both English and Clackamas.
So as far as I can tell, Clackamas is not a lot of help to us, but I see suggestive evidence that Chinuk Wawa’s inanimate “silent it” could, but doesn’t necessarily, correlate with the same speaker’s Chinookan 3rd person neuter connoting a dead body.
LikeLike
I dunno, Dave. We could spend a lot of time trying to penetrate the Chinookan grammar. I would only add that Jacobs’s English translations (as published) are all rephrased from the rough interlinear translation he wrote down from Victoria Howard herself, as he read the Chinookan he had transcribed from her back to her. English was one of her languages, and Jacobs has left us a pretty good record of that – only best to check the field notebooks before trusting the published versions 100%. That goes for the Chinuk Wawa texts, too. The amazing thing about Jacobs is that in spite of apparently never learning to understand or speak any of these languages (possible exception: Sahaptin, the first language he recorded, and for which he produced a grammar), he was able to transcribe them (all from live dictation) with such a high degree of accuracy and sensitivity.
LikeLike
I should note, too, that Mrs. Howard ends the story with t’ɬúnas-qʰáta cháku ɬaska, which I take as ‘goodness knows what became of them’.
LikeLike
Aha, I reckon in Clackamas iɬ- all together is the neuter noun prefix. Not that this changes the discussion. Just learning more about the language…
LikeLike