A better understanding of where kəmtəks / kumtuks / komtax comes from
Once we realize that in its earliest pidgin form (in Nootka Jargon), the famous Chinuk Wawa word kəmtəks / kumtuks / komtax lacked an “s” sound at the end, we can become enlightened.
Image credit: Khan Academy
(Hey, I’ve also written up a post improving the etymology of tloosh / ɬush / tlus / kloshe.)
< kum atack > from John Jewitt (Jewitt 1967:90) correlates with Nuuchahnulth root kamat ‘know’ + 2nd person singular interrogative suffix –ḥak.
Yup, it apparently means ‘do you know? / do you understand?’ in Nuuchahnulth.
As for the eventual appearance of a final /s/ on this word in Chinuk Wawa, what guesses do you have?
𛰅𛱁𛰃𛱂 𛰙𛱁𛱆𛰅𛱁 𛰃𛱄𛰙𛰃𛱄𛰙?
qʰáta mayka tə́mtəm?
kata maika tumtum?
Que penses-tu?
What do you think?
And can you say it in Chinuk Wawa?
I think this is an important CW item that needs some clarification. There is a bit of confusion in the literature on the Southern Wakashan source lexicon for “Nootka Jargon” and early CW, due to the fact that for the longest time, the broad range of regional variation within Nuu-chah-nulth was virtually unknown to outsiders. There are four divergent regiolects. The widely available linguistic material from Edward Sapir, Morris Swadesh and Alex Thomas (collected 1910–1933) covers only the southernmost dialect (Barkley Sound). It’s quite distinct from what Jewitt and contemporaries had heard. The Mowachaht (Muwač̓atḥ) variant around Nootka Sound is the northernmost lect within the Central region dialect continuum. The source of CW kəmtəks / kumtuks / komtax is: _kamataks_ “I know it”, consisting of a root and two affixes (kamat “know a fact”, -ak “stative aspect”, =s “1s = I, Neutral mood”). That’s why (!) there is a final -s in the CW form: it is an inflected verb that was not recognized as such (just like many CW words derive from French plurals not recognized as plurals). Jewitt’s is indeed what you say “knowing a fact + 2s = thou, Question mood”. Only that in Muwač̓atḥ, this clitic is just -k, so: _kamatakk_ (kamat -ak =k) “do you know?” (yeah, an audible [k]-[k] sequence!). Some of Jewitt’s Nootka sound material, written down from memory more than a decade after his liberation, shows fully inflected predicates, not some form of morphologically reduced trade pidgin. Na mayka nanič ukuk? 🙂
I’m really grateful for your taking the time to share such knowledge, Henry K. It’s much easier for you to judge what the sources are likely to have been of “Nootka Jargon” and Chinook Jargon words.
Are you saying that “Nootka Jargon” kamatak & kamataks (which are just variants of each other in the pidgin) are both from Muwač̓atḥ?
We agree that some of the “Nootka Jargon” words in the various old documents are pidginized in form, some in meaning (intentionally and/or by foreigner misunderstanding), and some both.
In my view, you modern experts need to carefully explain each of the perhaps 300 Nuuchahnulth words documented in earliest contact times, in the way you’ve done today. It is guaranteed to enormously improve our understanding of what went on there pidginwise.
I would be a little sad if I needed to keep publishing my relatively amateurish etymologies, in order to get you folks to correct them 🙂
All best from
Dave Robertson
I can add to what Henry has said. According to my modern sources, the word is kaamatḥak. It unexpectedly has what appear to be two aspect endings /kamat–ḥi–ʔak/, but is reasonably well attested in northern dialects. Henry and I have talked about publishing more accurate info on the words reconstructed for Nootka Jargon, but haven’t had time to work on it.
hayu masi Adam! Like I wrote back to Henry, I propose we linguists associated with Chinook Jargon make time for a gathering to finally hammer out the etymologies (and thus the stories) behind “Nootka Jargon”, i.e. behind all of the contact-era lexicons. This would be a top priority in my calendar. I believe other experts will want to be there.