Re: LANGUAGE LAWS
| From: | Tommie Powell <tommiepowell@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, October 18, 1998, 10:16 |
|---|
--------------929A4E724A2D99FABF760CF4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Raymond A. Brown wrote:
> Pidgins that are devised ad_hoc do indeed have unstable grammar, probably
> because the speakers are working with different grammars. But such pidgins
> are short lived. When a pidgin gets used over & over again, its grammar
> stabilizes like any other language - it has to if understanding is to be
> achieved. The classic example of this is the AngloChinese Pidgin which
> gave us the word pidgin. I understood that the Chinook pidgin was of this
> kind. So I ask: What is the evidence that trade languages allow speakers
> to express all sorts of ideas sloppily?
I will try to pretend that this is a serious question.
The Chinook Jargon has one word that means "left arm" and "left side", and another
that means "right arm"and "right side", but it has no word that means "arm" or
"side", and it has no grammatical means of distinguishing between "arm" and
"side". Likewise, it has a word which means "eye" and "forehead", and it has no
grammatically means of distinguishing between "eye" and "forehead". But it doesn't
need to be able to distinguish between "arm" and "side", or between "eye" and
"forehead" -- because it's just a trade language and can get the gist of an idea
across without any more precision than that!
> ... what is the evidence that there [was]
> no European influence in the [Chinook Jargon's] grammar? As far as I can see,
> there can be no
> record of the Chinook jargon until someone can record it in writing (or
> electrically/ electonically ...but let's discount that). I'm not aware of
> any written records in this area before the arrival of Europeans. So be
> the time the language is recorded in writing, some European interference
> surely cannot be discounted. And how do we know what Chinook may have been
> like in the before this time?
Most of the Chinook Jargon's words -- including all its words that perform
grammatical functions -- are from the Chinook and Nootka and Salish tribes'
languages, so we can be pretty sure that those were the first tribes to use the
Chinook Jargon. The Europeans added mainly words for trade goods and animals that
they introduced to the region.
One interesting exception is the word PELTON. Mr. Pelton (perhaps Felton) was from
New York. He walked across the continent by himself, soon after the Lewis & Clark
expedition. He ran around naked, ate raw meat, had no home, and yelled wildly.
The Chinook Jargon had no word to describe him, so it adopted his name to mean
"crazy".
I've answered your other questions in my other posts of today and yesterday.
-- Tommie
--------------929A4E724A2D99FABF760CF4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<P>Raymond A. Brown wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Pidgins that are devised ad_hoc do indeed have unstable
grammar, probably
<BR>because the speakers are working with different grammars. But
such pidgins
<BR>are short lived. When a pidgin gets used over & over again,
its grammar
<BR>stabilizes like any other language - it has to if understanding is
to be
<BR>achieved. The classic example of this is the AngloChinese Pidgin
which
<BR>gave us the word pidgin. I understood that the Chinook
pidgin was of this
<BR>kind. So I ask: What is the evidence that trade languages allow
speakers
<BR>to express all sorts of ideas sloppily?</BLOCKQUOTE>
I will try to pretend that this is a serious question.
<P>The Chinook Jargon has one word that means "left arm" and "left side",
and another that means "right arm"and "right side", but it has no word
that means "arm" or "side", and it has no grammatical means of distinguishing
between "arm" and "side". Likewise, it has a word which means "eye"
and "forehead", and it has no grammatically means of distinguishing between
"eye" and "forehead". But it doesn't need to be able to distinguish
between "arm" and "side", or between "eye" and "forehead" -- because it's
just a trade language and can get the gist of an idea across without any
more precision than that!
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>... what is the evidence that there [was]
<BR>no European influence in the [Chinook Jargon's] grammar? As far
as I can see, there can be no
<BR>record of the Chinook jargon until someone can record it in writing
(or
<BR>electrically/ electonically ...but let's discount that). I'm
not aware of
<BR>any written records in this area before the arrival of Europeans.
So be
<BR>the time the language is recorded in writing, some European interference
<BR>surely cannot be discounted. And how do we know what Chinook
may have been
<BR>like in the before this time?</BLOCKQUOTE>
Most of the Chinook Jargon's words --<U> including all its words that perform
grammatical functions</U> -- are from the Chinook and Nootka and Salish
tribes' languages, so we can be pretty sure that those were the first tribes
to use the Chinook Jargon. The Europeans added mainly words for trade
goods and animals that they introduced to the region.
<P>One interesting exception is the word PELTON. Mr. Pelton (perhaps
Felton) was from New York. He walked across the continent by himself,
soon after the Lewis & Clark expedition. He ran around naked,
ate raw meat, had no home, and yelled wildly. The Chinook Jargon
had no word to describe him, so it adopted his name to mean "crazy".
<P>I've answered your other questions in my other posts of today and yesterday.
<P>-- Tommie</HTML>
--------------929A4E724A2D99FABF760CF4--