Lesson 3b: Kin

The dominance of kinship and corporeal terms in Lesson 3 serves a didactic purpose, but the main purpose of this entry is different. Thus I shall point out (yákıd) that kinship and corporeal terms are inalienable and therefore require prefixes (no bare dó:k'o, but only dadó:k'o). Kinship terms are inalienable because your blood relatives are your relatives, however much you may wish they were not.



English has an impoverished (although not the smallest) system of family terms, commonly referred to as the Eskimo system. In English, you can distinguish the following relatives without resulting to compounds: son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, cousin, niece, nephew, grandson, granddaughter, grandfather, and grandmother. Latin distinguishes between maternal and paternal relatives. Washo has a much more complex system than either Latin or English, many of which Jacobsen introduces in one blow.
Washo has many specific terms for various relatives. This category infodump is typical of Jacobsen's approach.

By the end of Lesson 3, there are enough kinship terms to construct a small family tree. Lesson 1 featured íyeš "daughter-in-law", but there is no word for "son" yet, so let us lay that term aside for now. Mr. EGO (in Washo, would this be Mr. le?), the usual stand-in for general genealogical charts, is not an only child, but one of a brood. Few exemplars of kinship systems are. He has an elder brother (da'á:tu), an elder sister (da'í:sa), and a younger brother (debéyu). His parents are absent, but two women of the previous generation survive: his maternal grandmother (degú'u) and his grandmother's sister (debık'ı), though (not necessarily?) the sister of his maternal grandmother.

Lesson 3a: Kin and Corpus

The Washo language is allergic to a vowel at the beginning of stem. This is a common phenomenon in the languages of the world - even in languages where the glottal stop is a phoneme (a sound as distinct as p or m) and does make a difference between words (e.g., Hawaiian au and a'u do not mean the same thing), the glottal stop is often added before the vowel.

The majority of Washo stems do not begin with a vowel, but a consonant. These stems still require prefixes, but these are different prefixes. Most of these prefixes are related to the ones you have already learned. 
The first person prefix is di-, which produces diháŋa "my mouth" and di'á:ťu "my elder brother, gege".
Now, di- may not seem related to le-, but an alternation between d, l/r, and n is quite common. In Oscan, a sister language to Latin, the confusion even caused the Greek letters for d and r to change places in the Oscan alphabet. Another example - the existence of an spoken l in the oldest forms of Egyptian comes from the variation in the spelling of the word "dwarf", which sometimes has an r, sometimes an n, and sometimes an aleph. Since Washo does not have an r, all the qualities of an r are subsumed in l.

The second person prefix is 'um- (note the presence of the glottal stop) or 'ım-. This is an example of descriptive grammar. A standard European grammar selects one form (usually that of the capitol) and condemns all others as WRONG. Descriptive grammars, such as those linguistics majors turn into theses, try to describe all relatively common ways of speaking. Jacobsen, however, did intend to write an teaching grammar (some are reference grammars), and therefore had to chose one example form. So Jacobsen uses 'um-, apparently because it was more common. Even in a small speech community such as Washo, there are variations. The difference between 'um- and  'ım- may have something to do with vowel harmony (see the paragraph below), but Jacobsen provides no examples, so I cannot say anything further. Other words which show the second person prefix are  'umtó'o,  "your throat", and 'um'í:sa , "your older sister, jiejie".

The third person prefix, da-/de-, adds another trick in the Washo grammatical repertoire. The choice of da- or de- depends on the vowel in the following syllable; if the vowel in the following syllable is a or o, the prefix is da-, but if the vowel in the following syllable is any other vowel, the prefix is de-. This is called vowel harmony, and it is worth noting that the direction of travel is the reverse of vowel coloring. The prefix le- , which triggers vowel coloring, affects the vowel after it, whereas the prefix da-/de- changes according to the following vowel. There are slightly different vowel harmony systems for southern and norther varieties of Washo, but once again I have not researched the details thoroughly - yet. In any case, Jacobsen's examples are fairly simple. The examples follow:
dap'á:pıš "his lungs" vs. dip'á:pıš "my lungs"
da'á:ťu "his older brother" vs. di'á:ťu "my older brother"
dep'ísew "his ear(s)" vs. dip'ísew "my ear(s)"
debéyu "his younger brother, ta didi" vs. dibéyu "my younger brother, wo didi"

Only two vocabulary words in this lesson are not related to body or family members, the two inalienable categories of the Washo tongue: wá:laš "bread"  and k'ómol "ball". The bread in question is made from pine nuts, a staple of the Washo diet, rather than wheat or barley. One of the causes of toothlessness prior to the introduction of corn and wheat was the constant rubbing of stone particles and shells against the teeth. Think about that when you bite into a pistachio!

The inclusion of a word such as "ball" is a reminder that play is an essential component of human life, not just the reserve of wealthier societies. Washo society was very survival oriented, even possessing an ogre, the hanawiyiy (check spelling), which ate lazy children, but the existence of words such as p'áyti' 'play' and k'ómol "ball" indicate that all work and no play makes Jackrabbit (pelew) a dull boy.

Lesson 2b: Drink Me! Eat Me!, or Through the Lookingglass

Okay, so this is where 2b goes. It's probably more understandable after 2a than before.

You and I have a common feature in Washo, at least when "you" are the subject of my command. The imperative prefix g- behaves in the same way as the vowel-initial first person prefix l-; the prefix ge triggers vowel coloring. This is e-coloring (though it has nothing to do with computers), and therefore changes i to e Thus the command "drink!", from geíme? surfaces as géme', and the command "walk!go!", from geíye' surfaces as géye'. One would think that vowel coloring would provide sufficient complexity, but stems such as í'iw "to eat (something)" and í'is "to hold, take, bring", add a further twist, thanks to the glottal stop. The glottal stop is barely a consonant, a way station to oblivion, and does not have the strength to prevent the vowel coloring from contaminating both syllables. The imperatives of í'iw and í'is are gé'ew and gé?es, respectively.

There are two more things to note. The first is the propensity of common words (especially verbs) to acquire or keep linguistic peculiarities and a wide range of meaning. Thus it is no surprise that í'is has both vowel coloring and a weak consonant. The second, the difference between émlu and í'iw, shows the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs. gémlu means "eat!", but does not demand a word or prefix to describe what food was eaten. gé'ew, on the other hand, requires a direct object, a description of what food was eaten. This blog will address how one says "eat the food!" in due time (a hint: it involves the noun démlu and the imperative gé'ew.

Lesson 2a: A Tisket, A Tasket, Tie the Baby in a Basket

I missed a week: mea maxima culpa.

It is said that, in English, you can verb any noun; in Washo the boundary between nouns and verbs is a vague as the boundary of Saudi Arabia and Oman in the Rub al-Khali. émlu, for example, is the stem for "food" and (one of the words for) "to eat" The most basic form of the verb (and, perhaps more importantly for a teaching text, the most likely form to use a bare stem) is the imperative, the Verb Which Commands. Examples in English include "go away!" and "tell me the truth!".

Washo sound rules (phonotactics) apply to verbs as well as nouns, so the verb ásaw "to laugh" or ábıŋ "to tie the baby in the basket" cannot remain constantly consonant-less. The imperative prefix in Washo is g-. The imperatives, therefore, for ásaw, ábıŋ, émlu, élšım "to sleep", and émc'i "to wake up" are gásaw, gábıŋ, gémlu, gélšım, and gémc'i.

There are two more verbs which show other peculiarities. The verb álŋ "to lick" uses the prefix g- to produce gálŋ. This doesn't look like a problem, but a different Washo rule complicates matters. Washo syllables can end in only one consonant, and gálŋ has two. What is a speaker to do, faced with this dilemma? Meet Anna Ptyxis, daughter of Epenthesis. In the case of the Washo language, anaptyxis (the insertion of vowel between two consonants to make pronunciation easier) places a ı between the l and the ŋ to produce gálıŋ. At this point, it is important to note that the presence of ı between consonants is not necessarily a sign of anaptyxis: the verb "to tie the baby in the basket" is ábıŋ, not ábŋ.

The other peculiar verb is á:hu, which means "to stand", but only in the plural. This may seem strange, if you remember that plurality is optional in Washo. Unfortunately, the freedom to ignore plurality in nouns and verbs does not extend to verbs where the verb itself contains the notion of plural or singular. gá:hu means "y'all stand"; if you want to order one person to stand, that's a different verb. It's a bit like learning that, in English, you say "I go" (present) but "I went" (past); a challenge, but a feature which give the language its unique flavor.

Lesson 1c: Blankets and Bones

It's Labor Day, but there's one final twist on the prefixes for the summer. The prefixes m-, ť-, and d- are as well behaved as one could wish, but the prefix l-, in a fitting display of egotism, differs. The true form of the first person prefix is not l-, but le-. This phenomenon is known as vowel coloring. Vowel coloring changes an adjacent vowel, but sometimes does not otherwise betray its presence. In this case, the vowel coloring of le- is weak, and easily overwhelmed by all vowels except for i. Unlike the promise in the Gospel, the le- prefix does change an iota of the (linguistic) law; an i preceded by the le- prefix becomes e. Thus íyeš becomes léyeš "my daughter-in-law", ipi? becomes lépi? "my blanket", í:bu changes to lé:bu, and í:bi? is transformed into lé:bi?. If you can keep those last three straight without practice, you're doing better than I did.

Have a good weekend!

Lesson 1b: If I Only Had A Heart

I see that I posted 2b last week rather than 1b. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea minor culpa. I'm going camping tomorrow next to 'at'abihak'a da'aw (a lake with fish), so any angry e-mails will have to wait until Sunday. Now, let us continue.

Although no Washo word is permitted to begin with a vowel, the method is not always as simple as slapping a d- in front. You would fail the oral exam if you stopped there. Certain categories of roots require ť- rather than d-. This is a concept called the alienable/inalienable distinction, although where the line is varies depending on the language. The easiest way for English speakers to understand it is thus: the existence of a son implies the existence of parents. That's inalienability.

There are three categories to which the ť- prefix would apply. The first is bits of the body, which, if separated from the rest, would cause inconvenience or death. The root á:du means "hand", but one assumes unless told otherwise that the hand is still attached to the person. á:du, therefore, becomes ťá:du. In a similar vein, creatures do not live long without a heart, so émlu becomes ťemlu. Creatures with tails can survive their loss, but the tail is an integral part of the beast, so áp'Il "tail" becomes ťáp'Il. Although blood is a vital part of a living organism, one can lose some and live, so ášaŋ becomes dášaŋ rather than ťášaŋ. The form ťášaŋ does exist, but means "his/her/their blood" in reference to an individual.

The second category is family members. The only kinship term in Lesson 1 is íyeš "daughter-in-law", but Washo prefers individual terms for kith and kin rather than cobbled-together constructions such as "daughter-in-law". The English term, nonetheless, provides an opportunity for breaking down the term and understanding why kinship terms are inalienable. The "daughter" element of "daughter-in-law" tells the listener that this person is defined as a female child of other human beings. The "in-law" element tell the listener that this woman is married and that her husband has parents, whose viewpoint is used here. In light of this analysis, it makes sense that íyeš should become ťíyeš.

The last category is body or plant parts that allow identification of the species. Joacobsen does not go into detail here, since the identifying details differ cross-culturally, and Washo is a culture where carrots and turtles can be lumped together (but that discussion is way down the line).
ťapIl "tail" and ťá:daš "meat" are the examples here.

Lesson 1a: Bed and Board, M'Lord

(A brief note before we start: if these posts seem short, they are baby steps to walking in the Washo language.)

Washo words are not allowed to begin with a vowel (and in Washo, the glottal stop qualifies as a consonant). It's just one of the quirks of the language - and you will learn of many quirks if you follow the siren song of The Tahoe Tongue. Many languages, however, have roots whose structures are at odds with the final structure of the word or phrase. If a Washo stem such as áŋal "house" or émlu "food" begins with a vowel, yet the final product may not, what's a speaker to do? The answer involves prefixation. Prefixation occurs when one grammatical element attaches itself to the front of the word root; an Latin example of this is the self-illustrating word "prefix", in which "pre" is a prefix.

So let us suppose that a Washo speaker sees a house (more likely a hogan, in the days before the coming of the White Man) and knows nothing else about it. The root for "house" or "to build is áŋal, but cannot be used by itself. The speaker would have to say dáŋal, using the prefix d-.

What if the speaker knows whose house it is? In the Washo Province of the Land of Grammar, there are only three persons: first (me), second (you), and third (that guy we're talking about). If the speaker wished to indicate his own house, he would say láŋal, "my house" or "our house". If the house in question were not his, but that of his companion, he would say máŋal, "your house". If the house belonged to subject of the conversation, the speaker would say ťáŋal, "his house", in which ť is a glottalized t. (I will defer to the excellent the pronunciation guide, with audio, at The Washo Project - http://washo.uchicago.edu/ ), This process is similar to the "m'lord" and "m'lady" pronunciation of "my lord" and "my lady", if one could also say "y'lord" and "s'lady".

Note that Washo does not care much about gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) or grammatical number (singular, dual, plural); thus ťáŋal can mean "his house", "her house", "their house", "his houses", "her houses", "their houses". There is a way of making things plural, but that lesson is far down the line, beyond Jacobsen.