Showing posts with label kinship terms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kinship terms. Show all posts
Friday, October 21, 2011
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.
Friday, August 26, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)