Francis Drake’s 1579 voyage:

Assessing linguistic evidence for an Oregon landing∗

John LyonDrake Anchorage Research Collaboration

Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia

Abstract: This article consists of a linguistic investigation of the hypothesis thatSir Francis Drake may have landed somewhere on the Oregon coast in 1579 ratherthan in California, as is usually assumed (Heizer 1974; Heizer and Elmendorf1942), and surveys language data from select Native Oregon languages. Thereare some compelling and plausible matches which come to light in this study, andthough they are by themselves inconclusive as evidence, that should be consid-ered in light of any forthcoming physical evidence, especially since some of thematches from these Oregon languages are as-close-to or stronger than the Miwokcorrespondences cited in Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) and Heizer (1974).

1 Introduction

This article reports on the results from an investigation by the Drake AnchorageResearch Collaboration (DARC) into the origins of linguistic material collectedduring Francis Drake’s journey up the Pacific Coast in 1579 (Drake 1628). Thechief purpose of the investigation is to assess whether or not Drake may havecontacted an Oregon group, particularly of Salishan, ‘Penutian’1, or Athabaskan-speaking stock, rather than ancestors of the California Coast Miwok, as is gener-ally assumed (Heizer 1947; Heizer and Elmendorf 1942).2 The relevant linguisticmaterial from Drake’s voyage consists of short word lists collected by (i) Francis∗The Drake Anchorage Research Collaboration (DARC) consists of Melissa Darby, LeeLyman, John Lyon, Margaret Mathewson, Gary Wessen, Heather Wolfe, LawrenceConyers, Roddy Coleman, and Peter Mancall. Thanks especially to Melissa Darbyfor organizing the group. More information on DARC can be found on the website,www.drakeanchorageresearch.com. Thank you to the purveyors of the Southwest OregonResearch Project (SWORP) collection at the University of Oregon, particularly to DavidLewis of the Grande Ronde Tribe. Thanks also to Henry Zenk for valuable feedback onpossible Chinuk Wawa connections, and to Victor Golla, Peter Mancall, Don McNaughton,and Paul Solimano for reviewing earlier drafts of this report. Thanks also to Patty WhereatPhillips for supplying Coos and Siuslaw vocabularies.Contact info: john.lyon@alumni.ubc.ca

1The Penutian family is only a hypothesis, as it has been for a long time. I nevertheless usethis term as a convenience.

2I do not address any ethnographic or archaeological evidence in this paper. Any linguisticdata taken from this report as evidence for an Oregon landing must necessarily be corrob-orated by ethnographic and archaeological evidence.

In Papers for the International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages 49,University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 37,Natalie Weber, Emily Sadlier-Brown, and Erin Guntly (eds.), 2014.

202

Fletcher, Drake’s chaplain, on the 1579 voyage; and (ii) Richard Madox, a mem-ber of the 1582 Fenton expedition which was a follow-up to Drake’s 1579 voyage,and which included four persons who sailed with Drake in 1579 and who relatedto Madox words and phrases they remembered hearing from the contact group.Together, these document a total of seven words or phrases heard by Drake’s crewmembers at the time of contact (see Section 2).

The primary linguistic means I use to assess the Oregon hypothesis involvesconsulting texts and other language documents from languages spoken primarilyalong the Oregon coast and west of the Cascade Range. Unfortunately, consultingnative speakers of these languages is for the most part no longer a possibility.3

Methodologically, I follow Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) and Heizer (1947) in in-cluding direct vocabulary comparisons (i.e. ‘semantically-similar forms’), but alsoinclude broader comparisons consisting of sequences which are phonologicallysimilar to those given in Fletcher and Madox’s word lists (i.e. ‘phonologically-similar forms’).

This second, broader approach is necessary because of a wide margin for errorstemming from the following linguistic variables. First, the orthographical con-ventions of Elizabethan England may not accurately represent the sounds whichwere actually spoken by members of the contact group. Second, the recordedmeanings of the documented words and phrases may be ‘incorrect inductions ofmeaning’ (Heizer and Elmendorf 1942) on the part of the ship’s crew members.Third, sound change can and does affect language, especially over the course of300–400 years. By a broader comparative methodology, we are able to at leastacknowledge this wide margin for error, and then on a case-by-case basis, judgewhether there is any merit in a particular correspondence.

The data in this report yield numerous interesting phonological correspon-dences which hint at possible cognacy, and even some semantic correpondences.Nevertheless, I find no conclusive linguistic evidence for an Oregon landing, forthe simple reason that none of the languages surveyed here present matches for allof the items on the list. We could speculate that the group which Drake contactedwas linguistically (and culturally) heterogenous, perhaps speaking either two sep-arate languages or else a form of trade-jargon pre-dating modern Chinuk Wawain addition to an indigenous language. Also, considering that bi-lingualism wasprobably the norm rather than the exception, one individual from the contactedgroup may have uttered words and phrases from more than one language. Giventhese possibilities, a nearly complete composite list of possible correspondencesmay be assembled, which I include in the conclusion section. The problem is thatit is not possible to know for sure if, or how, the group Drake contacted was lin-guistically heterogenous. This entails that without corraborating evidence, thesecorrespondences must remain speculative.

3There are several individuals who speak one of the target languages, but the Siletz Tribedeclined to comment, or their policy is not to comment.

203

It should be said that Heizer and Elmendorf’s (1942,1947) Coast Miwok dataalso do not match all the items on Fletcher’s and Madox’s word lists. The soundcorrespondences they suggest for several of the items on the list are rather im-plausible, and at least one of their correspondences can only be made pending an‘incorrect induction of meaning’ (i.e. semantic non-correspondence). Thus, fromthe linguistic angle, their analysis faces some of the same challenges as the cur-rent study. They do, however, present an extremely close correspondence betweenFletcher’s word for ‘bread’ and the Coast Miwok word for ‘acorn bread’, which isdifficult to argue against.

The two main criterea used to judge the strength of any given match shouldbe semantic and phonological similarity to items on the Fletcher/Madox word list.In the event that new linguistic or archaeological evidence surfaces, or furtherdocumentation from Drake’s voyage becomes available, the data included in thisreport may be integral to the question of where Drake landed. Hypotheticallyspeaking, this could include a scenario where evidence surfaces that the contactedgroup was culturally heterogenous, hinting at multiple linguistic origins for theFletcher/Madox lists, and/or evidence that members of the contacted group werebilingual. Because accounts of Drake’s voyage make no specific mention of anysuch possibilities4, there seems little at present to motivate further investigationalong these lines. In any case, this assessment should not dissuade archaeologi-cal investigation of potential landing sites in Oregon, since given the paucity oflinguistic data, it is clearly the physical evidence that will speak most strongly infavor of one site over another.

In Section 2, I present the linguistic data from Drake’s voyage. In Section 3,I review the linguistic claims of Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) and Heizer (1947)that Drake contacted the ancestors of the Coast Miwok in California. In Section 4,I defend the current investigation on the grounds that Heizer and Elmendorf (1942)did not conclusively show that the language of the Fletcher/Madox word list isCoast Miwok. In Section 5, I expand on problems raised by Drake’s linguisticdata, which result in the wide margin of error just discussed. In Section 7, I discussin detail the methodology I use. In subsequent sections, I present relevant datafrom Oregon languages. These include languages from the Salishan (Section 9),‘Penutian’ (Section 10), Athabaskan (Section 11), and Chinookan (Section 12)families. In Section 13, I discuss possible connections to a trade jargon for severalof the items on the word list. In Section 14, I summarize a few important pointsand conclude.

4Although Heizer (1947:260) re-telling of Drake’s landing states that “. . . even larger crowdsof natives came on the 26th, and among them were the Hioh and his retinue. The grouparriving on the 26th probably came from some distance.” This is in contrast to the smallergroup that was contacted on the 23rd. The two groups could conceivably represent twoseparate languages.

204

2 The word list

At the time of Drake’s landing on the Pacific coast of what is now the UnitedStates, the ship’s chaplain Fletcher recorded four words from a contacted group,which were later reported in Hakluyt’s compiled account of Drake’s circumnavi-gation, entitled The World Encompassed (Drake 1628).

A later manuscript was written by Richard Madox, who was not himself amember of Francis Drake’s expedition, but was a member of the 1582 Fentonexpedition which included four persons who did accompany Drake on his originalvoyage, some of whom reported to him words and phrases they remembered, andof which Madox recorded four (Heizer 1947). Three of the four items were notrecorded by Fletcher. Both lists are shown below in Table 1, adapted from Heizerand Elmendorf (1942:214), and including various spellings of individual entries.5

Table 1: The Fletcher/Madox word list

Fletcher Madox English Translation1 hióh hioghe (a) king2 tobáh — an herb

tobâhtabáhtobàh

3 gnaáh — entreat to sing4 petáh — root whereof they make a kind of meal,

and either bake it into bread or eat it raw5 — cheepe bread6 — huchee kecharoh sit down7 — nocharo mu “tuch me not”

Two of these items, hióh and gnaáh, were explicitly associated with the localpopulation by Fletcher in his account of the event. For the other two items, tobáhand petáh, the association is implicit in his account. Given that the items onMadox’s list were obtained indirectly, their associations are less clear.

The word list and accompanying narratives constitute an intriguing, movingaccount of a Pacific Coast culture’s first contact with Europeans. While the histor-ical importance of the event cannot be overstated, the list itself raises many ques-tions, the foremost being “Which language do these items come from?” Heizerand Elmendorf (1942) and Heizer (1947) address this question with admirable

5Elizabethan English spellings were non-standardized, and so it is perhaps not surprising tofind multiple spellings of specific items from the same author within the same account. Forsimplicity, when referring to an item on this list, I use only the first spelling.

205

clarity. I now summarize their claims.

3 Review of the linguistic evidence for the Coast Miwok hypothesis

Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) and Heizer (1947) claim that the items on Fletcher’sand Madox’s lists may be identified as belonging to an earlier form of Coast Mi-wok.6 Their claims are based on linguistic as well as compelling ethnographic andarchaeological evidence, from which Heizer (1947) concludes that Drake’s Bay inCalifornia is the most likely location for Drake’s anchorage. The proposed CoastMiwok cognates listed in Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) and Heizer (1947) are asfollows in Table 2:7

Table 2: Heizer and Elmendorf’s Coast Miwok correspondences

Fletcher/Madox Translation Coast Miwok CM Translation1 hióh a king hoi´pu chief

oiya friend2 tobáh an herb kaya´u tobacco3 gnaáh entreat to sing koya´ sing4 petáh root. . . poto´ any kind of plant

putcu wild onion (Kroeber 1925)haka soaproot

5 cheepe bread tci´pa bread (from acorn meal)6 huchee kecharoh sit down a´tci kotca´to step into the house

ho´ki ko´tcaDo go into the house7 nocharo mu touch me not notca´to mu on the other side

notca mu yonder, over therenotca farther, yonder

Heizer (1947) analyzes hióh, gnaáh, cheepe, huchee kecharoh, and nocharomu as deriving from the Coast Miwok language. Tobáh and petáh, he considersto be borrowings from English and/or words assigned by Drake’s crew membersto objects which they perceived to be tobacco and potatoes. This makes sense inlight of the absence of any clear Coast Miwok cognates for these two forms8, and

6Coast Miwok is a Utian language, though it was traditionally thought to belong to thePenutian family (Mithun 1999).

7Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) use ‘tc’ for English ‘ch’, or Americanist /c/. The ´ sym-bol marks a stressed syllable. A practical list of orthographic translations is given in theappendix.

8Though Heizer (1947:269) does discuss two possible alternative matches for petáh, listedabove.

206

to their obvious similarities to English tobacco and potato. Heizer and Elmendorf(1942:215) note that the Coast Miwok form poto´ “hardly fits Fletcher’s descrip-tion of the plant” described as petáh, and the tobâh ∼ kaya´u correspondence isclearly not very close.

With regards to the items that are purportedly Coast Miwok, the cognacy be-tween the two items hióh and gnaáh and their closest Coast Miwok correspon-dences is questionable, as Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) and Heizer (1947) bothconcede. More specifically, the labial consonant /p/ in Coast Miwok hoi´pu re-mains unexplained, and likewise the /y/ in koya´. Even allowing for the factthat Fletcher and Madox had no previous experience transcribing unfamiliar lan-guages, it seems unlikely that /p/ would have been transcribed if there were no/p/, as in hióh, or that /n/ could be mistranscribed for a /y/, as in koya´. Althoughthe sound changes needed to establish the Coast Miwok forms as cognates are notimpossible, they also cannot be motivated from such a small data set.9

From the linguistic perspective, the strongest evidence for their claim thatDrake contacted the ancestors of the modern Coast Miwok comes from the appar-ently clear cognacy of Madox’s item 5 cheepe ’bread’ with Coast Miwok tci´pa.Item 6 huchee kecharoh ‘sit down’ has a reasonably close phonological corre-spondence to Coast Miwok a´tci kotca´to ‘step into the house’10, however theyseem to be semantically unrelated. Heizer and Elmendorf (1942:216) attributethis discrepancy to an ‘incorrect induction of meaning’, however the context inwhich huchee kecharoh was uttered is simply not known, and it is far from clearwhether there were even any ‘houses’ in the context of discourse. Likewise, Ma-dox’s nocharo mu with Coast Miwok nocha´to mu stand in a close phonologicalcorrespondence, but not necessarily a semantic one.11

Despite the tight semantic and phonological correspondence of cheepe to mod-ern Coast Miwok tci´pa, and the relatively close phonological correspondence ofhuchee kecharoh and nocharo mu to Coast Miwok a´tci kotca´to and notca´to murespectively, there is reasonable doubt concerning the origins of the other fouritems on the list. That only three of the seven items on the list have convincingcorrespondences reaffirms the fact there has never been any conclusive evidencethat the items on this list are Coast Miwok, or any other California language. Wemight ask whether any other languages exhibit a closer set of matches than CoastMiwok.

9The Oregon data, of course, face the same challenge.10Morphologically this form consists of: a´tci, step; ko´tca, house; -to, locative11There is a glossing discrepancy worth noting for the Coast Miwok equivalent of nocharo

mu. Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) gloss it as meaning ‘on the other side’, while Heizer(1947:273–274) glosses it as ‘keep away’, ‘stay over there’, ‘stay away’. In other words, itis not clear from Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) that the phrase has imperative force, thoughit may in fact.

207

4 In defense of our inquiry

The following objections to our investigation may be raised (and have been raised):First, three out of seven cognates is actually a remarkable record, especially giventhe time interval between Drake’s voyage and Heizer and Elmendorf (1942), andso the fact that four items do not have close correspondences should not at all de-tract from the general acceptance of the Coast Miwok hypothesis. Second, evenif the linguistic comparisons are less than sound, the linguistic evidence is in anycase secondary to the stronger ethnographic and archaeological evidence, all ofwhich converge on the Coast Miwok hypothesis, as laid out in Heizer (1947).

Our response to the first objection is as follows: we fully recognize that threeof the Fletcher/Madox forms appear to have Coast Miwok cognates. Because ofthe wide margin for error discussed in the introduction, however, it is prudent tothoroughly examine the native languages of Oregon in order to determine whetherequally strong, or perhaps stronger, linguistic evidence might exist for an Oregonlanding.

Our response to the second objection is as follows: in keeping with the inter-disciplinary mandate of the Drake Anchorage Research Collaboration, this inves-tigation is necessarily carried out with the knowledge that linguistic evidence isonly one thread of evidence which may speak out in favor of one site versus an-other, and that a thorough (re-)examination of physical and ethnographic evidencewill be necessary before we can accurately state exactly how strong a case can bemade for an Oregon landing. That said, even though linguistic evidence for anOregon landing should prove inconclusive, other cultural or physical evidence foran Oregon landing should certainly not be dismissed.

In short, given the limitations on the amount and quality of the data recordedfor this event, it is and likely always will be an open, empirical question concern-ing which language the items on the Fletcher/Madox list derive from. Greater orlesser likelihoods for various hypotheses can certainly be weighed and discussed,and to date, the Coast Miwok hypothesis is certainly the most likely. Neverthe-less, as scientists who leave no stone unturned, however unremarkable, a range ofOregon hypotheses are certainly not beyond the realm of inquiry.

5 A closer analysis of Fletcher/Madox orthography:Possible phonemic correspondences

As discussed in the previous section, there are reasons to question the accuracy ofthe Fletcher/Madox word list in (at least) two respects. First, the Fletcher/Madoxword list may not represent a phonologically or phonetically accurate transcrip-tion.12 That is, the sounds represented by the symbols chosen by Fletcher/Madox

12Although Madox was able to write in Greek and Latin, being a scholar of ancient languagesdoes not necessarily make one a good phonetic transcriptionist.

208

may have no real status in the target language, or a given symbol may representa mishearing of a segment phonetically similar to that which is usually repre-sented by the symbol, but which is nevertheless a distinct phoneme. Second, theFletcher/Madox word list may include ‘incorrect inductions of meaning’, as de-scribed by (Heizer and Elmendorf 1942) for their Coast Miwok correspondence tohuchee kecharoh. If so, these are semantic inaccuracies, for which a given wordmay be understood to denote a contextually relevant object or action, but whichin reality, denotes a different object or action which was also present in the samecontext, yet was overlooked as unimportant or perhaps not even perceived.

If we are to interpret the Fletcher/Madox orthography as phonemically accu-rate, then we have the following partial inventory for our mystery language, givenin Table 3.

Table 3: Target consonants and vowels (assuming a phonemicallyaccurate Fletcher/Madox orthography)13

labial alveolar lateral palatal velar uvular glottalstop p t kvoiced b gejectiveaffricate cejectivefricative hresonant m nglottalizedglide r

front central backhigh i umid e(?) @(?) olow a

This partial phonological inventory is remarkable in several ways, at least withregards to the hypothesis that it might belong to a language of northwestern Ore-gon. A phonemically distinctive /o/ is unusual, since as is often the case in NWcoast languages, the realization of [o] is actually a phonemic /u/ which is articu-lated as a lower vowel in the context of a post-velar consonant. Second, labials/p, b, m/ are absent in some of the coastal Oregon languages (e.g. Tillamook), but

13The status of ‘e’ in the Fletcher/Madox orthography is unclear, and could represent eithera schwa or a full vowel, hence the question marks.

209

present in our target language. Voiced stops /b, g/ are likewise rare among theselanguages, but present in the target language, and the presence of /r/ in our inven-tory is also unexpected, though /r/ is found in some of the Athabaskan languagesof southwestern Oregon. It is plausible that what Fletcher heard as b and g werein fact /p/ and /k, q/, or possibly some glottalized variant thereof. Pre-nasalizationor an intervocalic environment might have given a voiced quality to these conso-nants, for example. The point is that the Fletcher/Madox orthography may not bephonemically accurate, an assumption which must also be made by proponents ofthe Coast Miwok hypothesis.

I suggest that it is possible that the letters and letter-sequences used by Fletcherand Madox for the seven-item list may represent more than one possible phoneme,as shown in Table 4 below. The differences between the two columns imply mis-perceptions in the following contrastive qualities: voicing (e.g. ‘b’ for /p/), glot-talization (e.g. ‘p’ for / ’p/), place of articulation (e.g. ‘ch’ for /c/; or ‘h’ for /x/),rhoticity (e.g. ‘r’ for /l/, etc.), or affrication (e.g. ‘ch’ for /š/). These misperceptionscould have easily arisen because many of the sounds in Oregon Coast languagesare not found in English, and some of those phonemes which are found in Englishnevertheless differ in their finer points of articulation. By way of example, voice-less stops contrast with a separate set of voiceless aspirated stops in Coos, andso a member of the unaspirated set (e.g. /p/) would be potentially confusable witha voiced stop (e.g. /b/) to a speaker of a language which did not make a contrastbetween aspirated and non-aspirated voiceless stops (e.g. English).

Table 4: Possible phonemic correspondences of the Fletcher/Madoxorthography

Fletcher/Madox Possible phonemic Fletcher/Madox Possible phonemicorthography correspondences orthography correspondences

p p/ ’p h h/x/x/-b b/p gh14 —m m/ ’m i/y

>ai/i

t t/’t ee in n/ ’n e @/Er r/t/d/l/’l/G/ì/y u u

ch c/ ’c/š/c(?)/ ’c(?) o o/uk k/ ’k/q/ ’q a a/æg g/k

14Heizer and Elmendorf (1942:217) claim that gh in one transcription of the item for king issilent, and in view of the following transcription of the Madox’s song hodeli oh heigh oh

210

Table 5 lists some of the most likely misperceptions that might have occurredfor an English speaker hearing a completely unfamiliar language with strangesounds. When comparing a sound from the Fletcher/Madox list with a soundfrom a target language, the greater the difference in the number of qualities (e.g.voicing, glottalization, place of articulation, etc.) between the two segments, theless merit that particular correspondence should be given. It is for this reason thatthe /p/ in Coast Miwok hoi´pu renders the entire form suspect, since there is nocorrespondent in Fletcher’s hióh.

Note that if we include all of the possible phonemic correspondences in Ta-ble 4, we have a much-expanded inventory of consonants for the target language,given in Table 5, which also more closely resembles what we actually find inlanguages of the Northwest Coast sprachbund.

Table 5: Target consonants, including possible phonemiccorrespondences

labial alveolar lateral palatal velar uvular glottalstop p t k qvoiced b d gejective ’p ’t ’k ’qaffricate c cejective ’c ’cfricative ì š x x hvoiced Gresonant m n lglottalized ’m ’n ’lglide r

To be clear, this is not to say that all of the possible misperceptions in Table 4must have occurred, but allowing for each correspondence as a distinctly possiblemisperception at least renders the set of possible consonant correspondences con-sistent with the consonant sets usually found in NW-coast languages. Broadeningthe set of target consonants in the search also allows for possible sound shifts.15

heigh ho hodali oh, this seems likely. I extend this analysis to possibly include word-finaloccurences of h, although a perception of h is also consistent with fricatives made furtherup in the vocal tract, e.g. especially /x/, but also /x/.

15Attested and historically motivated sound shifts for the languages in the survey are un-fortunately not very well understood. Although it has been proposed that Coos, Alsea,and Siuslaw, for example, are part of a larger Penutian family, the exact genetic relationbetween these languages on the one hand, and between these languages and the rest ofthe Penutian family, have never been clearly defined. Works in this general area include

211

Of course, by assuming that all of the phonemes in the second column ofTable 4 are possibilities, it becomes more difficult to definitively rule out a candi-date language by its phonology, since Table 5 is necessarily more inclusive thanTable 3. In ranking candidate languages according to likelihood, it makes senseto first look for words whose segments match the default, transparent value ofthe Fletcher/Madox orthography (Table 3), and only then entertain words whosesegments match possible values (Table 5).16

Before investigating other languages, it may be instructive to look at wordlists collected during other Elizabethan-era expeditions, in order to obtain a moregeneral idea of what kind of transcription conventions were used, and what kindof misperceptions and transcription errors may have been made.

6 Other Elizabethan word lists

Setting aside for a moment the semantic discrepancies in the word list of Heizerand Elmendorf (1942) (Table 2), the phonological discrepancies may be due inpart to transcription errors/inaccuracies on the part of the individual who recordedthe list, because the phonemes of Elizabethan English do not necessarily havedirect correspondents in the target language. Since the inventory for each targetlanguage will vary, and be either overall more similar or different than ElizabethanEnglish, certain types of transcription errors will surface for languages which havephonological systems very different than English at that time, which will not sur-face in languages which are more similar.

With this in mind, an objective comparison of the list of possible transcriptionerrors in the Coast-Miwok list with possible transcription errors in a target Oregonlanguage may be improved by seeing what types of transcription errors were madeby Elizabethan voyagers in other circumstances. The general idea is that if thetypes of transcription errors made in this list are closer to the types of transcriptionerrors made in a list of proposed Oregon correspondents than to those made in theCoast Miwok list, that the Oregon hypothesis may thereby receive some indirectsupport.

This comes with the huge caveat that different transcribers will have differentskill-levels and different perceptions, and so using this as a methodological tool

Buckley (1988), Golla (1997), Grant (1997), Pierce (1966), and Sapir and Swadesh (1953).Since for the most part, the semantic correspondences offered by Oregon languages are notclose phonological correspondences, looking deeper for systematic sound shifts does notseem warranted for this study. However, allowing for incorrect inductions of meaning, andthat phonological correspondences are valid as possibilities, the task would then be to tracethe phonological correspondent back to a Drake-era semantic/phonological correspondentby means of a motivated sound shift (and implied semantic shift), although it hardly seemspossible to do this with the documentation and data at hand.

16I list both types of words/phrases in this report.

212

assumes that Elizabethan English transcribers shared (i) the same phonemic in-ventory, and (ii) roughly the same orthographical conventions. There is also thecaveat that historical sound shift must be separated from transcription error whencomparing the original and modern equivalents for any word. Despite all this, itstill seems possible that there could be consistency in the types of errors madeacross transcribers and across languages, and that this same consistency mightsurface when comparing transcription accuracies of the Fletcher/Madox list withan Oregon language.

Two cases presented here are (i) a list of mostly Javanese words collected byFrancis Drake at a later point during the circumnavigation, and (ii) a word listcollected during Martin Frobisher’s 1576 voyage to Baffin Island. Ideally, manymore lists should be consulted and a statistical model for errors proposed, but thisgoes beyond the scope of this paper.

6.1 Frobisher’s list

Martin Frobisher’s 1576 expedition to Baffin Island included contact with a groupof Inuit, and yielded a list of 17 words, which are indisputably Inuit. The list isreproduced below in Table 6, from (Dorais 1993:37–38).17

Table 6: Frobisher’s Inuit word list with modern equivalents

Frobisher Translation Modern Inuit Translation1 accaskay boat ikaussagai will make them go across2 arered eye errit the eyes3 argotteyt a hand argatit your hands4 atoniagay foot atungagik two footsoles5 attegay a coat atege inner parka6 callagay breeches qarligik pants7 cangnawe nose qengaq nose8 chewat ear ciut/siut ear9 coblone thumb kublun your thumb

10 comagaye leg kamegik a pair of boots11 keiotot tooth kigutit the teeth12 ketteckle middle finger qeteq&eq middle finger13 mekellacane third finger mikeliqqan your third finger14 nutchatet head nutchatit your head hair15 polleuetagay knife pilautagik two knives16 teckkere forefinger tekeq forefinger17 yackettone little finger iqetqun your little finger

17As Dorais states, the Baffin Island Inuit of the 16th century is more similar to present dayInupiaq and Western Canadian Inuktun.

213

Dorais notes the following historical sound changes, which should be distin-guished from transcription errors: (a) Word-initial /c/ ‘ch’→ /s/ in some dialects(e.g. item 8); and (b) Intervocalic */g/→ /w/→� (item 8).

I now discuss possible consonant misperceptions, or misrepresentations notobviously attributable to sound change, and noted by Dorais. Frobisher some-times did not transcribe final weak vowels, e.g. item 8 chewat instead of *cigute.Also the velar fricative /G/ [g] in /kigutit/ ‘the teeth’ does not occur in Frobisher’stranscription ‘keiotot’. Items 4–6, 10, and 15 show that the syllables /-ge/ and/-gik/ were transcrbied invariantly as -gay[e]. There are the expected uses of ‘c’(items 6, 7, 13) ‘k’ (item 12) and ‘ck’ (items 12, 17) for /q/, although ‘c’ is alsoused for /k/ (items 9, 10), as is ‘ck’ (cf. 16). This practice of using ‘k’ for both/k/ and /q/, and related phonemes, would also have occurred if Drake contactedan Oregon group. Finally, the uvular fricative R ‘r’ in /qarlagik/ ‘pants’ is missingfrom Frobisher’s ‘callagay’, which is not very surprising given that it directly pre-cedes /l/, and is not found in English. Overall, the transcription in Frobisher’s listis remarkably accurate.

6.2 Drake’s Javenese list

The original word list in Table 7 stems from Hakluyt (1589) vol. iii, and wasintroduced under the heading “Certaine wordes of the naturall language of Jaua,learned and observed by our men there.” The comparative list is adapted fromMahdi (2007:299). All items are Javanese, unless otherwise noted.18 It is unclearwhether Fletcher transcribed this list as well.

The mistranscriptions on this list are for the most part not surprising, particu-larly substituting voiceless for voiced consonants (item 21) and voiced for voice-less consonants (item 31),19 but overall, voicing came across accurately. Of noteis item 14, where ayam ‘chicken’ is transcribed with an initial h. Such a mistakealso seems possible for Fletcher’s word hioh ‘king’, and may be attributable to thecharacteristic of some dialects of English to not pronounce an h in initial position.

The ‘r’ in Drake’s transcription of item 12 is most likely attributable to theretroflex ‘d

˙’ in the actual Javanese form. Actual r in prevocalic position (cf.

items 4 and 5) were correctly transcribed. The missing initial ‘m’ in item 20is unexplained. Likewise the sequence ‘en’ at the beginning of item 23 is notexplained, nor the distant correspondence of 29 Lau with Malay tahu.

One interesting thing that becomes apparent from the Javanese list is that itshows that Drake probably did contact ’culturally heterogenous’ groups of peo-ple, since it contains Javanese, Malay, and Sundanese words. This bolsters thepossibility that the group Drake may have contacted in North America consisted

18The symbol d˙

indicates a retroflex d, [ã].19A similar mistake in transcribing voicing could have occured if Fletcher’s form petáh were

meant to represent Chinook pdoP.

214

Table 7: Drake’s Javanese word list with modern equivalents (adapted

from Mahdi 2007)

Drake Translation Modern Javanese Translation[or other]

1 Sabuck silke sabuk waistcloth2 Sagu bread of the Countrey sagu sago3 Larnike drink - -4 Paree ryce in the huske paré rice plant5 Braas sodden rice bras unhusked rice6 Calapa cocos klåpå coconut7 Cricke a dagger kris creese8 Catcha a looking glass kåcå mirror9 Arbo an oxe kebo water buffalo

10 Vados a goate wed˙us goat, sheep

11 Cabo golde - -12 Gardange a plantain ged

˙ang banana

13 Totopps one of their caps tutup cover (?)14 Hiam a henne ayam chicken15 Sevit linnen cloth - -16 Doduck blew cloth d

˙od

˙ok sit, squat (?)

d˙ud

˙uk place (?)

17 Gula black sugar Gula [brown] sugar18 Tadon a woman Wadon woman19 Bebeck a ducke bèbèk duck20 Anjange a deere menjangan deer21 Popran oyntment bo-borèh ointment22 Coar the head - -23 Endam raine udan rain24 Jonge a shippe jung ship, junk25 Chay the sea cai [Sundanese] water (?)26 Sapelo ten in number sepuluh ten27 Dopolo twentie dua puluh [Malay] twenty28 Treda no tidak [Malay] no, not29 Lau understand you tahu [Malay] know30 Bayer goe biar [Malay] let it be31 Adadizano I will fetch it ada di sana [Malay] it’s there32 Suda ynough sudah [Malay] it’s done

215

of members from different language speaking communities.Before moving onto the data, I first discuss some methodological issues.

7 Methodology

First, I examine the phonological inventory of each language (if possible), andcompare each language’s inventory against possible phonemic equivalents of theFletcher/Madox orthography (Table 5). In principle, a language could be defini-tively ruled out by this method. In actuality, however, because the Fletcher/Madoxlist is so small and the possible ways in which a sound may be misperceived solarge, a better indicator that a language is an unlikely candidate comes from itsimply having few plausible matches. This is the second method, to which I nowturn.

The second method I employ in this survey is to comb existing texts, vocabu-lary lists, and published grammars for lexical items which appear to ‘match’ theitems on the Fletcher/Madox word list. The most obvious way of doing this is tosearch for items which match the English translations given in the word list above(i.e. ‘semantic matches’). There are known problems with this approach however,since regarding items 6 and 7 for example, Heizer and Elmendorf (1942:216)themselves state that “it is probable that ‘sit down’ and ‘tuch me not’ represent in-correct inductions of meaning from situations in which Madox heard these phrasesused.”20 It is also possible that these same incorrect inductions of meaning applyto the other items on the list as well. I therefore also employ the less obvious, andmore tedious approach, of combing these resources for phonological matches’,which may or may not be semantically related to the English glosses given in theFletcher/Madox word list. So for instance, for item 7 nocharo mu, I scan for thefollowing four sequences n(V)c, c(V)r, r(V)m, and r(V)(P).21 But I also scan forevery possible permutation of those four sequences (cf. Table 5): so for instancewith the initial sequence n(V)c, I also look for n(V) ’c, n(V)š, n(V)c, n(V) ’c, ’n(V) ’c,’n(V)š, ’n(V)c, and ’n(V) ’c. Needless to say, this methodology complicates the search,but helps to address the issues presented in the previous section.

For possible semantic matches, I simply include the form next to the corre-sponding entry from the Fletcher/Madox list. For possible phonological matches,I break the form roughly into syllables, showing how the form corresponds syl-labically with the Fletcher/Madox entry. It is very rare that a candidate formhas the same number of syllables as a Fletcher/Madox entry, though this is notin-and-of-itself detrimental to possible cognacy, since (to throw yet another vari-able into the works) it is perfectly possible that Drake’s crew only recalled (and

20It is important to remember that Madox never actually heard these words spoken in theiroriginal context, only second-hand from some person or persons who did.

21So far as I know, there is no evidence for a word boundary in nocharo mu, and so I assumethat the entire form could in fact be one word, i.e. nocharomu.

216

Fletcher/Madox only recorded) a part of a linguistic utterance, or conversely, thata candidate form corresponds to only a portion of a Fletcher/Madox form. Thus,one sometimes finds whole phonological strings before reaching the beginning ofthe actual Fletcher/Madox cognate. For this reason, I include a blank column bothbefore and after the syllabified Fletcher/Madox form to accomodate extraneousmaterial from the candidate language.

Also, I do not strictly observe syllabification of the candidate forms, sincesometimes, the beginning of one syllable and the end of the following sylla-ble appear to correspond to the beginning and end of the same syllable in theFletcher/Madox form. This obviously decreases the probability that the two formsstand in any kind of real correspondence, but I nevertheless include these for thesake of completeness. I group morphologically-related, and hence semantically-related, entries together: a horizontal line in the chart indicates the beginning ofa set of correspondences which are (possibly) morphologically/semantically un-related to the preceding set. There is a tendency towards the end of the longerlists for a line break to follow each entry, since there were often miscellaneous,semantically-isolate entries.

Finally, data lists for some of the surveyed languages (i.e. Penutian languages)are clearly more extensive than for other languages (i.e. Salishan and Athabaskan).This discrepancy may be due to the availability of reference materials for a lan-guage, but may also be due to the absence of possible correspondences in thatlanguage, which is in turn due to phonological or phonotactic factors, whichshould be taken as evidence that a particular candidate language is unlikely tobe the group that Drake contacted. If phonologically similar forms for a particularFletcher/Madox entry are not forthcoming in a given candidate language, I do notlist the Fletcher/Madox forms. I should also make it clear that there are sure to bereference materials which were not consulted during the course of this survey. Assuch, this survey must be viewed as incomplete.

Because the status of the Fletcher/Madox transcriptions and the real-world sit-uations/objects they were meant to describe are under-determined, it is unclearwhether (i) a candidate word which is semantically closer to the Fletcher/MadoxEnglish gloss, yet whose phonemes deviate in one or more ways from the Fletcherand Madox default (compare Table 3 to Table 5); or (ii) a word which is seman-tically very distant or unrelated22 to a Fletcher/Madox English gloss, yet whosesegments correspond closely to the Fletcher/Madox default, should be considereda more likely correspondence. What is clear is that the strongest evidence forcognacy must come from (1) a language whose phonological inventory is com-patible with the sounds represented on the Fletcher/Madox word list, either syn-

22Although the results of this combing process are semantically compatible with situationsin which the English glosses given in the Fletcher/Madox word list might have been used,this reduces to near-speculation because the strength of cognacy must always be temperedby the ever-present possibility that Fletcher ‘induced meaning incorrectly.’

217

chronically, or diachronically as the result of an attested or probable sound shift,and (2) items within a phonologically compatible language which are semanti-cally compatible, but not necessarily identical to, Fletcher and Madox’s Englishglosses, since we must also allow for a ‘reasonable amount’ of incorrect meaninginduction.

8 Survey languages

The candidate languages in this study center around Whale Cove, Oregon, whichDARC considers a possible landing site. The approximate location of Whale coveis indicated by a small blue dot that is one third of the way down the Oregon coaston the map in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Languages of Western Oregon (reproduced from Loy et al.2001)

218

This survey also includes data from languages farther afield to the North (e.g.Kwalhioqua and Clatskanie) as well to the South (e.g. Coos (Penutian), and Ore-gon Athapaskan languages). At the end of the 19th century, the Whale Cove arearoughly delimited the traditional areas occupied by the Salish-speaking Tillamook-Siletz on the North and the linguistically unrelated Alsean dialects to the South.

If Drake landed at Whale Cove, the null hypothesis is that the items on theFletcher/Madox word list belong to either the Tillamook or Alsea languages, orperhaps both.23 If Whale Cove was Drake’s landing site, but ancestors of theTillamook-Siletz or Alsea-Yaquina were not the contact group, then it is still pos-sible that Drake contacted a group which was later displaced, either to the north,or perhaps more likely to the east or south.24 Therefore, once the languages inthe immediate vicinity of Whale Cove are investigated, the languages in the sur-rounding area should also be, and this is the general course I follow.

The following sections include relevant data surveyed from specific languages.The languages are organized by language family. The three families I survey areSalishan (Tillamook-Siletz), ‘Penutian’ (Alsea-Yaquina, Siuslaw-Lower Umpqua,Coos (Hanis-Milluk), Takelma-Kalapuyan, and Molalla), and Athabaskan (Clats-kanie-Kwalhioqua, Upper Umpqua, various dialects of Tututni, Chetco-Tolowa).Afterwards, I briefly discuss possible trade-jargon connections.

For each language, where possible, I first introduce the phonemic inventoryof each language, noting important correspondences and deviances from Table 3and Table 5. Then, I present lexical items/phrases which most closely correspondto the translations offered by Fletcher/Madox (i.e. ‘semantically-similar forms’).Finally, I present lexical items/phrases which most closely correspond phonologi-cally to the items on the Fletcher/Madox list (i.e. ‘phonologically-similar forms’).

23The null hypothesis overlooks the realistic possibility that population movement or dis-placement occured somewhere within the 300 years separating Drake’s voyage with thebeginning of the period of intensive linguistic work, as well as the obvious possibility thatDrake did not anchor in Whale Cove. Both of these points are good reasons to expand thegeographic area of languages surveyed.

24There is some evidence that a southward movement of coastal peoples occurred in relativelyrecent times. This almost certainly occurred with the Tillamook peoples, since the ancestorhomeland of Salish people is further northward, in the Fraser River valley (Czaykowska-Higgins and Kinkade 1998:58). The main migration of the Tillamook probably occurredbefore Drake’s voyage, since anthropological and archaeological research suggest that theysettled in the area ranging from Cape Lookout to Cape Meares during the 15th century. TheWhale Cove and Siletz Bay areas may have been Alsea at the time of Drake’s voyage, how-ever. Frachtenberg’s Alsea text notebooks (texts vol. 4, 1st page, cf. SWORP collection)include a note from “Tom” (Tom Jackson?): “Tom says the Siletz spoke both Alsea andTillamook. He thinks that originally they spoke Alsea only. He says: Alsea is pure, whenit comes to Yaquina one finds a mixture of slight degree, Siletz finally has two (Alsea &Tillamook) languages. The old people said: on three rivers the same language was spoken:on Alsea, Yaquina and Siletz.” Thanks to Henry Zenk for noting this.

219

I discuss noteworthy, relatively close correspondences for each language sur-veyed, and again in the conclusion.

9 Salishan

9.1 Tillamook-Siletz

Tillamook-Siletz is the southernmost Salish language. The southernmost dialectof Tillamook, Siletz, was formerly spoken in the coastal area immediately to thenorth of Whale Cove.

The consonant and vowel systems are given in the following charts which areadapted from Thompson (1966:314).

Table 8: Tillamook consonants and vowels

labial alveolar lateral palatal velar uvular glottalstop t k kw q qw Pejective t’ k’ k’w q’ q’w

affricate c cejective c’ ’ň c’fricative s ì š x xw x xw hresonant n lglottalized (n’)? (l’)?glide w y

front centralhigh i @mid elow a

There are several points worth mentioning here. First, Tillamook has no labialconsonants, other than /w/ (except in loan-words), and also lacks back vowels(Thompson 1966). Edel (1939:6) discusses two historical changes: (i) the semi-vowel /w/ has been substituted for the labial /m/, and (ii) the glottal fricative /h/has been substituted for /p/. This second sound shift is somewhat unexpected,since /h/ shares neither the place nor manner of articulation of /p/. Assumingthat the Fletcher/Madox transcriptions were at least roughly accurate, and thatthe contacted group was Tillamook, we could only assume that these sound-shiftspost-dated Drake’s hypothetical contact with this group, since otherwise, petáhshould have been hetáh, for example. No such form can be found for Tillamook,however, as implied by the data charts below.

220

The absence of voiced stops (i.e. /b/, /d/, /g/, etc.) in the language is not unex-pected, given that few other Salish languages, with the exception of Lushootseedand Coeur d’Alene, have these consonants. gnaáh and tobáh may reasonably beruled out as possibilities since they both contain voiced stops, however a misper-ception or mistranscription on the part of Fletcher could have resulted in a /g/and /b/ being transcribed, rather than a non-aspirated /k/ and /p/, especially since“the plain obstruents . . . . are regularly partially voiced in position directly beforevowels” (Thompson 1966). As stated before, however, even /p/ is not a possiblephoneme in Tillamook, at least synchronically.25 Also, there is no /r/ in the lan-guage, which might seem to disqualify any correspondence to huchee kecharohand nocharo mu, although it must be said that the Coast Miwok correspondencesalso do not have /r/, but /t/ (or ‘D’), which is reasonable, assuming that the /r/ wereflapped, as in a fast pronunciation of /t/ in English Saturday.26

As can clearly be seen in Table 9 below, the closest semantic correspondencesI have been able to find for Tillamook do not at all phonologically resemble theFletcher/Madox items, with the possible exception of caplíl ‘bread’, a ChinukWawa word (Chinook Wawa Dictionary Project 2012:201). See Section 11 forfurther discussion of Chinuk Wawa forms.

Table 10 presents phonologically similar forms for Tillamook-Siletz. Phono-logical correspondences are sparse for Tillamook, there only being notable exam-ples for two of the seven items on the Fletcher/Madox list. Single syllable itemslike (1) and (5) above are really not long enough to suggest any kind of real cor-respondence, except in conjunction with other compatible morphemes, which isthe main reason I include them in this report. There is no single morpheme hu(though one could propose that it might be a kind of interjection), and so it is dif-ficult to see how (1) could correspond to ‘chee’ in ‘huchee kecharoh’, especiallysince the deictic semantics of ‘that’ do not seem to be a component to the meaningof ‘sit down’. Item (2) offers a more promising correspondence, except that ratherthan the second syllable beginning with /c/, it begins with /c/ ‘ts’. The meaning‘too much’ implies that Madox’s translation ‘sit down’ is an incorrect inductionof meaning, unless perhaps ‘kecharoh’ carries the weight of the meaning. In anycase, the closest correspondence to ‘kecharoh’ is item (4), which not only is unre-lated to ‘sitting down’, but the final two syllables s@wi do not correspond well at

25If tobáh and petáh are borrowings from English, as Heizer (1947) suspects, then theseproblems are immediately overcome, since they pattern with other known borrowings inthe Tillamook language, for example Chinook Jargon caplíl ‘bread’ (Thompson 1966:4)which also contains a non-native /p/.

26If the /t/ in Coast Miwok were flapped (i.e. as with the ‘t’ in English “Saturday”, in fastspeech, where the tongue does not articulate a prototypical ‘t’, but instead ‘glides’ pastthe alveolar ridge on its way backwards), it is understandable that an Englishman mightmistranscribe /t/ for /r/. This is under the assumption that a flapped consonant would beperceived by an Elizabethan speaker as ‘r’, or that there were a spelling convention thatrepresented /t/, when flapped, as ‘r’.

221

Tabl

e9:

Tilla

moo

k-Si

letz

:Sem

antic

ally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nTi

llam

ook

Tran

slat

ion

Cita

tion

1hi

óha

king

še’ c=

Penu

chie

f,bi

gri

ch(T

hom

pson

1989

)2

tobâ

han

herb

huì-

tosm

oke

(Tho

mps

on19

89:5

5)3

gnaá

hen

trea

tto

sing

Pcis

leš

sing

(Tho

mps

on19

89:2

)s@

kw@n

song

(Tho

mps

on19

66)

4pe

táh

root

...

d@y@

cqw@

root

used

forf

ood

(Tho

mps

on19

89:3

3)5

chee

pebr

ead

capl

íl/sa

plíl

brea

d(C

hino

okJa

rgon

)(T

hom

pson

1989

:4)

6hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

ìéqi

lsi

tdow

n(T

hom

pson

1989

:66)

7no

char

om

uto

uch

me

not

qe(P

)sno

,not

(Tho

mps

on19

89:2

1)

Tabl

e10

:Till

amoo

k-Si

letz

:Pho

nolo

gica

lly-s

imila

rfor

ms

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

1ci

that

(Tho

mps

on19

89:2

2)2

húci

Pto

om

uch

(Tho

mps

on19

89:5

5)3

h@w

csn@

good

(Tho

mps

on19

66)

4kw

uch

@s@

wi

I’m

goin

gas

hore

(Tho

mps

on19

66)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n5

n@P

loca

tive,

get,

wai

t,su

rfac

e(T

hom

pson

1989

:76)

222

all to the Madox form.Given the available evidence, Tillamook seems to be an unlikely candidate for

the language encountered by Drake and his crew.

10 Penutian

10.1 Alsea/Yaquina

Alsea proper, and a close dialect Yaquina, were spoken in the area immediatelysouth of Whale Cove. It is completely unrelated to Tillamook, and has tradition-ally been classified as a Penutian language.

Alsea-Yaquina is phonologically different from Tillamook in having labialconsonants. Buckley (1988:14) cites Frachtenberg as noting that voiced stopsare allophonic variations of voiceless stops, occurring intervocalically and before/l/. These two factors make possible a more direct correspondence between Alseaand Fletcher/Madox entries like tobah, petah, gnaah, and nocharo mu. Theoreti-cally then, assuming that the phonotactics of the language cooperate, Alsea shouldyield a relatively greater number of phonologically-similar correspondences thanTillamook, and this seems to be the case. The following charts are adapted fromBuckley (1988:28), and represent the Alsea/Yaquina sound system:

Table 11: Alsea consonants and vowels

labial alveolar lateral palatal velar uvular glottalstop p t k

“k kw q qw P

ejective p’ t’ k“’ k’ k’w q’ q’w

affricate cejective c’ ’ňfricative s ì š x xw x xw hresonant m n lglottalized m’ n’ l’glide w yglottalized w’ y’

short long short nasal long nasali u i; u; i u i; u;

a a; a a;

The semantic correspondences from Alsea are for the most part non-starters(see Table 13 below). The closest one comes to a phonological correspondence inthe above chart is the word for ‘bread’, where the initial syllable ‘tsi’ (/ci/) might

223

be taken to correspond to ‘chee’ (/ci/) in ‘cheepe’. The absence of any sort of /p/ inthe Alsea form seems to negate any real possible correspondence here, however,and ‘L’ (/ň/) and ‘p’ (/p/) are not very similar.

Table 14 includes a somewhat lengthy listing of phonological correspondencesfor Alsea-Yaquina, and some discussion of noteworthy items. There are severalinteresting, close phonological correspondences to hióh ‘king’, but nothing withthe meaning of ‘king’. One could imagine that one might utter (1) ‘friend’ in afirst-contact situation, but this is pure speculation on par with Heizer’s (1947) formoiya ‘friend’. It must be said that the Alsea form is closer in sound to Fletcher’shióh than the Coast Miwok form.

Single syllabic (6) is not much of a correspondence, but compare (7) qa´nhanto the 1st singular pronoun in neighboring Siuslaw, qnà, and one arrives at a rea-sonable correspondence, allowing for the realistic possibility that a voiced stop’g’ was written rather than ‘k’ or ‘q’ because of the following nasal /n/. Why anisolated first person pronoun would be uttered in the context of ‘entreating to sing’is unclear, however. The prefix for ‘to dance’ kuyad is interesting since it at leastsuperficially resembles part of the Coast Miwok word for ‘sing’, koya´, and bothlanguages were traditionally considered to belong to the Penutian family.

Alsea-Yaquina, and Siuslaw and Coos as will be seen, all show many possiblephonological correspondences to huchee kecharoh. Lines (9–19) above show thatit is not uncommon for a fricative consonant compatible with [htbp], e.g. /x/ or /-/,to begin a word/phrase in Alsea, and for the following vowel to be /u/. Addition-ally (9–19) show that it is not uncommon for the second syllable to be an affricatefollowed by a high vowel /i/, although for Alsea, the affricate is alvealor ‘ts’ (/c/)rather than palatal ‘ch’ or ‘tc’ (/c/), and the longer forms (18–19) are less thanconvincing. Lines (32–37) show a possible correspondence to ‘chee’ in the verbformative tsi. Although a verb for ‘sit down’ is missing here, ‘to be in a horizontalposition, rest’ (36-37) is semantically close. The word for chair in (30) could beconstrued as related to ‘sitting down’, however the phonological correspondenceis not particularly close. The 3rd person pronoun qo´tsE in (38–42) could corre-spond to ‘kecha’ in ‘kecharoh’, although use of the 3rd person, rather than the 2ndperson, is unexpected if indeed Madox’s gloss of the phrase as an imperative iscorrect. Lines (26–29) offer alternative correspondences to ‘kecharoh’, althoughthe final syllable containing [o] is only represented in (20–21) and (31), which areotherwise not particularly close correspondences. One could of course entertainvarious combinations of (9–17) with (22–30) or (37–43), however it is unclearwhich of these combinations would be grammatically viable, and of those thatare, these must in any case remain speculations.

Lines (44–47), in combination, seem to suggest temporal deictic reference toa river, which could plausibly be stretched to encompass Madox’s translation ‘onthe other side’ (of the river), but this too is highly speculative, and is in any casecompletely unrelated to the other meaning of nocharo mu, ‘don’t touch me’.

224

Tabl

e13

:Als

ea-Y

aqui

na:S

eman

tical

ly-s

imila

rfor

ms

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nA

lsea

-Yaq

uina

Tran

slat

ion

Cita

tion

1hi

óha

king

mEì

ana´

stiy

u,k;

eu´t

s!ch

ief,

lead

er(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:257

,290

)2

tobâ

han

herb

k;i´

un sato

bacc

o(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:303

)3

gnaá

hen

trea

tto

sing

tsil’

-,k;

il-to

sing

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

65,3

00)

tsila

´ha,

tsilh

a´,k

;ilhi

´so

ng(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:265

,301

)ts

ilhai

´(b

egan

to)s

ing

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:7

2)m

Ets

ilhaE t

’si

nger

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:3

00)

4pe

táh

root

...

Li´

qayu

root

s(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:299

)w

au´s

t!au

sro

ots

(dug

up)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

99)

pula

’uk

tc’a

’-ik

acor

nm

eal

(SW

OR

P4:

2)tq

’ain ’c

aan

yki

ndof

mea

l(S

WO

RP

4:2)

t’qi

n’ca

mus

hof

poun

ded

root

s(n

ame

ofro

ots

unkn

own)

(SW

OR

P4:

2)nu

´nsu

mxt

food

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

93)

sa´p

txus

hole

(dig

hole

s,co

llect

ive)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

56)

5ch

eepe

brea

dts

isin ´L

i27br

ead

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

65)

6hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

pil-

,pilt

ku-

tosi

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:300

)qx

e´nk

;sdo

wnw

ard

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

91)

7no

char

om

uto

uch

me

not

yaq-

,’k;

!-,p

k-,p

k;!-

toto

uch

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:3

03)

x;im

s-,ì

tsim

x-to

touc

h(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:303

)i L

iyaE ,

waE ,

waE n

a´no

,not

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

97)

27T

hem

orph

eme

-Lim

eans

‘the

one

that

...’

.

225

Tabl

e14

:Als

ea-Y

aqui

na:P

hono

logi

cally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

hióh

aki

ngC

itatio

n*1

28hi

yaE

cous

in,f

rien

d(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:252

,293

)2

hiE

ye´

safr

iend

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

52,2

93)

3hi

w-

tow

hisp

er(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:252

)4

hyuw

tow

hisp

er(p

refix

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:252

)5

hai

ya’

spot

ted

salm

on(S

WO

RP

4:9)

29

gna

áhen

trea

tto

sing

Cita

tion

6k;

a‘-

tope

rmit

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

98)

7qa

´nh

anI(

1stp

erso

nsg

.)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:274

)8

kuya

d-to

danc

e(s

ing.

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:270

)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

9ha

a ´ts

Ein

vain

,vai

nly

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

52)

10hu

inte

rjec

tion

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

53)

11hu

tosc

ore,

tota

lly(p

refix

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:253

)(c

ontin

ued

onne

xtpa

ge..

.)

28T

he‘*

’sym

boli

ndic

ates

anun

usua

llycl

ose

corr

espo

nden

ce.T

hese

are

revi

ewed

agai

nin

the

conc

lusi

on.

29A

llSW

OR

Pm

ater

ials

are

from

the

Nat

iona

lAnt

hrop

olog

ical

Arc

hive

sco

llect

ion

(i.e

.‘se

ries

1’),

orig

inal

lyho

used

atth

eSm

ithso

nian

Inst

itu-

tion.

The

first

num

beri

ndic

ates

the

box,

and

the

seco

ndnu

mbe

rthe

fold

er.T

heke

yto

the

SWO

RP

refe

renc

eca

nbe

foun

dus

ing

the

follo

win

gw

ebsi

te:h

ttp://

nwda

-db.

wsu

libs.

wsu

.edu

/find

aid/

ark:

/804

44/x

v147

23.

226

(.

..co

ntin

ued

from

prev

ious

page

)hu

chee

kech

aro

hsi

tdow

nC

itatio

n12

hun ts

clos

ehe

re(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:253

)13

xuts

-as

soon

as(p

artic

le)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

78)

14xu

tsa´

onm

ypa

rt,o

nhi

spa

rt(p

artic

le),

are

ason

(?)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

78,1

00)

15xu

´si

alit

tle(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:74,

295)

16hu

n kihe

re(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:253

)17

huE t

sk;

may

be,p

erha

ps(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:253

)18

kuts

-hi´

yak;

aux

whe

nth

eirc

ousi

nsa

id(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:66)

19u

sti

tai´

tist

aux

follo

wth

emtw

o(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:68)

20xa

ts!o

wai

´ìi

-sl

oth

oush

altw

atch

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:3

0)21

hak;

qal

xaE

yai´

slo

hidi

ngpl

ace

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:6

8)22

k;a

tost

op,c

ompl

ete,

finis

h(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:270

)23

k;a´

toal

low

,to

perm

it(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:270

)24

qaE

part

icle

deno

ting

unce

rtai

nty

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

73)

25qa

ato

ente

r(pr

efix)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

73)

26k!

ets

east

,ash

ore,

inla

nd(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:273

)27

k;(a

)ts

!to

have

on,t

opu

ton,

tow

ear

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

73)

28k;

a´ts

!isa

u?s

ticki

ngin

the

sole

sof

his

feet

?(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:98)

29k;

Ets

cust

omar

ily,u

sual

ly,r

epea

tedl

y(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:44,

270)

30ka

´atk

Eta

chai

r(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:269

)31

tsa´

los

snip

e(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:265

)(c

ontin

ued

onne

xtpa

ge..

.)

227

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

32ts

iqu

-to

laug

h,de

ride

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

66)

33ts

ixu

tto

push

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

66)

34ts

in ´k;

ero

of,c

eilin

g(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:266

)35

tsi

ku-

tohe

ar,l

iste

n,un

ders

tand

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

67)

36ts

ik

bein

aho

rizo

ntal

posi

tion

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

67)

37ts

kit!

rest

ing

plac

e,be

d,la

ir(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:267

)38

qa´

tsE

he,s

he,i

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:274

)39

qa´

tsi

Lx

they

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

74)

40a

qa´

tsE

he,s

he,i

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:274

)41

qo´

tsE

he,s

he,i

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:276

)42

qo´

tsE

qau´

wai

sihe

will

habi

tual

lybe

first

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:7

4)43

qaa ´

tsE

alo

ngtim

e,aw

hile

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

17:2

75)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n44

na´t

k;a

usm

allr

iver

,cre

ek(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:276

)45

na´t

k;its

Lo

Big

Riv

er,S

iletz

Riv

er(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:276

)46

mu

hu;

now

(Buc

kley

1988

:25)

47m

=un ´

huno

w,t

hen,

final

ly,a

tlas

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1917

:76,

258)

228

10.2 Siuslaw-Lower Umpqua

Siuslaw-Lower Umpqua was spoken along the coast to the south of Alsea-Yaquina.The following phoneme charts are adapted from Hymes (1966):

There was some debate as to whether or not Siuslaw had voiced stops. Fracht-enberg (1922b) lists /b/ and /d/, but Hymes (1966:330) does not. Sapir and Swadesh(1953) record two instances of /b/, but Frachtenberg and Hymes record these casesas /p/. The apparent alternations occur in a pre-vocalic environment. Also, initialconsonants in English loans like Billy and Boat are devoiced, i.e. p1líi and púut.The only confirmed occurence of /d/ occurs between two voiced sounds (the otheroccurences have been recorded as /t/ by Hymes and Swadesh). Hymes concludesthat [b] and [d] are non-contrastive alternations of /p/ and /t/ in Siuslaw, and thatSiuslaw has no voiced stops.

Hymes (1966:335) also concludes that there is no contrastive series of aspi-rated consonants, but that these are rather seqeuences of stop plus /h/. Hymes(1966:335, fn 20), cites Frachtenberg as distinguishing between ‘glottalized stopsof ordinary strength’, primarily with /t/ and /k/ where he transcribes ‘ordinary’glottalization with an apostrophe, versus ‘real explosives’, transcribed with ‘!’.Hymes states that although ordinary glottalized consonants are non-contrastivewith non-glottalized consonants, “on grounds of observed phonological distribu-tion. . . the edge is for interpretation of C’ as a special series” Hymes (1966:337).On page 338, Hymes and Swadesh agree that /k/ and /q/ seem to be in comple-mentary distribution, and that there is no evidence for a separate labialized conso-nant series (i.e. k(’)w or q(’)w). Finally, Hymes (1966:342) concludes that vowellength is contrastive in the language, and that /w/ and /y/, intervocalically, arenon-distinctive.

Similar to the case of Alsea, the straight semantic correspondences I was ableto find for Siuslaw are largely non-starters, but are listed in Table 15.

Table 16 represents phonologically-similar forms for Siuslaw-Lower Umpqua.The Alsea form meaning ‘friend’ seems more likely to be used in a first-contactsituation than either of the forms given as (1) or (2). While (2) hau ‘yes’ couldplausibly have been heard in such a situation, the /a/ vowel is not a close cor-respondent to the ‘i’ in hióh, though if ‘i’ represented /ai/ as in the English 1stperson pronoun I, the correspondence would become marginally more plausible.

As mentioned in the previous section’s discussion on the corresponding Alseaforms, the 1st person pronouns in (4–8) are close phonological matches to gnaáh‘entreat to sing’, though not semantically very close.

Lines (12–53), roughly speaking, offer correspondences for huchee, and (54–73) for kecharoh, though more specifically just for kecha, while (74–78) possiblecorrespondences for the final syllable roh. From within the first set, the formsin (17–19) related to ‘everywhere’, and the forms in (32–37) related to ‘playing’offer the closest correspondences because of their relatively closer vowel corre-spondences. The other sets in (12–53) diverge more markedly. From within the

229

Tabl

e15

:Siu

slaw

-Low

erU

mpq

ua:S

eman

tical

ly-s

imila

rfor

ms

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nSi

usla

w-L

ower

Um

pqua

Tran

slat

ion

Cita

tion

1hi

óha

king

ma a´

tich

ief,

lead

er(F

rach

tenb

erg

1914

:130

)m

a’at

iich

ief,

cano

est

eers

man

(Whe

reat

2001

b)ìn

a?ch

ief

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

14:1

30)

ì@na

’wa

chie

f,ri

chm

an(W

here

at20

01b)

2to

bâh

anhe

rbch

iyuu

san,

ch’i

yusI

nto

bacc

o(W

here

at20

01b)

,[P

hilli

ps,p

.c.]

3gn

aáh

entr

eatt

osi

ngan

xi-

sing

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

14:1

37)

a´na

Xhîn

Iam

sing

ing

(SW

OR

P6:

1)a’

naXy

aan

tEsE

ãe[f

orm

rela

ted

to‘s

ingi

ng’]

(SW

OR

P6:

1)4

petá

hro

ot..

.i ì

qwa´

n tEm

root

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

14:1

36)

qwim

tspo

tato

es(F

rach

tenb

erg

1914

:136

)qw

imIt

sw

apat

o[P

hilli

ps,p

.c.]

’áuc

hisi

cam

as[P

hilli

ps,p

.c.]

ìkw

át@m

root

s(g

ener

al)

[Phi

llips

,p.c

.]5

chee

pebr

ead

q’al

axw

hite

clay

,flou

rand

whe

atbr

ead

[Phi

llips

,p.c

.](b

orro

wed

from

Han

is)

6hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

ta-,

ti-to

sit

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

14:1

37)

tai -

tosi

t,to

live

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

523)

ants

t!i´

t!yu

nth

aton

whi

chhe

was

sitti

ng(F

rach

tenb

erg

1914

:523

)qa

´xan

-do

wn

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

14:1

30)

7no

char

om

uto

uch

me

not

ku,k

umî´

ntc

no(F

rach

tenb

erg

1914

:135

)ku

i tsno

![ 30]

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

492)

30T

hem

orph

eme

ai ts-i

ndic

ates

‘im

pera

tive’

.

230

Ta

ble

16:S

iusl

aw-L

ower

Um

pqua

:Pho

nolo

gica

lly-s

imila

rfor

ms

hióh

aki

ngC

itatio

n1

hi´

aicl

oud

(SW

OR

P1:

13)

2ha

uye

s(S

WO

RP

1:14

)

gna

áhen

trea

tto

sing

Cita

tion

3ku

nàpe

rhap

s(d

ubita

tive)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

616)

4q

nàI(

1sts

g.)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

616)

5L

!xu´

yuts

anx

mîtà

qnà

Ikno

wth

yfa

ther

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

490)

6q

nu‘

tofin

d(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:44

5)7

kna

hai ’n

Ilea

nag

ains

t...

(SW

OR

P6:

1)8

kna

hale

anag

ains

t(S

WO

RP

6:1)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

9m

aatc

itla

y(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:45

3,52

7)10

mî

tcu´

wi

man

yw

ere

lyin

g(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:45

3)11

mE

tca´

wan

xth

eyin

tend

edto

liedo

wn

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

453,

527)

12xa

ts!u

two

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

450)

13xa

ts!u

wi

tîmtc

iLIh

ave

two

hand

s(S

WO

RP

6:1)

14tc

iLha

nds

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

502)

15xa

itc

-to

roas

t(m

eat)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

453,

527)

(con

tinue

don

next

page

...)

231

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

16xa

tci ´

hero

asts

(mea

t)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:45

3)17

k!e

xu´

tcbe

gin

todo

s/ti

nal

ldir

ec-

tions

(?)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

520)

18k!

e´xu

´tc

L!a

ya´t

cL

!oxa

´xau ts

mE

toea

chpl

ace

hese

nthi

s...

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

552)

19k!

exu

´tc

L!a

ya´t

cw

aa´

unev

eryw

here

hesa

id..

.(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:55

0)20

hitc

peop

le(S

WO

RP

1:14

)21

hitu

´tc

peop

le(l

oc.+

nom

.cas

e(?)

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:52

2,54

3)22

hitc

u´u

peop

le(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:53

7,59

3)23

hatc

’-to

ask

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

478,

495)

24ha

tc’i

xam

hew

asas

ked

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

443)

25ha

tc’a

´yu

nhe

aske

dhi

m(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:44

6)26

hatc

’a´

yuna

tcî

yeas

khe

r(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:44

6,48

2)27

hatc

’a´

yut

nEhe

isas

ked

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

457)

28ha

tc’

ìatc

île

tme

ask

you!

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

519)

29H

atc

yiqh

wun

Iask

ing.

.(S

WO

RP

1:14

)30

hatc

a´t

tall,

long

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

456)

31hu

ttc

a’tu

nIa

mta

ll(S

WO

RP

1:14

)32

hutc

-to

play

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

471)

33hu

tcai ´

play

ing

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

511)

34hu

´tc

aw

ans

we

two

(inc

l.)ar

ego

ing

topl

ay(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:52

6)

35hu

tca’

wax

you

have

fun(

?)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:?)

(con

tinue

don

next

page

...)

232

(.

..co

ntin

ued

from

prev

ious

page

)hu

chee

kech

aro

hsi

tdow

nC

itatio

n36

hutc

u´u

L!a

´aith

eypl

ay(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:53

6)37

tci´

ktcî

hutc

ui ´w

here

very

oupl

ay..

.(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:47

9)38

hatc

t‘u´

ua

long

time

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

456)

39hi

ts-

toliv

e(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:46

4)40

hits

i´i

hous

e(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:48

9)41

hits

î´sy

afr

omth

eho

use

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

553)

42hî

tsi´

îL

i´u

tci´

wa

The

hous

eis

byth

eriv

er.

(SW

OR

P6:

1)43

hits

ai ´he

puti

ton

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

484)

44ai

tc-

totr

ade

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

503,

606)

45to

hätc

’yâ

trad

er(S

WO

RP

1:13

)46

ats

i´tc

itîn

hai

thus

Ithi

nk(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:45

7)47

wà

tcw

ho,s

omeb

ody

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

584)

48w

àtc

itc

who

se(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:58

4)49

tutc

tosp

ear

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

445)

50tu

hatc

a´yu

nhe

spea

rsit

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

445)

51ya

tcî

2nd

pl.s

uffix

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

468,

470)

52x

tcî

2nd

plsu

ffix

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

468,

470)

53ts

atc

î2n

dpl

.im

pera

tive

suffi

x(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:50

1)54

cko

‘tc

hill,

mou

ntai

n(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:55

4,56

2)55

cko

´‘tc

itc

axa

mou

ntai

neer

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

562)

56qa

´tc

En-

togo

,to

star

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:47

1)(c

ontin

ued

onne

xtpa

ge..

.)

233

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

57qa

´tc

nEm

go!

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

516)

58qa

´tc

int

hego

es(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:47

0)59

qa´

tcnE

mat

syo

utw

ogo

!(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:51

7)60

qa´

tci n

tau x

they

two

go(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:47

0)61

sqai k

tci´

tcqa

´tc

i ntu

xth

ere

they

will

go(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:55

5)62

qatc

Ena

tu´u

they

wal

ked

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

550)

63qa

tcî

ni´

txto

keep

ongo

ing

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

446)

64qa

´tc

i ntu

nxth

oush

altg

o(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:52

8)65

kui

tsqa

´tc

Eni

sdo

n’ty

outw

ogo

!(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:51

7)66

qatc

u-to

drin

k(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:45

0)67

qatc

uu ´tx

hedr

inks

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

513)

68qa

tcui

todr

ink

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

565)

69qu

´itc

yaau

from

the

Um

pqua

river

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

553)

70qu

´itc

Um

pqua

river

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

553)

71qa

i u´tc

belo

w,d

own

the

stre

am(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:58

9)72

qa´a

itc

trib

utar

yof

Sius

law

Riv

er(N

orth

Fork

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:55

2)

73qa

´ai

tcix

(alo

ng)N

orth

Fork

(?)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

552)

74L

oì-

tohi

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:50

5)75

L!o

x-to

send

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

503,

562)

76L

oE LIw

onde

r,Id

on’t

know

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

596)

(con

tinue

don

next

page

...)

234

(.

..co

ntin

ued

from

prev

ious

page

)hu

chee

kech

aro

hsi

tdow

nC

itatio

n77

L!a

´aipl

ace,

coun

try,

grou

nd,

wor

ld(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:60

2)

78L

!xu-

tokn

ow(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:54

8)79

tci

wat

er(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:54

9,56

0)80

tci´

t’i

win

d(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:48

8)81

t!u

hatc

’in-

totr

yto

sell

seve

rally

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

524)

82-t

cutr

yto

(im

p.,f

ollo

ws

verb

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:59

7)83

kuts

-to

pain

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:48

6)84

kui

tci´

niì

notc

ome

back

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

595)

85ku

´‘tc

îyu

sea-

otte

r(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:55

8)86

autc

iyu

´sca

mas

(loc

ativ

eca

se)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

543)

87q!

a´tc

tice

dar

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

560)

88sq

ai kth

ere

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

555)

89qi

utc

u´nî

L!a

´aim

any

wom

en(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:53

6)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n90

nàI(

1sts

g.)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

553)

91na

tc1s

tsg/

plob

ject

[?]

(SW

OR

P6:

1)92

-uts

atc

î3r

dsg

.sub

j/2nd

pl.o

bj(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:47

3)93

nàtc

yafr

omm

e(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:55

3)94

niX

tci´

tcto

war

dsyo

u(S

WO

RP

6:1)

(con

tinue

don

next

page

...)

235

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n95

nàts

ifno

t,co

nditi

onal

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

501,

617)

96ku

inà

tsif

not.

..(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:45

5)97

nî´c

tciì

gono

t(-i

ì‘ne

gativ

e’)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

627)

98ni

stc

i´tc

a...

why

did

you

not.

..(S

WO

RP

1:14

)99

nic

tc-

tofig

ht(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:50

7)10

0ni

ctc

at!

tofig

ht(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:56

4)10

1ni

ctc

at’

au xto

fight

mut

ually

(?)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

507)

102

nic

tca

t!aE

mu

battl

efiel

d(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:56

4)10

3nî

ctc

înw

ai ´sp

ring

com

es(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:55

7)10

4nî

ctc

aso

met

hing

,how

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

554)

105

nî´c

tca

man

ner

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

627)

106

nîc

tcî

maE

mu

cust

om,f

ashi

on(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:56

4)10

7sE

a´ts

atc

nîc

tcî

maE

mu

thus

ishi

scu

stom

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

547)

108

nî´c

tcî

mîn

beca

use

Iint

end.

..(?

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:47

9)10

9ì

nuou

tsid

e(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

b:55

0)11

0u ì

Enx

ìnu

tcL

iha

´an

dth

eyou

tsid

ew

ent

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

550)

111

mux

ure

cipr

ocal

(?)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22b:

506)

236

second set, there are many forms related to ‘going’ (56–65), and ‘drinking’ or ‘wa-ter’ (66–73). Lines (79–89) are miscellaneous correspondences, some of whichappear to be quite close, the word for ‘sea otter’ (85) in particular. As mentionedin the previous section, once could entertain various combinations of forms fromthe first and second sets, resulting in possible but highly speculative full corre-spondences, but it is unclear which of these combinations are grammatical.

Although the negative marker itself (ku, cf. semantically-similar forms) doesnot suggest a correspondence with Madox’s ‘touch me not’, the conditional nega-tion in (95–96) could. Unfortunately I could not find a form related to ‘touch’ andso it is unclear whether combining (95–96) with a form related to ‘touch’ is pos-sible, or would yield a phonologically similar match. The word for ‘battlefield’(102) and ‘custom/fashion’ (106–107) offer surprisingly close phonological corre-spondences. Line (102) is almost on par, in terms of phonological closeness, withHeizer and Elmendorf’s Coast Miwok correspondence, although semantically, itis difficult to imagine how ‘battlefield’ could be misconstrued by Drake’s crew asapplying to a situation which they perceived as indicating ‘touch me not.’ Finally,it is interesting that Coos, discussed in the next section, also shows forms relatedto ‘outside’ (109–110).

10.3 Coos (Hanis-Milluk)

Two dialecs of Coos was spoken to the south of both Alsea-Yaquina and Siuslaw-Lower Umpqua. The following phonemic charts are drawn from comparative datalisted in Sapir and Swadesh (1953):

Table 17: Coos consonants and vowels

labial alveolar lateral palatal velar uvular glottalstop p t k kw q Paspirated ph th kh qh

ejective ’t ’k ’kw ’qaffricate c ň caspirated ch ňh ch

ejective ’ň c’fricative s ì š x x xw hvoiced Gresonant m n lglottalizedglide w y

237

Table 17: Coos consonants and vowels (cont’d)

front central backhigh i umid e @low a

Although not represented above, stops, fricatives, and affricates may be real-ized as voiced. This becomes clear when comparing the entries relating to ‘cohab-iting’ (47–50) in the phonologically-similar forms section. This means that directcorrespondences with tobah and gnaah should be possible. Coos has a contrastiveseries of aspirated stops and affricates, which presumably do not undergo optionalvoicing.

The semantically-similar forms obtained for Coos are given in Table 18. Theclosest apparent correspondence in this chart comes from the word for ‘tobacco’,with the conspicuous exception of any /b/ in the Coos forms. The root for to‘touch’ nix(t) bears a rough correspondence to the first few segments of nocharomu, i.e. /noc/. The vowel change from /o/ to /i/, and the de-affricativization andbacking of /c/ to /x/ remain unexplained, however. Unfortunately I could notfind a suitable match for ‘bread’ or ‘root whereof they make a kind of meal andeither bake it into bread or eat it raw.’ The sentence hats yî´qa tcI Lowa´kats‘just continually there he sat’ seems to correspond to huchee kecharoh, plus twoadditional syllables. See discussion of this form below.

I now move on to a presentation and discussion of phonologically-similarforms found for Coos, which are shown in Table 19. The Coos word for ‘tobacco’seems to be a close phonological, as well as semantic, match with Fletcher’s to-bah, with the obvious exception of the missing /b/ in the Coos form. Abstractingaway from the voiced velar (/g/) as the first segment of gnaah ‘entreat to sing’,and allowing voiceless /k/, voiceless ejective k! (/k’/), or voiceless velar fricative/x/, and we have four Coos possibilities showing the the velar consonant to nasaltransition. None of these forms (2–5) seem to have anything to do with singing,however.

The phonotactics of Coos, like Alsea and Siuslaw, give rise to many possiblecorrespondences for huchee kecharoh. Of particular interest are the forms listedin (10–30). Coos sentences often begin with a particle hats, translated as just, assoon as, introduces a new idea in (10). Although the /a/ vowel in hats does notcorrespond to the /u/ vowel in huch, and the alveolar africate /c/ (‘ts’) is more for-ward than the target palatal affricate /c/ (‘ch’ or ‘tc’), (27–28) nevertheless offers aparticularly close correspondence, both phonologically and semantically. The /y/glide in the second particle yîqa(X) ‘right away, nevertheless’ (34) may have thephonetic effect of pulling towards the back of the mouth the /c/ (‘ts’) phoneme, re-sulting in a more palatal realization. The correspondence of the final syllable roh

238

Tabl

e18

:Coo

s:Se

man

tical

ly-s

imila

rfor

ms

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nC

oos

Tran

slat

ion

Cita

tion

1hi

óha

king

siki

nin

chie

f(M

illuk

)(W

here

at20

01a)

sIkI

nxam

chie

f(H

anis

)(P

hilli

ps,p

.c.)

heth

ede,

hæth

æ´d

æch

ief,

rich

man

(Mill

uk)

(Whe

reat

2001

a),[

Phlli

ps,p

.c.]

2to

bâh

anhe

rb*t

ahO

toba

cco,

plan

ted

insa

nd,m

ixed

w/

kinn

ikin

nick

leav

es.

(SW

OR

P4:

11)

*ta´

hato

bacc

o(S

WO

RP

6:9)

daha

ito

bacc

o(M

illuk

)(W

here

at20

01a)

3gn

aáh

entr

eatt

osi

ngn’

k!u le

i tIs

ing

(Iam

doin

git

now

)(S

WO

RP

5:13

)îc

k!u lo

’wak

!i´t

êyo

u(p

lura

l)si

ng(S

WO

RP

5:13

)k’

wli

tosi

ng(H

anis

)[P

hilli

ps,p

.c.]

hat’

ito

sing

(Mill

uk)

[Phi

llips

,p.c

.]m

æqá

e´æ

nto

sing

and

danc

e(H

anis

,Mill

uk)

[Phi

llips

,p.c

.]qa

k’w

liwæ

begi

nsto

sing

[Phi

llips

,p.c

.]4

petá

hro

ot..

.kw

imIt

sw

apat

o(H

anis

,Mill

uk)

(Phi

llips

,p.c

.)5

chee

pebr

ead

dl’la

q,tl’

aqbr

ead,

cam

as(H

anis

)(P

hilli

ps,p

.c.)

6hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

Low

a´ka

tsto

sit,

toliv

e(s

ing.

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:35

7)eE

Luu ku nE

xk!

o´la

sitd

own,

my

fath

er(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:32

5)ts

îx;L

eeE

Lou ku

sitd

own

here

quic

kly!

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:1

04)

hEdE

´msî

tntc

ee ne´n

îsat

the

edge

ofth

epr

airi

eth

eysa

tdow

n*h

ats

yî´q

atc

IL

owa´

kats

just

cont

inua

llyth

ere

hesa

t(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:42

5)ha

utîl

Eqt

su[?

?](F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:32

0)po

kwî´

lnei

tî´lq

ats

oppo

site

each

othe

rhe

sett

hem

dow

n(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:35

5)(c

ontin

ued

onne

xtpa

ge..

.)

239

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nC

oos

Tran

slat

ion

Cita

tion

7no

char

om

uto

uch

me

not

nix(

t)to

touc

h(S

apir

and

Swad

esh

1953

:136

)n ˚ìa

i´ya

thE

xnî

´x;ît

cIc

omm

ence

dto

touc

hit

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

340)

hîs

innî

´x;tî

tshe

did

nott

ouch

him

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:1

06)

hats

innî

´x;tî

tshe

did

nott

ouch

him

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:1

32)

he’y

uê

nîXt

iyo

um

ight

gett

ouch

ed(S

WO

RP

5:13

)ên

î´X;

tîtsa

îsyo

uto

uche

dm

e(S

WO

RP

5:13

)æ

nn-

nIxt

Its@

Don

’tyo

u(S

ingu

lar)

touc

hm

e!(I

mpe

rativ

e)[P

hilli

ps,p

.c.]

shIn

Inn-

nIxt

Its@

Don

’tyo

u(p

lura

l)to

uch

me!

(Im

pera

tive)

[Phi

llips

,p.c

.]in

hel-

nots

o!(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:31

2)

240

Tabl

e19

:Coo

s:Ph

onol

ogic

ally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

tobá

han

herb

Cita

tion

1*t

a´ha

toba

cco

(SW

OR

P6:

9)

gna

áhen

trea

tto

sing

Cita

tion

2x

na´a

tru

n(?)

,sho

re(?

)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:36)

3k!

ne´s

hum

p(o

ne)

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

4kL

nê´ê

sba

nk(S

WO

RP

5:13

)5

xno

we

just

(SW

OR

P6:

8)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

6a´

ts-

togi

ve(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:35

5)7

a´ts

agi

ve(S

WO

RP

5:13

)8

a´ts

ahe

gave

itto

him

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:3

4)9

âts

o´nî

sw

hath

asbe

engi

ven

tom

e(S

WO

RP

5:13

)10

hats

just

,as

soon

as,

intr

oduc

esa

new

idea

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

410)

11ha

tsyî

´qa

just

cont

inua

lly(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:6)

12ha

tstc

ila

....

just

ther

e...

(SW

OR

P6:

20)

13ha

´ts

kwa

just

like.

..(S

WO

RP

6:17

)14

hats

îsìo

uxta

´ya

just

we

two

wat

chit

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:9

)15

hats

îsìo

xta

´ya

just

we

two

wat

ch-i

t(S

WO

RP

6:17

)16

ha´

tsgi

´ê

î´lX

ats

Just

alit

tleyo

ulo

ok(S

WO

RP

5:13

)(c

ontin

ued

onne

xtpa

ge..

.)

241

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

17ha

´ts

gi´

nî´

lXat

sJu

sta

little

Iloo

k(S

WO

RP

5:13

)18

hEeE n

eha

tsyî

qa´

tei

ya´m

daty

eE k!w

î´ne

your

shot

fell

shor

tcl

ose

byri

ghth

ere

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:1

76)

19ha

tsyî

´qa

xûx

L´ì

dji

righ

taw

ayth

eytw

ow

ere

give

nba

ttle

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:1

22)

20ha

tsyî

qan

tce´

wîtc

tctc

î´ts

qEm

then

she

drew

back

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:6

4,66

)21

hats

yî´

qax

qa´

qaì

lEsw

aìju

stri

ght

away

fell

asle

epth

ebe

ar(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:41

0)

22ha

´ts

yîqa

Xk;

îìo

wît

lEXa

´a pju

stri

ght-

away

he-s

aw-i

tth

ew

ater

(SW

OR

P6:

17)

23ha

´ts

yîqa

Xw

êndj

just

keep

-up

that

-way

(sho

w-

ing

it)(S

WO

RP

6:17

)

24ts

o´k!

u tsi´

ha´

tsyî

qaX

wên

djw

êL

!eno

war

e-he

ld-b

ack-

(the

wav

es)j

ustk

eeps

-on

that

-way

itro

lls

(SW

OR

P6:

17)

26ku ts

i´ha

’tsar

e-he

ld-b

ack

just

...

(SW

OR

P6:

17)

27*h

ats

yî´

qatc

IL

ow

a´ka

tsju

stco

ntin

ually

ther

ehe

sat

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

425)

28*h

a´ts

yîqa

´tc

iL

ow

a´qa

tsju

stco

ntin

ually

sitti

ng(S

WO

RP

6:17

)29

ha´t

stc

i´la

uhe

´m

mîs

tuju

stth

ere

that

one

big-

getti

ng(S

WO

RP

6:17

)30

hats

intE

wî´

tsu

just

note

bb-t

ide

(SW

OR

P6:

20)

31ha

tstc

ikw

aìûx

wî´

lw

îE laa

iit

seem

edas

ifth

eydi

sap-

pear

edth

ere

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:1

22)

32ha

tsE

yual

way

s(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:41

0)33

ha´

tsEyu

go´u s

mî´

lîtc

lau

L!e

tcîtc

êni

alw

ays

heke

eps

ongo

ing

out

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

34yî

´qa

(x)

righ

taw

ay,n

ever

thel

ess

(SW

OR

P6:

8)(c

ontin

ued

onne

xtpa

ge..

.)

242

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

35t!

cî´t

syî

qa´n

pê´

Le

he-s

hove

d-it

righ

t/stil

lw

ith-

roas

ting-

stic

k(S

WO

RP

6:17

)

36he

´cî

n2n

dpe

rs.p

osse

ssiv

epr

onou

n(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:39

8)37

hetc

hetc

îno

´ni

tem

they

gave

itup

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:5

6)38

hatc

în-

togi

veup

,to

desp

air

(SW

OR

P6:

8)39

hätc

ît!

stor

y(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:31

2)40

hätc

t!e

ni´

yeqE

mst

ory

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

312)

41ê

ha´

tcî

t!a

na´

mî

Itol

dyo

ua

stor

y(S

WO

RP

5:13

)42

îìha

´tc

ît!

ani

´w

aqT

hey

are

telli

nga

stor

y(S

WO

RP

5:13

)43

ahî

tcre

fers

toon

ece

rtai

ntr

ee,

stan

ding

amon

gm

any

othe

rtr

ees

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

43b

hich

’ii

one

(num

eral

)(M

illuk

)(W

here

at20

01a)

44hî

tco

tobe

toge

ther

(SW

OR

P6:

9)45

hîtc

uto

beto

geth

er(S

WO

RP

6:9)

46hî

tco´

nihi

yeû

men

wer

eas

sem

bled

peop

le,c

ame

toge

ther

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

341)

47hu

´dZ

êto

coha

bit

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

48hu

´dZ

dZê’

nico

habi

ting

(tw

oin

actio

n)(S

WO

RP

5:13

)49

êhu

´ts

huts

a´m

îIc

ohab

itw

ithyo

u(S

WO

RP

5:13

)50

nhu

´ts

huw

ats

Icoh

abit

with

her

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

51hu

excl

amat

ion

(del

ight

)(J

acob

s19

39:1

03)

52hu

-to

bere

ady

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

413)

53hu

w-

read

y,to

be(S

WO

RP

6:8)

(con

tinue

don

next

page

...)

243

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

54hu

wê´

its

Eq

getr

eady

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

55n

hê´

wi

yêIa

mre

ady

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

56î

Xêtc

.nla

´at

sXE

mIg

etin

toth

eca

noe

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

57î

Xêtc

îì.n

X;L

e´t

ona

cano

eIp

utth

em(S

WO

RP

5:13

)58

tso

now

(SW

OR

P6:

8)59

tso´

yîqa

´tc

iqE

kwi´

tno

wen

tirel

yhe

-too

k-th

em-

out

(SW

OR

P6:

17)

60ts

ots

îno

won

ly(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:19)

61ts

ots

iä´

wî

xEm

this

isth

een

d(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:42)

62ts

ots

iku

mi

yehe

reit

ends

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:5

2)63

-tse

shor

e/b

ack

ofth

ew

oods

(?)

(SW

OR

P6:

9)64

tc!e

shor

e/b

ack

ofth

ew

oods

(?)

(SW

OR

P6:

9)65

ìtc

îlê

´ês

edge

ofw

ater

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

66ì

tcî

la´

aîs

clos

eto

shor

e(S

WO

RP

6:17

)67

le´

xatc

-in

side

(SW

OR

P6:

8)68

tîtc

a´yî

mx

ndo

wa´

yaI’

dlik

eto

com

ein

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

69xE

tsxa

wei ´

wat

heis

putti

ngit

dow

n(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:37

9)70

tci

ûxhî

´to

u tsth

ere

they

two

puti

tdow

n(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:7)

71ta

tci

kwe

tc!

oulä

nhu

u ´mîs

and

liedo

wn

ther

ew

ithhi

sw

ife

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:1

68)

72e´

qatc

eas

ide

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

370)

73ei

qatc

eto

one

side

74e

qatc

e´w

îtckw

îlkw

eE lei ´y

uto

one

side

hew

asro

lled

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

370)

(con

tinue

don

next

page

...)

244

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

75ha

tse

qatc

e´w

îtcpE

cilE

tem

î´sn

ätc

the

gran

dson

just

blew

off

toon

esi

de(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:66)

76ha

tsei

qatc

Em

stou

qtse

t..w

asm

ade

tost

and

aton

esi

de(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:68)

77tc

ith

ere

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

405)

78L

owa´

kats

tci

satt

here

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

423)

79tc

iîle

EL

ou kuth

ere

sure

lyth

ousi

tdow

n(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:42

4)80

tci

hîto

uts

a´tE

xath

ere

hepl

aced

(the

thin

gs)b

e-fo

rehi

m(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:38)

81ts

otc

iûx

now

ther

eth

eytw

o...

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:8

)82

de´

k;et

ctc

ihe

´la

qqa

´yîs

ever

ytim

eth

ese

ason

arriv

esth

ere.

..(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:36)

83k!

ä-pr

ivat

ive,

‘-le

ss’

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

322,

422)

84k;

!ätc

!w

äìw

ithou

tfire

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

422)

85ha

tsK

!êhu

wa´

was

just

with

outd

elay

(SW

OR

P6:

17)

86qa

-in

choa

tive

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

322)

87qa

tcî

nehe

ni´w

ehe

bega

nto

thin

k(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:33

5)88

sqa

´ts

hese

ized

it(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:34

4)89

îìs

qa´

tsE

meu

they

seiz

eon

ean

othe

r(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:33

2)90

qai

tsin

side

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

370)

91qa

i´ts

ow

îtc

îìte

´x tîts

insi

deth

eyen

tere

d(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:37

0)92

a´yu

ûxqa

i´ts

ow

îtc

ûxtE t

ci´y

atin

deed

they

two

brou

ght

him

insi

de(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:128

)

93L

outo

eat(

prefi

x)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:36

0)94

Lo

wen

eat!

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

348)

(con

tinue

don

next

page

...)

245

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

95L

ow

ei ´wat

she

isea

ting

it(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:34

8)96

Lo

we´

wat

was

eatin

g(S

WO

RP

6:17

)97

te´L

Lo´

wat

Etê

tyo

um

uste

atth

ism

eat

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

98te

i LL

ou ´w

Eth

isyo

um

uste

at!

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

348)

99L

ow

a´ka

tsto

sit,

toliv

e(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:35

7)10

0n

Lo´

waq

ats

Iam

sitti

ngdo

wn

(com

plet

ive)

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

101

Lo

wa´

qats

tci´

lEm

êsi

tting

ther

eth

em

an..

.(S

WO

RP

6:17

)10

2L

oT

hat/

into

(SW

OR

P6:

9)10

3ìo

that

thin

g(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:41

6)10

4ìo

uxt

tow

atch

(pre

fix)

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

344)

105

ehê

´ntc

efa

roff

(SW

OR

P6:

20)

106

nîhî

´tc

hitc

ow

ew

atIg

athe

r(S

WO

RP

5:13

)10

7hi

tc’i

´ka

sne

dual

incl

usiv

e(F

rach

tenb

erg

1914

:144

)10

8la

uhî

sxä

tci

ìahe

also

ther

ew

ent.

..(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:41

1)10

9yî

xäw

Exe

tctc

î´na

Llä

ku ma´

xto

the

roof

ofth

eho

use

reac

hed

itsho

rn(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:38

2)

110

Xtc

i´tc

uw

hat

(SW

OR

P5:

13)

111

tE´

tci´

take

itin

[im

pera

tive?

](S

WO

RP

5:13

)11

2ts

etî´

x;u

me

Ló

heu ´h

euha

u ´wE

!on

this

side

mak

ekn

ot(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:40

2)11

3-ä

tcte

rmof

kins

hip

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

365)

114

-etc

at,i

n,th

roug

h,on

,int

o(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:36

9)11

5k;

îts

î´m

îsha

lf(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:36

4)11

6kw

ate

´w

asre

side

nce

(SW

OR

P6:

8)(c

ontin

ued

onne

xtpa

ge..

.)

246

(...

cont

inue

dfr

ompr

evio

uspa

ge)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

117

qai

csm

all

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

13:2

08)

118

tEqa

itc

up-s

trea

m11

9qa

iL

a’w

as

wav

es12

0qe

´ltc

slow

ly12

1qa

tshe

just

usua

lly..

.(S

WO

RP

6:20

)12

2la

tci

yana

me,

toca

llby

(pre

fix)

(SW

OR

P6:

8)12

3tc

!a-

tow

alk

(SW

OR

P:6:

9)12

4ne

´ts

ito

do(p

lura

l)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:35

7)12

5nî

ctc

little

,afe

w(S

WO

RP

6:8)

126

îìnî

´ctc

uho

wm

any

are

they

?(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:37

2)12

7qa

´na

tcjo

ke,f

un(S

WO

RP

6:8)

128

qa´

notc

outs

ide

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

406)

129

qa´

no´

tca

outs

ide

to..

.(F

rach

tenb

erg

1913

:11)

130

qa´

notc

ìîn

tsxu

outs

ide

we

lay

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

406)

131

qa´

notc

aîì

L!e

i tcou

tsid

eth

eyw

ent

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

406)

132

qa´

notc

stou q

läì

to´m

îLou

tsid

est

ood

that

old

man

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

22a:

402)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n13

3qa

no´

tcn

sto

´u qIa

mst

andi

ngou

tsid

e(S

WO

RP

5:13

)13

4qa

no´

tcan

ìa´

Iam

goin

gou

tsid

e(S

WO

RP

5:13

)13

5ni

´no

t(S

WO

RP

5:13

)13

6ni

´eî´

ttc

otc

ê´w

êyu

Iam

nott

obe

putt

obe

d.(S

WO

RP

5:13

)13

7m

ähu

man

bein

g(S

WO

RP

6:8)

247

is the first syllable of the verb Lowa´qats ‘to sit’, where ‘L’ is equivalent to Amer-icanist /ň/. The meaning of ‘sit’ cannot however be isolated to the first syllableLo, and so assuming the correspondence of (27–28) requires that we also assumethat Madox’s informants forgot the last few syllables of the utterance. Other inter-esting phonological correspondences include words and phrases related to ‘story’(39–42), and those related to ‘assembling’ or ‘being together’ (43–46)31. A highfrequency particle to note in this list is the word tci ‘there’ (77), which could veryplausibly have been present in a phrase meaning ‘sit down’, i.e. ‘sit down overthere’.

Coos, unlike Alsea or Siuslaw, does show syllabic correspondences to the firstsyllable of nocharo mu, i.e. /noc/ (128–134). These are not related to ‘touching’,however, but to ‘being outside’. As mentioned in the previous section on semanti-cally similar correspondences, various realizations of the negative particle whichinclude /n/ might be construed as corresponding to the initial syllable of nocharomu (135–136), but the vowel correspondences are not correct, and neither are thefollowing consonants.

In sum, the most probable correspondences from Coos are those for tobáh ‘anherb’ and huchee kecharoh ‘sit down’.

31Lines (43–46), by the way, could also be taken as a possible correspondence to hióh, underits Chinuk Wawa meaning, though the presence of the c sound remains unexplained.

248

10.4 Takelma

Takelman and Kalapuyan were thought to form a sub-branch of Penutian (Sapir1922). These tables are drawn in part from comparative data listed in Sapir(1922:31) and Shipley (1969):

Table 20: Takelma consonants and vowels

labial alveolar lateral palatal velar uvular glottalstop p t k kw Paspirated ph th kh kwh

ejective ’p ’t ’k ’kw

affricateejective ’c ’cfricative s ì š x hresonant m n lglide w y

short longi u i; u;e o e; o;

a a;

Shipley (1969:227) implies that unlike other Penutian languages, there arenot ‘true voiced stops’ in Takelma, despite Sapir’s (1922) phonetic account of thelanguage.32 It is notable that Takelma has only a glottalized, not a non-glottalized,affricate series.

The only direct semantic correspondences I could find for Takelma were re-lated to ‘singing’ and ‘sitting’, and are given in Table 21. Neither set of formsoffers a particularly close phonological correspondence, however.

The phonologically-similar forms obtained for Takelma are shown in Table 22.Lines (1–2) seem at first to be interesting correspondences, but comparing (1),related to ‘singing’, with (2), related to ‘eating’, we see that the ‘singing’ com-ponent comes from hel, and not from k‘naE, which must instead be understoodas consisting of a 3rd person pronoun and/or temporal subordinator equivalent to‘when’. The correspondences for huchee kecharoh and nocharo mu are less in-teresting than those discussed for the Coast Penutian languages, Alsea, Siuslaw,and Coos, and the lists for Takelma are also obviously much less extensive. It was

32Shipley (1969) gives an inventory of reconstructed Proto-Kalapuyan, which notably lacksa glottalized stop series, has lateral and labio-dental fricatives, and has only a three-vowelsystem, missing mid vowels /e/ and /o/.

249

Tabl

e21

:Tak

elm

a:Se

man

tical

ly-s

imila

rfor

ms

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nTa

kelm

aTr

ansl

atio

nC

itatio

n1

hióh

aki

ng2

tobâ

han

herb

3gn

aáh

entr

eatt

osi

nghe

lel-

,hee

l-to

sing

(Sap

iran

dSw

ades

h19

53:1

36)

4pe

táh

root

...

tiph

cam

as(S

hipl

ey19

69:2

29)

5ch

eepe

brea

d6

huch

eeke

char

ohsi

tdow

nm

a´p’

ai-y

u´si

tdow

n!(S

WO

RP

4:7)

maw

i´p’

ai-y

u´D

oyo

uto

osi

tdow

n!(S

WO

RP

4:7)

7no

char

om

uto

uch

me

not

250

Ta

ble

22:T

akel

ma:

Phon

olog

ical

ly-s

imila

rfor

ms

gna

áhsi

tdow

nC

itatio

n1

hel

k‘-

naE

whe

nhe

sang

(Sap

ir19

22:3

9)2

gai

k‘na

Ew

hen

heat

eit

(Sap

ir19

22:4

0)3

ginã

k‘w

iEif

heco

mes

(Sap

ir19

22:4

3)4

gana

´t‘

iof

just

that

sort

(Sap

ir19

22:4

4)5

naga

na´a

k‘iE

(Sap

ir19

22:4

4)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

6ka

that

(ind

ef.)

(Sap

iran

dSw

ades

h19

53:1

36)

7ga

that

(Sap

ir19

22:3

2)8

k‘a

wha

t(S

apir

1922

:32)

9xa

E its

;!iw

i‘t‘

hesp

litit

open

(Sap

ir19

22:7

9)10

xaa

ts!a

yãp‘

hew

ashe

dhi

sba

ck(S

apir

1922

:79)

11ha

ts!a

yãp‘

she

was

hed

her

pri-

vate

part

s(S

apir

1922

:82)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n12

nuu

t!dr

own

(Sap

ir19

22:6

3)13

no´uE

s;ne

xtdo

or(S

apir

1922

:36)

14no

´ts

!at‘

gwan

next

door

toea

chot

her

(Sap

ir19

22:3

6)

251

much more difficult to find any sort of phonological correspondence for Takelma,and none of thee ones listed here are particularly close, either phonologically, orsemantically.

10.5 Kalapuyan

The data in this section were drawn from Swadesh (1965), and Berman (1990),who reconstructs the phonology of Proto-Kalapuyan.

Close semantic matches were difficult to find (Table 23), however pdóP ‘potato /wapato’ exhibits a strong correspondence to petáh, both semantically and phono-logically. This Kalapuyan root is possibly the source of the Chinuk form for wap-ato, which prefixed a feminine singular agreement morpheme wa- to the root. Seefurther discussion in Section 11.

Phonological correspondences, other than pdóP as mentioned above, were notvery forthcoming (Table 24).

10.6 Molalla

Molalla was spoken to the east of Takelma and Kalapuya, along the eastern edgeof the Oregon Cascades, and for this reason is less likely to be the contacted group.Linguistic data is difficult to come by for this language. All the data below wasgleaned from Drucker’s notes in the SWORP collection.

None of the possible correspondences I have been able to find for Molalla,semantic or phonological, seem particularly promising, but are nevertheless in-cluded here in Table 25 and Table 26.

11 Athabaskan languages

This section discusses Columbia River area Athabaskan language Kwalhioqua-Clatskanie. Of the Kwalhioqua dialect, the data is taken from the Willapa Baygroup, whereas data from the Clatskanie dialect come from both Clatskanie proper,as well as a few lexical items from a dialect called ‘Tahkully’ by A.C. Andersonin his word lists. The Kwalhioqua dialect was spoken on the north side of theColumbia in present day Washington State, while Clatskanie was spoken on thesouthern side in Oregon.

Afterwards, I present data from the Athabaskan languages of southwesternOregon.

11.1 Kwalhioqua-Clatskanie

None of the three semantically similar forms which I was able to find are closephonological correspondences, shown in Table 27.

252

Tabl

e23

:Kal

apuy

an:S

eman

tical

ly-s

imila

rfor

ms

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nK

alap

uyan

Tran

slat

ion

Cita

tion

1hi

óha

king

cám

be;k

chie

f(Pr

oto

K)

(Ber

man

1990

:22)

2to

bâh

anhe

rb3

gnaá

hen

trea

tto

sing

kwen

a-y-

sing

wel

l(S

wad

esh

1965

:240

)k’

aut,

k’au

dasi

ng(P

roto

K)

(Ber

man

1990

:4)

4pe

táh

root

...

mal

ip,t

ank

root

(Sw

ades

h19

65:2

38)

tiph

cam

as(S

hipl

ey19

69:2

29)

mis

cam

as(P

roto

K)

(Ber

man

1990

:22)

*pdó

Ppo

tato

(Pro

toK

)(B

erm

an19

90:3

0)5

chee

pebr

ead

6hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

sùu7

al-y

uu/t7

as-t

u,si

t(Sa

ntia

m)

(Sw

ades

h19

65:2

38)

yu,p

ii/t7

es-t

uPc

íy;u

sitd

own

(Tua

latin

Kal

apuy

a)(J

acob

s19

74:2

0,n.

b.12

2)pc

i´yu

cDa

sitd

own!

(Tua

latin

Kal

apuy

a)(J

acob

s19

74:2

2,n.

b.12

2)ha

si;T

E’T

’ET

usi

tdow

nhe

re(J

acob

s19

74:n

.b.3

3)yo

,yu

sit(

Prot

o-K

)(S

hipl

ey19

69:2

30),

(Ber

man

1990

:43)

7no

char

om

uto

uch

me

not

wá7

not/n

ot-t

o-be

(Pro

toK

)(B

erm

an19

90:1

5)

253

Tabl

e24

:Kal

apuy

an:P

hono

logi

cally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

gna

áhen

trea

tto

sing

Cita

tion

1na

kasa

y(P

roto

K)

(Shi

pley

1969

:230

)

petá

hsi

tdow

nC

itatio

n*2

pdó

Pw

apat

o,po

tato

(Pro

toK

)(B

erm

an19

90:3

0)

chee

pebr

ead

Cita

tion

3tS

iI(

1sts

g.)

(Pro

to-K

)(S

hipl

ey19

69)

4tS

eI(

1sts

g.)

(Sw

ades

h19

65:2

37)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

5hu

´c;

ath

at,t

hose

(Tua

latin

Kal

apuy

an)

(Jac

obs

1974

:35,

n.b.

122)

6hu

´cw

iok

ay(J

acob

s19

74:5

7,n.

b.12

2)7

hasi

;TE’

T’E

Tu

sitd

own

here

(Jac

obs

1974

:n.b

.33)

8ha

stc

i;in

Ta’

nikE

this

ism

ine

(Jac

obs

1974

:n.b

.33)

9hu

’ts “

pant

her

(Fra

chte

nber

g19

18:1

80)

10yo

sit(

Prot

oK

)(S

hipl

ey19

69:2

30)

11yu

sit(

Prot

oK

)(S

hipl

ey19

69:2

30)

12tS

iI(

1sts

g.)

(Pro

to-K

)(S

hipl

ey19

69)

(con

tinue

don

next

page

...)

254

(.

..co

ntin

ued

from

prev

ious

page

)hu

chee

kech

aro

hsi

tdow

nC

itatio

n13

tSe

I(1s

tsg.

)(S

wad

esh

1965

:237

)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n14

naka

say

(Pro

toK

)(S

hipl

ey19

69:2

30)

Tabl

e25

:Mol

alla

:Sem

antic

ally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nM

olal

laTr

ansl

atio

nC

aptio

n1

hióh

aki

ng2

tobâ

han

herb

tiänp

toba

cco

(SW

OR

P1:

16)

3gn

aáh

entr

eatt

osi

ng4

petá

hro

ot..

.w

atIn

dian

pota

toes

som

eso

rtof

tube

rson

wat

er-l

ily,

tram

ped

outo

fmud

byw

omen

.D

on’t

dry,

just

stor

ed(i

npi

t?)

qudí

“”

(SW

OR

P4:

11)

5ch

eepe

brea

d6

huch

eeke

char

ohsi

tdow

n

255

Tabl

e26

:Mol

alla

:Pho

nolo

gica

lly-s

imila

rfor

ms

gna

áhen

trea

tto

sing

Cita

tion

1na

´ñ

gae

all

(SW

OR

P1:

16)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

2ho

tcti

kai

woo

dbu

cket

,mor

tar

ofw

ood,

wra

pped

w/

dees

rksi

nto

mak

e..

.t’

ímL

ston

epe

stle

.use

dfo

rcho

kech

erri

es,

cam

as,m

eat,

salm

oneg

gs,p

ound

edup

.

(SW

OR

P4:

11)

3hu

tsdr

ill,m

ade

from

som

eki

ndof

woo

dfr

omm

ts:s

äwuL

(SW

OR

P4:

11)

4ku

nts

smal

lden

talia

(SW

OR

P4:

11)

256

Tabl

e27

:Kw

alhi

oqua

-Cla

tska

nie:

Sem

antic

ally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nK

wal

hioq

ua-C

lats

kani

eTr

ansl

atio

nC

itatio

n1

hióh

aki

ngks

keh

chie

f(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P1:

3)hi

óha

king

Coo

skay

chie

f(C

lats

kani

e)(S

WO

RP

1:3)

Mee

-oot

ych

ief(

Cla

tska

nie,

‘Tah

kully

’gro

up)

(SW

OR

P1:

3)2

tobâ

han

herb

3gn

aáh

entr

eatt

osi

ngst

awilu

mto

sing

(Kw

alhi

oqua

)(S

WO

RP

7:14

)4

petá

hro

ot..

.5

chee

pebr

ead

6hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

*néh

t-sa

-to

tosi

t(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P1:

2)hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

i´st

âsi

ttho

u(i

mpe

rativ

e)(C

lats

kani

e)(S

WO

RP

1:3)

Intâ

sitt

hou

(im

pera

tive)

(Tah

cully

)(S

WO

RP

1:3)

7no

char

om

uto

uch

me

not

257

The word for ‘chief’ in the Clatskanie dialect is the same as that for Kwal-hioqua, while the Tahcully group shows a different form. Interestingly, the wordnéhtsato ‘to sit’ bears a closer sound correspondence to nocharo in nocharo mu,which raises the additional as-yet-not-touched-upon possibility that Madox’s in-formants may have confused the translations of the phrases they remembered,substituting one for another.

The phonologically-similar forms obtained for Kwalhioqua are shown in Ta-ble 28. I include form (1) here because of the prominence of vowels, which issimilar to vowel-heavy hioh. The vowels themselves do not closely correspond,however. The meaning ‘great, large’ is barely reminiscent of Chinuk Wawa hayu‘to be lots’ or ‘several, many, a group, a gathering’.

There are some interesting correspondences to huchee kecharoh in the abovechart. The word for ‘basket/kettle’ (2–3) is very close, and the words for ‘iron’(6–7) correspond exactly to the last two syllables of the Madox form. None of theforms here seem transparently related to situations involving ‘sitting down’, andso we would be forced to assume an incorrectly induced meaning on the part ofMadox’s informants.

As mentioned above, the word for ‘to sit’ (12–13) is extremely close to nocharo,with the exception of the first syllables vowel, the alveolar rather than palatal af-fricate, and a /t/ rather than /r/, which the Coast Miwok correspondence also con-tains. The word for ‘to dance’ (14) shows that this general morphological formis indicative of verbs, and raises the question of whether perhaps ‘to touch’ mightalso sound similar. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a similar word meaning‘touch’. If, as seems possible, Madox’s informant confused the meanings of thephrases that they heard and nocharo mu actually meant ‘sit down’, then we mightpostulate an imperative, or second person singular marker with the morphologicalform mu in Kwalhioqua. This is unclear, however.

11.2 Oregon Athabaskan

Because of the sparse relevant data available for Oregon Athapaskan, I group to-gether Upper Umpqua, Chetco-Tolowa, Galice Creek, and Tututni (Lower RogueRiver) along with dialects Coquille and Chasta Costa, into this section.33 TheAthapaskan languages are unfortunately very poorly documented, and lack thesomewhat extensive text collections of the Coos and Alsea languages. As such, theability to extrapolate away from the possibility of ‘situational misinterpretations’by combing through texts or running discourse for phonological matches is ex-tremely limited in these languages. This state of affairs is particularly unfortunate,since the phonological inventory of these languages more closely matches the

33See Mithun (1999:354-355) for a description of the genetic groupings and geographic dis-tribution of these languages.

258

Ta

ble

28:K

wal

hioq

ua-C

lats

kani

e:Ph

onol

ogic

ally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

hióh

aki

ngC

itatio

n1

o-e’

hgr

eat,

larg

e(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P7:

14)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

*2hâ

ât-

sah

kettl

e(C

lats

kani

e)(S

WO

RP

1:3)

3há

h-ts

aba

sket

(Kw

alhi

oqua

)(S

WO

RP

7:14

)4

cheh

-he-

hats

-ku

s=se

eke

ttle

(Kw

alhi

oqua

)(S

WO

RP

7:14

)5

kwu

tséh

win

ter(

Kw

alhi

oqua

)(S

WO

RP

1:2)

6tc

heró

hir

on(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P1:

2)7

tche

ro´h

iron

(Kw

alhi

oqua

)(S

WO

RP

7:14

)8

che

kuch

fat(

Kw

alhi

oqua

)(S

WO

RP

1:2)

9qa

tce´

ltc

oto

give

me

wat

erto

drin

k!(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P7:

14)

10ts

eech

ôbi

gca

noe,

ship

(Cla

tska

nie)

(SW

OR

P1:

3)11

see´

kI(

Cla

tska

nie)

(SW

OR

P1:

3)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n*1

2né

hts

ato

tosi

t(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P1:

2)13

nets

ato

tosi

t(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P7:

14)

14ne

´htc

i´s

toto

danc

e(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P7:

14)

15nu

kth

ou(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P1:

2)16

hon

nék

ye(K

wal

hioq

ua)

(SW

OR

P1:

2)

259

probable Fletcher/Madox phoneme inventories. Specifically, some of the Atha-paskan languages have the rare /r/ morpheme (cf. huchee kecharoh, nocharo mu).

The semantically-similar Southwestern Oregon Athabaskan forms (Table 29)do not seem to be close matches to the Fletcher/Madox word list. Except for theChasta Costa word for ‘chief’ (which may in fact be Alsea), the other dialectsemploy an /š/ sound, and there is no high vowel /i/ except as part of the diphthongin the Chasta Costa word, taiyu. If it were not for the initial /t/, this would be avery close correspondent to hióh.

The phonologically-similar forms found for Southwestern Oregon Athabaskanare shown in Table 30. The example in (1) is interesting since it shows a vocativeuse of the sound hi´yu. It’s possible that this might bear some correspondenceto Madox’s song hodeli oh heigh oh heigh ho hodali oh, though this is purelyspeculative. The Coquille forms in (5–6) and the Chetco-Tolowa form in (7) couldbe construed as roughly corresponding to huchee. The phrase in (15) is interesting,since one could easily imagine a phrase relating to gift exchange being used bythe natives that Drake contacted. It is unclear to me which part of (15) is relatedto ‘giving of presents’ and which part is related to ‘baby’.

12 Chinookan

Some interesting correspondences surface in the Chinookan languages of Clacka-mas (Jacobs 1974:n.b. 55–64) and Wasco-Wishram (SWORP 1:19), shown in Ta-ble 31 and Table 32.

In particular, the Clackamas word for ‘another one’ in (1) bears a plausiblephonological correspondence to gnaah ‘entreat to sing’, though the stress patternisdifferent. It is likewise a plausible semantic match, since one could easily imag-ine the contact group entreating for ‘another song’.

13 Possible trade-jargon connections

Any connection between the Fletcher/Madox word list and Chinuk Wawa or othertrade jargon necessitates the assumption that a trade jargon was in fact alreadyin place at the time of Drake’s landing. There is no known evidence to-date tosupport this assumption, but there are some worthwhile phonological correspon-dences to note between the Fletcher/Madox word list and Chinuk Wawa.

Oregon languages, as documented in the late 19th and early 20th century, ap-pear to have made regular use of items which were either concurrently used inChinuk Wawa, or else ultimately stem from a different language. A non-ChinukWawa example from Coos include wá´lwal ‘knife’ (Frachtenberg 1922a:356),which has a nearly identical correspondence in Southern Interior Coeur d’AleneSalish, w’el’w’el’im ’iron, knife’, and Kalispel Salish ululim ’iron, money’ (Kuipers

260

Tabl

e29

:Sou

thw

este

rnO

rego

nA

thab

aska

n:Se

man

tical

ly-s

imila

rfor

ms

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nA

thab

aska

nTr

ansl

atio

nC

itatio

n1

hióh

aki

ngH

ushk

chie

f(U

pper

Um

pqua

)(S

WO

RP

1:3)

xúS:

réhe

adm

an(r

ich

man

)(C

hetc

o-To

low

a)(S

WO

RP

4:12

)hu

sh-s

ehch

ief(

Tutu

tne)

(SW

OR

P1:

3)X@

cXE

chie

f(C

hast

aC

osta

)(J

acob

s19

74:n

.b.3

3)*t

aiyu

chie

f(C

hast

aC

osta

)(S

WO

RP

1:10

)35

2to

bâh

anhe

rbsE

Liu

toba

cco

(Gal

ice

Cre

ek)

(SW

OR

P1:

9)ts

ELu

toba

cco

(Rog

ueR

iver

)(S

WO

RP

1:9)

3gn

aáh

entr

eatt

osi

ng4

petá

hro

ot..

.xâ

tsa

whu

tac

orn

soup

dish

(Che

tco-

Tolo

wa)

(SW

OR

P4:

12)

5ch

eepe

brea

d6

huch

eeke

char

ohsi

tdow

nw

hLnE

sot

hesi

tdow

n(p

rope

rnam

e)(C

hetc

o-To

low

a)(S

WO

RP

4:13

)at

utç

ú-ta

´tûn

sûst

aI-

gras

s-on

-sit/

stay

(Milk

wun

tunn

e)(S

WO

RP

3:22

)qu

n’´s

tahe

sits

(Nal

tunn

etun

ne)

(SW

OR

P3:

28)

nu;´t

icse

titd

own!

(Gal

ice

Cre

ek)

(Jac

obs

1974

:n.b

.118

)há

ta;s

ta;

hesa

tdow

n(C

hast

aC

osta

)(J

acob

s19

74:n

.b.3

3)7

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

t@n

t’sa´

ku’

keep

away

!(s

aid

toch

ildre

n)(G

alic

eC

reek

)(J

acob

s19

74:n

.b.1

17)

ínt’

caho

’go

away

(Gal

ice

Cre

ek)

(Jac

obs

1974

:n.b

.130

)

35T

his

form

may

beA

lsea

,sin

cein

form

antS

penc

erSc

ottw

asbi

-lin

gual

.

261

Tabl

e30

:Sou

thw

este

rnO

rego

nA

thab

aska

n:Ph

onol

ogic

ally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

hióh

aki

ngC

itatio

n1

hi´

yuhE

yuhi

yafr

om‘W

arm

Hou

seSo

ng’(

Coq

uille

)(J

acob

s19

74:n

.b.1

21)

2hi

´yu

ìE´s

t’san ’h

wan

they

liste

ned

(to

thes

epe

ople

asth

eyta

lked

)(G

alic

eC

reek

)(J

acob

s19

74:2

5,n.

b.12

9)

3hi

y´u

kE´t

hwan

they

boug

ht(G

alic

eC

reek

)(J

acob

s19

74:3

3,n.

b.13

0)4

hayu

´wi

na´’

mE´

’an’

dow

nin

toth

eho

use

(Gal

ice

Cre

ek)

(Jac

obs

1974

:39,

n.b.

129)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

5xû

c-í

Isee

(Coq

uille

)(S

WO

RP

3:20

)6

nxû

cíIs

eeyo

u(C

oqui

lle)

(SW

OR

P3:

20)

7ha

´tc

isu

’(u)

tew

eliv

ego

od(C

hetc

o-To

low

a)(S

WO

RP

4:12

)8

hni

lEti

luI’

mgl

adth

ere’

sa

wha

le(C

hast

aC

osta

)(S

WO

RP

1:9)

9ho

cin=

iclE

Iwan

tliv

elo

ngtim

e(C

hast

aC

osta

)(S

WO

RP

1:9)

10qa

´ce

qas

ts’û

uea

st(c

ross

edou

t,C

hast

aC

osta

)(S

WO

RP

3:19

)11

ka´

t’sa’

buck

et(G

alic

eC

reek

)(J

acob

s19

74:n

.b.1

30)

12qu

n’´

sta

hesi

ts(N

altu

nnet

unne

)(S

WO

RP

3:28

)13

hu;´

t’ca

away

from

them

(Gal

ice

Cre

ek)

(Jac

obs

1974

:47,

n.b.

130)

14á

tsi

gira

;tu

t’ils

igi

vem

ew

ater

todr

ink

(Jac

obs

1974

:n.b

.33)

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tC

itatio

n15

natc

oni

cgi

ving

ofpr

esen

tsw

hen

peop

leco

me

tose

eba

by(C

hast

aC

osta

)(S

WO

RP

1:9)

262

Tabl

e31

:Chi

nook

an:S

eman

tical

ly-s

imila

rfor

ms

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nC

hino

okan

Tran

slat

ion

Cita

tion

1hi

óha

king

2to

bâh

anhe

rb3

gnaá

hen

trea

tto

sing

ugw

ala´

lam

sing

ing

(Cla

ckam

as)

(Jac

obs

1974

:49,

n.b.

57)

ìgla

´lam

they

are

sing

ing

(Cla

ckam

as)

(Jac

obs

1974

:49,

n.b.

57)

4pe

táh

root

...

5ch

eepe

brea

d6

huch

eeke

char

ohsi

tdow

nnu

ìa´i

tx ˙sh

esa

tdow

n(C

lack

amas

)(J

acob

s19

74:n

.b.5

8,p.

125)

nú;;ì

ait

she

satd

own

(Cla

ckam

as)

(Jac

obs

1974

:25,

n.b.

64)

yû;´x

˙the

was

sitti

ng(C

lack

amas

)(J

acob

s19

74:7

5,n.

b.64

)nâ

qssi

tting

(Was

co-W

ishr

am)

(SW

OR

P1:

19)

ano’

la’i

daI’

llsi

tdow

n(W

asco

-Wis

hram

)(S

WO

RP

1:19

)7

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

tk’

u´ya

no/n

ot(C

lack

amas

)(J

acob

s19

74:6

3,n.

b.55

)nE

´qi

not(

Cla

ckam

as)

(Jac

obs

1974

:109

,n.b

.58)

263

Tabl

e32

:Chi

nook

an:P

hono

logi

cally

-sim

ilarf

orm

s

gna

áhen

trea

tto

sing

Cita

tion

*1gú

;na

x ˙an

othe

r(on

e)(C

lack

amas

)(J

acob

s19

74:1

23,n

.b.5

7)

huch

eeke

cha

roh

sitd

own

Cita

tion

2ga

tc@´

tux ˙

they

/he

did/

mad

e/fix

ed(C

lack

amas

)(J

acob

s19

74:6

1,n.

b.55

),(J

acob

s19

74:7

1,n.

b.64

)3

gatc

íg@

lga

heto

ok(C

lack

amas

)(J

acob

s19

74:3

3,n.

b.56

)4

gatc

ix ˙i

ma

hedr

oppe

dit/

laid

it(C

lack

amas

)(J

acob

s19

74:3

3,n.

b.56

)5

gatc

@´ìu

x ˙he

got(

Cla

ckam

as)

(Jac

obs

1974

:27,

n.b.

64)

6ga

tcú;

xatq

hela

yth

emdo

wn

(Cla

ckam

as)

(Jac

obs

1974

:67,

n.b.

64)

264

2002).34 Given that Salish and Coos are totally unrelated languages, and that theroot wel or wal is not Chinuk Wawa (Zenk, p.c.), it seems possible that some tradein metals existed between the Coast and Interior peoples which might necessitatethe need for a limited shared vocabulary. While a theory cannot be built on onequestionable correspondence, it is still an interesting possibility.

The nearest Chinuk Wawa correspondences for gnaáh and huchee kecharohare purely speculative, and based only on the roughest of sound correspondences,and so I will not discuss them further.

The item hióh bears an approximate sound correspondence with Chinuk Wawahiyu ‘several, many, a group, a gathering’, hyas ‘great, mighty, large, auspi-cious, powerful’ (http://www.fortlangley.ca/chinook%\20jargon/kamloops.html),and hayu ‘many much’ (Chinook Wawa Dictionary Project 2012:81). Zenk (p.c.)traces Wawa hiyu/hayu to its source as a Nootkan word Qayu ‘ten’ (cf. Makahxayuu) or Payu ‘to be lots’, and mentions that if this word were borrowed directlyinto Chinukan [Chinuk Wawa?], an /x/ could have been preserved, although proba-bly not a pharyngeal consonant Q, which is not phonemic in Chinukan. /h/ is foundin some interjections in Chinukan, but also is not considered to be phonemic, andso the presence of /h/ instead indicates that the word was most likely introducedinto Chinukan [Chinuk Wawa?] by English-speaking seafarers at some later pointin time. But it is still possible that what Fletcher heard as an /h/ in hióh was ac-tually the /x/ in xayuu, and was transcribed as ‘h’ as the nearest equivalent to the/x/ sound in the English language. This of course rests on the assumption thata trade jargon was in place before Drake made contact, and that the meaning of‘king’ was an incorrectly induced meaning in a situation which involved a ‘gath-ering’. As Zenk (p.c.) succinctly states, “had we a detailed account of Drake’slanding and had good grounds for supposing that it took place on the northernOregon Coast, we might actually have some early evidence of the existence ofsuch a medium. But this evidence is just way too limited and ambiguous.”

The item cheepe could be related to Chinuk Wawa caplíl or saplíl. Chi-nook Wawa Dictionary Project (2012:201) notes that although the form is usu-ally attributed to French (which would mean that the word must have been un-known to the group Drake contacted), the word was “recorded well before thearrival of the land-based fur trade with its French-speaking voyageurs.” Lewisand Clark recorded ‘shapallel’ or ‘chapallel’ for the name of a native meal madefrom roots and processed into cakes (Moulton 1990:201), a description which pre-cisely matches that recorded by Fletcher for petáh. It seems possible that petáh,could have been the raw stuff out of which cheepe was made.

The item petáh could possibly be related to Chinuk Wawa wapato. ChinookWawa Dictionary Project (2012:244) describes David French’s hypothesis that the

34There is a Coos example which shows that wa´lwal, if indeed it is a trade-jargon form, hasbeen completely incorporated into the morpho-syntax of the language: îìwa´lwalana´ya‘they would make knives out of it’ (Frachtenberg 1922a:356).

265

Tabl

e33

:Chi

nuk

Waw

aco

rres

pond

ence

s

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nC

hinu

kW

awa

Tran

slat

ion

Cita

tion

1hi

óha

king

*hay

u,hi

yu,h

yas

seve

ral,

man

y,a

grou

p,a

gath

erin

g(C

WD

P,p.

81)

ha´l

;u;

man

y,lo

ts(K

alap

uyan

)(J

acob

s19

74:n

.b.1

22)

2to

bâh

anhe

rb3

gnaá

hen

trea

tto

sing

kh @n@

xju

st,e

ven

(CW

DP,

p.11

1)cf

.SW

OR

P4:

17kh an

awi

entir

ely,

who

lly,c

ompl

etel

y,to

tally

’(C

WD

P,p.

102)

k’an

awi

oak,

acor

n(C

WD

P,p.

120)

4pe

táh

root

...

*pdu

P,w

apat

opo

tato

es,w

apat

osa

gita

rria

latif

olia

(CW

DP,

p.24

4)5

chee

pebr

ead

*cap

líl,c

aplíl

brea

d(C

WD

P,p.

201)

6hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

huex

clam

atio

n(C

WD

P,p.

87)

chxi

imm

edia

tely

,jus

tnow

(CW

DP,

p.72

)7

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

t

266

form was borrowed into Upper Chinookan from Kalapuyan. The first syllable wais an Upper Chinookan feminine singular prefix, while the proposed root pdu orpduP, referring to the plant Sagittaria latifolia, is Kalapuyan. If the form petáh iscognate to the Kalapuyan root, then it is possible that the word as Drake’s crewheard it pre-dated its borrowing into Upper Chinookan (which added the initialfeminine singular wa- prefix), but post-dated its general use in a pre-contact tradejargon. Comparing Chinookan and Kalapuyan, Frachtenberg (1918:180) notesthat “the most interesting feature of these correspondences is found in the factthat, while in Chinook most of these words are stems that must be used with someaffix, in Kalapuya they are treated as independent words.”36

14 Conclusion

Some of the data in this survey exhibit interesting correspondences to items on theFletcher/Madox word lists. The closest correspondences are only sometimes se-mantically close (1–5 below), and are sometimes just phonological (6–7). Thisnecessitates an assumption whereby Fletcher and/or Madox’s informants musthave incorrectly induced meaning from the discourse contexts in which they foundthemselves. The strongest correspondences of this survey were marked with a ‘*’in the preceding text, and come from a variety of the languages surveyed. Theyare summarized in Table 34.

The table is not meant to imply that any of the following statements are cor-rect: (i) that the group Drake contacted consisted of members of all of the abovelanguages represented in Table 34, (ii) that the group Drake contacted were multi-lingual in all of the above languages represented in Table 34; or (iii) that a tradejargon existed which incorporated items from each of the languages representedin the Table 34. But nevertheless, it is entirely possible that two, rather than justone, language was represented by the group contacted by Drake, and also possiblethat the language group were concurrent speakers of a regional pre-contact tradejargon.

While induction errors and other types of errors seem overwhelmingly likely,especially for the items on Madox’s list since his informants were repeating soundstrings they had heard three years previously, there is unfortunately no evidencewhich clarifies exactly how the errors were made, or what the correct meaningsare for the words and phrases that were heard. As such we can only speculatewhether there is any substance to any of the relatively close matches in Table 34,and without corroborating evidence, the correspondences in Table 34 must remainpurely speculative.

36Although the status of the Kalapuyan forms as ‘independent words’ may merely reflecttranscriptional conveniences, since as Zenk (p.c.) notes, Kalapuyan nouns are generallypreceded by articles, which Frachtenberg transcribed as clitics, but which Melville Jacobstranscribed as prefixes.

267

Tabl

e34

:Sum

mar

yof

stro

nges

tcor

resp

onde

nces

Flet

cher

/Mad

oxTr

ansl

atio

nC

orre

spon

dent

Tran

slat

ion

1hi

óha

king

*hay

u,hi

yu,h

yas

seve

ral,

man

y,a

grou

p,a

gath

erin

g(C

hinu

kW

awa)

(Chi

nook

Waw

aD

ictio

nary

Proj

ect2

012:

81)

*hiy

aEco

usin

,fri

end

(Als

ea)(

Frac

hten

berg

1917

:252

,293

)*t

aiyu

chie

f(C

hast

aC

osta

,Als

ea(?

))(S

WO

RP

1:10

)2

tobâ

han

herb

*tah

Oto

bacc

o,pl

ante

din

sand

,mix

edw

/ki

nnik

inni

ckle

aves

(Coo

s)(S

WO

RP

4:11

)*t

a´ha

toba

cco

(Coo

s)(S

WO

RP

6:9)

3gn

aáh

entr

eatt

osi

ng*g

ú;na

x ˙an

othe

r(on

e)(C

lack

amas

)(Ja

cobs

1974

:n.b

.57,

p.12

3)4

petá

hro

ot..

.*p

duP,

*pdo

Ppo

tato

es,w

apat

osa

gita

rria

latif

olia

(Pro

to-K

alap

uyan

)(C

hino

okW

awa

Dic

tiona

ryPr

ojec

t201

2:24

4)(B

erm

an19

90)

5ch

eepe

brea

d*c

aplíl

,cap

lílbr

ead

(Chi

nook

Waw

aD

ictio

nary

Proj

ect2

012:

201)

6hu

chee

kech

aroh

sitd

own

*hat

syî

´qa

tcI

Low

a´ka

tsju

stco

ntin

ually

ther

ehe

sat(

Coo

s)(F

rach

tenb

erg

1922

a:42

5)*h

áh-t

saba

sket

(Kw

alhi

oqua

-Cla

tska

nie)

(SW

OR

P7:

14)

*tch

eróh

iron

(Kw

alhi

oqua

)(SW

OR

P1:

2)7

noch

aro

mu

touc

hm

eno

t*n

ictc

at!a

E mu

battl

efiel

d(S

iusl

aw)(

Frac

hten

berg

1922

b:56

4)*n

éht-

sa-t

oto

sit(

Kw

alhi

oqua

)(SW

OR

P1:

2)

268

Another major point against any linguistic claim that one of these Oregon lan-guages was the contact group comes from the fact that none of the languages sur-veyed here exhibit close correspondences for all the items on the Fletcher/Madoxlist, though it should be reiterated that in some cases this could be because of in-adequate documentation. The fact that some of the languages surveyed here showmore and/or closer correspondences than other languages does make them morelikely candidates, in a purely statistical sense, but not necessarily in any real sense,because once again, given the current evidence that we have, it is not possible todetermine whether an ‘incorrect meaning induction’ has occurred in any givencase, and if it has, what the nature of the error was.

At best, the correspondences in this paper could hypothetically be confirmedby corroborating physical evidence from an archaeological investigation. The cor-respondences by themselves, however, do not help clarify the linguistic origins ofthe Fletcher/Madox word list, nor by themselves support the Oregon hypothesis.

Appendix: Orthographic Conversions

This chart represents conversions from orthographies used by Frachtenberg (1913),and by those language workers who used Powell (1880). If a symbol is not listedin this chart, the symbols have the same value in the old orthography as in Amer-icanist, e.g. /b/, /d/, /p/, etc.

Frachtenberg Americanist/IPA Frachtenberg Americanist/IPAand Powell and Powell

a a tc c / tSa a c š / Sä æ(Powell 1880) or e k;37 palatal kâ A x ç or xa a q k or q (or xe e for Powell (1880))ê E o oE @(?) u uî u Ui i û as in English ‘but’ 2(?)‘ h (aspiration) L ň! ’ (glottalization) n nasalization´ stressed syllable ñ velar nasal (‘engma’)ts c / ts V (any vowel) interrogative intonation

37The ‘;’ symbol following a consonant may indicate palatalization in general.

269

References

Berman, H. (1990). An Outline of Kalapuya Historical Phonology. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics, 56(1):27–59.

Buckley, E. (1988). Reconstructing the Sounds of Alsea. In DeLancey, S., ed-itor, Papers from the 1988 Hokan-Penutian Languages Workshop, volume 1of Publications of the Center for Amerindian Linguistics and Ethnography,pages 9–30. University of Oregon Papers in Linguistics.

Chinook Wawa Dictionary Project (2012). Chinuk Wawa: kakwa nsayka ulman-tilixam ìaska munk-k@mt@ks nsayka - As our Elders Teach Us to Speak It.Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde, Grande Ronde, Oregon.

Czaykowska-Higgins, E. and Kinkade, M. D. (1998). Salish Languages and Lin-guistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives. Trends in Linguistics:Studies and Monographs 107. Morton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Dorais, L.-J. (1993). From magic words to word processing: A history of the InuitLanguage. Arctic College, Iqaluit.

Drake, S. F. (1628). The World Encompassed. Nicholas Bourne, London.

Edel, M. M. (1939). The Tillamook Language. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics, 10(1):1–57.

Frachtenberg, L. J. (1913). Coos Texts. Columbia University Contributions toAnthropology. Columbia University Press, New York.

Frachtenberg, L. J. (1914). Lower Umpqua Texts and Notes on the Kusan Dialects.CUCA, 4:107–145.

Frachtenberg, L. J. (1917). Myths of the Alsea Indians of Northwestern Oregon.International Journal of American Linguistics, 1(1):64–75.

Frachtenberg, L. J. (1918). Comparative Studies in Takelman, Kalapuyan and Chi-nookan Lexicography, a Preliminary Paper. International Journal of Ameri-can Linguistics, 1(2):175–182.

Frachtenberg, L. J. (1922a). Coos, volume 2 of Handbook of American IndianLanguages, pages 297–429. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Frachtenberg, L. J. (1922b). Siuslawan (Lower Umpqua), volume 2 of Hand-book of American Indian Languages, pages 431–629. Smithsonian Institu-tion, Washington, DC.

Golla, V. (1997). The Alsea-Wintuan Connection. International Journal of Amer-ican Linguistics, 63(1):157–170.

Grant, A. P. (1997). Coast Oregon Penutian: Problems and Possibilities. Interna-tional Journal of American Linguistics, 63(1):144–156.

270

Hakluyt, R. (1589). The Famous Voyage of Sir Francis Drake into the South Sea,and there hence about the whole Globe of the Earth, begun in the year of ourLord, 1577. Principall Navigations, Voiages and Discoveries of the EnglishNation. George Bishop and Ralph Newberie, London.

Heizer, R. F. (1947). Francis Drake and the California Indians, 1579. University ofCalifornia Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 42(3):251–302.

Heizer, R. F. (1974). Elizabethan California. Ballena Press, Ramona, CA.

Heizer, R. F. and Elmendorf, W. W. (1942). Francis Drake’s California Anchoragein the Light of the Indian Language Spoken There. The Pacific HistoricalReview, 11(2):213–217.

Hymes, D. (1966). Some Points of Siuslaw Phonology. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics, 32(4):328–342.

Jacobs, M. (1918-1974). Melville Jacobs Collection, field notebooks. AccessionNumber 1693-001, University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections.

Jacobs, M. (1939). Coos Narrative and Ethnologic Texts, volume 8:1 of Universityof Washington publications in anthropology. University of Washington.

Kroeber, A. L. (1925). Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of Ameri-can Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Washington, DC.

Kuipers, A. H. (2002). Salish Etymological Dictionary. University of MontanaOccasional Papers in Linguistic, vol. 22, Missoula, MT.

Loy, W. G., Allan, S., Buckley, A. R., and Meacham, J. E. (2001). Atlas of Oregon.University of Oregon Press, 2nd edition.

Mahdi, W. (2007). Malay Words and Malay Things: Lexical Souvenirs from anExotic Archipelago in German Publications Before 1700. Otto HarrassowitzVerlag.

Mithun, M. (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Moulton, G. E., editor (1990). The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Pierce, J. E. (1966). Genetic Comparisons and Hanis, Miluk, Alsea, Siuslaw, andTakelma. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32(4):379–387.

Powell, J. (1880). Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages with Words andPhrases to be Collected. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2ndedition.

Sapir, E. (1922). The Takelma Language of Southwestern Oregon, volume 2 ofHandbook of American Indian Languages, pages 1–296. Smithsonian Insti-

271

tution, Washington, DC.

Sapir, E. and Swadesh, M. (1953). Coos-Takelma-Penutian Comparisons. Inter-national Journal of American Linguistics, 19(2):132–137.

Shipley, W. (1969). Proto-Takelman. International Journal of American Linguis-tics, 35(3):226–230.

Southwest Oregon Research Project (SWORP) (n.d.). Series I: National Anthro-pological Archives, Smithsonian Institution. Located at the University ofOregon Library, Eugene, OR.

Swadesh, M. (1965). Kalapuya and Takelma. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics, 31(3):237–240.

Thompson, M. T. (1966). A Fresh Look at Tillamook Phonology. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics, 32(4):313–319.

Thompson, M. T. (1989). Tillamook-English Dictionary with English-TillamookGlossary. Manuscript. Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii.

Whereat, P. (2001a). The Milluk Language: Ghaala.

Whereat, P. (2001b). The Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua Language: A Word List.