Papers from the 5Th International Co Nference on H Istoricallinguis Tics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AMSTERDAM STUDIES Ir.,-THE THEOR.Y AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE IV CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTTC THEORY Volume21 Papers from the 5th International Co nference on H istoricalLinguis tics Edited by,A"ndersAhlqvist Offprint JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY THE MYSTERY OF THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS MARIANNE MITHUN When Jacques Cartier first sailed into the Bay ofGasp6 in 1534' he encountered a large fishing party. The group had come from Stada- cona, a settlement up the Saint Lawrence River where Quebec City now stands. Cartier did not remain long in the area,but when he left for France, he took two Stadaconancaptives with him. His ad- ventures in the New World are documented in an account of this first voyage. He retumed the following summer, along with his cap- tives, who now spoke some French. This time he remainedlonger, spendingmost of the winter near Stadacona,with a briefexcursion to the settlement of Hochelaga,onpresent Montreal Island"The ac- count of this secondvoyage is also rich with descriptionsof the area and its inhabitants. In 1536, Cartier again set sail for France, this time with ten captives,most from around the areaof Stadacona,al- though one girl came from a town further upriver, Achelacy- Car' tier undertook a third voyagein 1541, but little mention is made of the Laurentian inhabitants in the account ofthis voyage,norin the journal of Roberval,who attempted to found a colony there several years later. In fact,little more was everto be known of thesepeople at all. When Champlain arrived in the region in 1603, they had com- pletely vanished, Who were thesepeople, and what becameof them?r Some traces, lurk in archaeologicalsites uncovered in the vicinity of Hochelaga. These upper Saint Lawrence sites are clearly Iroquoian in charac- ter, but no lower sites have yet been uncovered which could be identified as Stadaconan.Some ethnographic clues can be gleaned from Cartier's descriptions of the people and their way of life. Al- though he spent only one day at Hochelaga,his description of that settlement is quite detailed. Itseemstohavebeenatypical,palisaded Iroquian village, consisting of a large number of longhousessur- r For an excellent critica.l discussion of Previous work directed at this question seeTrigger 1972. THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS 231 rounded by extensivecornfields. Cartier's description ofStadacona is sparser.The Stadaconansappear to have resembledAlgonquian speakinggroups in the areamore than the Hochelagans,with a rela- tively greater dependence on fishing, although this may simply have been due to the harsherclimate which preventedtotal reliance on agriculture. A third set of clues to the identity of the Lauren- tians lies in the words from their languagewhich accompanythe ac- counts of the voyages. 1. The Linguistic Traces Appended to the account of Cartier's first voyageis a list of over fifty words of the 'Langage de la terre nouvellement descouverte nomme la Nouvelle France'.r All of these are drawn from the text of the account. Appended to the account of the second voyage is another list, partially overlapping with the first, of the 'Langaige des pays et royaumes de Hochelagaet Canada,aultrement dicte la Nouvelle France'.z Together, the two accounts yield a little over two hundred words of the mystery language,probably the first North American languageto be recorded. Circumstancessurrounding the transcription of these words are somewhat mysterious. First, it is not clear exactly whoselanguage the vocabulariesrepresent. Cartier spent only one day at Hochel- aga,but a number of words in the secondaccount occur in his des- cription of that settlement. The words couldhave been supplied by Hochelagans,by Stadaconan guides, or later by the captives in France. The general quality of the work suggeststhat all of the words accompanying the accounts were transcribed at leisure by someone more philologically inclined than a ship caPtain. If the vocabularies aere transcribed in France. the issue is not settled. The captivesseized during the secondvoyage were not all from the village of Stadacona,They came from severalsurrounding villages, If their languagesdiffered, the vocabularies could represent any one of the settlements.or a mixture. Furthermore, without knowing when and where the vocabularres were recorded, we cannot accurately assessthe degreeofbilingua- lism of the participants nor the context ofthe recording. In several cases,this hampers critical evaluation of the strength of the evi dence.Consider a term for 'salmon' in the secondaccount. r Frorn Ramusio asprinted in Hoffman 1961. 2 Manuscript A. (See Cartier,1636 in Index of Soutces). 232 MARIANNE MITHUN l) L2. ondaccon (A, B, C, BR)/ L2. oudacon (Hak, Th) 'r'ng saul- mon'r This word resemblesno modem word for any kind of fish in any of the lroquoian or Algonquian languagesin the area.It doesresemble words in severalIroquian languagesfor a kettle, however. M. q:ta(k) Oe.q:tak Su.owntack 'kettle'2 r Each Laurentian term will be given with a key to its source. Ll. refers to words from the first account, L2 to words from thesecond. Sourcesate abbre- viated as follows. A, B, and C refer to manuscriPts 5653, 5589, and 5644 res- pectively io the Bibliothique Nationale in Paris' BR refers to the Brefrecit of 1545, Hak to Hakluyt's printed v€rsion of 1600 (seeunder Burrage in index), Th to Thevet's version in Le Grand Inslrhile (taken flom Hoffman 1961), R to Ramusio's translation from the Italian in 1565, and M to the Moleau ma- nuscript, abo taken from Hoffman 1961. For fullcr citations of these sources consult Cartier in the Index of Sources. 2 The sorrrces for th€ other hoquoian languageecited are the following. The Huron is from Sagard's Dictionnaire de la langue huronne (HS), from Chau- mo[ot's Grammar of the Huron Language (HCh), and flom Potiel's manu- scripts (HP). The Mohawk is from my notes from Leatrice Beauvais, Mary Cross, Annette Jacobs, Connie Jacobs, CeorginaJacobs, VemaJacobs, Dolo- thy Lazor€, Margaret MacDonald, and Mary MacDonald (M). The Susquehan- nock or Andaste ir from campanius (1696: f55-f66) (Su) and is cited in hi! tmnscription. The Oneida (Oe)is ftom my notes from DickChrisjohn' Mer- cy Doxtador, and Georgina Nicholas. The Onondaga is from Sh€a's seven- te€nth century dictionary (OoS), from Zeisb€rger's eighteenth century dic- tionary (OoZ), from Hanni woodbury (oo), and from my notes from Reginald Henry and Audrey Shenandoa (Oo). The Cayuga (C) is frcm my notes from Jim Skye and R€ginald HeEy. Th€ Seneca (S) is principally from Chafe'6 dic- tionary with some forms from my notes from Alberta Austin, Lovina Huff, Earbara Lee, and Myrtle Peterson. The Tuscalola (T) is from my notes from Elton Creene and Robert Mt. Pleasant. Th€ Nottoway is from Wood's noter (NW) and Trezvant's notes (NT), both in their odginal tmnscliPtions. The Cherokee (Ch) is taken from Feeling's dictionary. Fulld citations can be found in the list oJreferedces. In all of the modern Iroquoian languages,voicing is not distinctive, so it is not marked in transcdption. Obstruents are voiced before vowels and reson_ ants, esscntially. Nasalization is shownby acommaunder the vowel' s =[q y= [i]in Mohawk and Oneida, [6] in Tuscarora q = [a] or [5] THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS 232 Words which look suspiciously like this term appearelsewhere rn both of Cartier's accountsmeaning'earthen dish'' L1. undaco (R)/ L2. undaccon (C) 'vngpot de terre' This appearsto Ie a caseof understandablesemantic confusion, in The a situaiion wher. someonewas gesturingtoward fish in apot' the extent to which such interpretation is justified dependsuPon I languageskills of those involved- u = [[] : Voic.lessness is indicated by underscoling in Cayuga' 4 [a]' 8 was wed by the French missionaries fol w and q . I The degreeofcreativity ofinterpretation evokcdby the translations covers a wide ranle. Some slight adjustments are easily admitted, as the form ofthe verb below. L2. quedaqu6 (A, B, C, BR,Ilak, Th)'cheminez' ('walk along') (command) M' kt6khe' 'I am running' Oe. ktiikhe' 'I am running' Oo. kt6khe' 'I am run- ning'S. ktakhe"I am running' (k-= first Person subjective plonoun'I') Others are to bc anticipated as the confusion ofquestions and answe$' L2. canada undagneny (A, B, C)/ L2. canada undagneuv (BR,IIak,Th) 'D'on vmez-vous?' ('Whence come you?') M. kanitakq nqtay6kcne' 'we two came from town' Oe. kanatd:ke nqtaydkene' 'we two came from town' Oo. kanatak6:wd'nqtayikne"we two came from town' c. kanatakq: nqtd- two came khne:' 'we two came from town' S. kangtak6: ngtiyakhne:' 'we from town' (*kanii:ta': 'town') Others must b€ mole tentative. Words appear for 'olives' and 'figs" foods which the Laurentians certainly were not consuming at home' Some possibili- ties suggestthemselves. L2. honocohonda (A, B, C, BR) 'des ollyves' ('olives') HS acointa'pois'M' ondkwa'Peas'C. onC:kwa'Peas' Olives could not have been a Laurentian staple. They could well resemble small roundbeans orpeas, howev€r, particularly to the inexperienced eye' Ll. asconda (n,tn17 t2' absonca (A, B, c, BR, rlak, Th)'figues' ('figs') Hch' out, roasted, orcrisPy' ,askont 'it is roasted'M. o'skil:ta' 'someihing dricd either from fire or the sun' Oe. o'sku,:ti: 'it is burned'OoZ. watescuntanha tt is 'bumed by the sun'C. watd'skq:t 'it is roasted, bumed' S' o'skg:tat scorchinghot" Any figs thai Laurentian sPeakersw€re likely to seewere probably dried,eith- er on board ship or in Brittany. Finally, a f€w words leaveroom only for flights offantasy. One such term appearsin the first account. L1. aignetaze (R)/ aignetase(Th) 'laton' The French term lefers to a lype ofbronze. The Laurentian term look! very 234 MARIANNE MITHUN Another question raised by the possibility of transcription in France is the identity of the scribe.