|
Post by Robert Braun on May 18, 2005 5:50:05 GMT -5
In another thread, the words of the "voice" heard at Wisconsin Heights on the evening of July 22 was recorded by at least one participant.
I would like to re-activate a discussion on the Sauk language. While it has been covered piecemeal in several threads, I am hoping we can focus in this thread on the language most likely used by these Indian people.
You thoughts and comments are welcome.
Regards
Bob.
|
|
|
Post by richw on May 19, 2005 8:42:51 GMT -5
"Algonquin. Southern Great Lakes (Wakashan). Fox and Sauk are virtually identical and closely related to Kickapoo, Mascouten, and Shawnee." from www.tolatsga.org/sf.html
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on May 22, 2005 19:40:44 GMT -5
Not quite clear in how to respond to this post so I will take a shot at confining my talking points to the non-technical aspect of the Sauk idiom of Algonquian language.
Just a note here... many observers and researchers (including yours truly) assumed the Sauk were part of a Algonquin linguistic family. Actually, Algonquin is a nation... not a linguistic family. Algonquian is the linguistic family made up of other Indian languages, that are closely related.
The language form or structure of the Sauk at the time frame (1831-1832) of this message board was obviously post- European contact. Interestingly, there are some Algonquian pre-contact words and sentence structure that have been preserved in the post-contact Sauk dialect that provides a link beyond the Sauk peoples perceived origin on the North American continent - present day Michigan. This link assigns an origin further east than Michigan to present day northeastern United States and eastern Ontario and western Quebec.
An interesting aspect of the Alqonguian linguistics is that it was a strong national language, therefore sign talk or sign language was not a large part of communications between members of the different family of nations. This is in stark contrast to the Siouan linguistic family of nations, (plains Indians) who relied heavily on sign talk to converse.
Sign talk, an ancient communication form, continued to be important after individual groups of people developed their verbal languages. Can we correctly say it was the universal language on the American frontier?
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on May 23, 2005 6:15:04 GMT -5
Many thanks to Rich and Larry for your insights.
The only exposure this writer has had to the language has been "Nee com pee lo" from the story of the Wisconsin Heights battle and aftermath. I posted the initial query out of an interest to delve deeper into the language and understand some phrases and idioms used by the Sauk and Fox.
Best regards, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by zeldaanslinger on Jun 11, 2005 16:32:19 GMT -5
Not sure how far contemporary Meskwaki has evolved from its Sauk/Fox ancestry, but I would suggest that anyone interested in the Meskwaki language read _Black Eagle Child_ by Ray Young Bear. It's not only an excellent piece of literature, but there is quite a bit of the native language in it. Here's a good article on Young Bear: www.hanksville.org/storytellers/youngbear/IowaLife.html
|
|