More on Changes in the Choctaw Language

While working on the Choctaw language, I encountered an interesting phenomenon: There are two forms for the possessive for body parts. One form, the sa form is the most prevalent, and it indicates a kind of intrinsic possession. Another form that is used by some speakers is the am form. This kind of possession is used with things that are owned and are separate from the person. You would use this second form for a car--a- ka.  I am wondering if the am form is an older form whose usage has begun to die out.

These two uses bring to mind differences in spiritual beliefs. In Christianity, body and soul are considered somewhat inseparable while the body is living. I think that is the basis for the belief in the resurrection of the body. In examining the language, it appears that the belief is that people are primarily bodies that have something called a soul. This contrasts with traditional pre-Christian beliefs of some American Indian groups that each of us is the spirit, and the spirit has the body. And, of course, other religions, perhaps most notably Buddhism, recognize the each person is a spirit that can be freed from the bounds of a body without the body dying.

There are two words in Choctaw for spirit, one of which is connected more with the body and the other usually referring to spirits that roam without bodies. Since Choctaws have been Christianized for hundreds of years, it is difficult to reconstruct those earlier beliefs, but it appears that these two systems represent a language change that also represents a change in thinking among many Choctaw speakers.

Language Change and Metaphors in the Choctaw Language

Language Change and Metaphors in the Choctaw Language

There are three recent historical events that have affected change in the Choctaw language: contact with Europeans and particularly American missionaries in the early 1800’s, removal of the Choctaw from their ancestral homeland in the 1830’s, and the loss of physical sovereignty as the result of the Dawes Act and subsequent statehood for the former “Indian Territory”.

First contact with Europeans occurred when DeSoto and his merry band strolled through Southeast U.S. Two words were borrowed from the Spanish, wak (cattle/cow) from vaca and katos (cat) from gatos. During the U.S. colonial period, the Choctaw and other Southeastern Nations were courted by many European nations, and the word shupo (hat) was borrowed from the French. Europeans brought new animals that needed new names. Sheep became chukfi ulhpoa (foraging rabbit), goats became issi kosoma (smelly deer), horses became issuba (like a deer), and mules are issuba haksobish falaia (long eared horses).The advent of conversions to Christianity caused the creation of many new words. Some words are transliterations of the English words, such as  Kilaist (Christ) or Chihowa (Jehovah). Other new words include ubai anumpuli chukka (the house of the word from heaven) for church and holisso aiithana (the place of learning from books) for school.

Removal split the Mississippi Choctaw into two groups with about 2/3 removing to what is now Oklahoma (then, it was outside the formal boundaries of the U.S.). The removed Choctaw formed themselves into a republic, establishing its own schools. This would have been a strong period for the Choctaw because they achieved 80% literacy in the Choctaw language during this time. There were newspapers, parts of the Bible, textbooks, official documents, poetry, and personal letters written in Choctaw during this time. In the meantime, the Mississippi Choctaw sunk into poverty as sharecroppers and without the benefit of any literacy. While still mutually intelligible, there are noticeable differences between Mississippi Choctaw and Oklahoma Choctaw.

Literacy ended in Choctaw when the nation status of the Choctaw was terminated through legislation and U.S. policy changes toward American Indians. Choctaw children then were schooled in English. This change in the language of education may have affected the language in other ways. For one, most modern Choctaw speakers are unable to read and understand the Choctaw of the 19^th century. For example, the early name for Saturday was nitak hollo nakfish, the little brother of the holy day (Sunday). Today that is Satiti, a transliteration of Saturday. Bed has changed from topa to anusi (place for sleeping). The word hullo, which is related to holitopa (holy), and originally meant “reverence for something holy,” has been extended to express feelings for other people. This extension from one realm to another represents a metaphor.

The universality of metaphors as a way to create new meanings for old words is well represented in Choctaw. Essentially, Choctaws make metaphors in the same manner as speakers of other languages. For example, they use simile, issuba (issi holba/like a deer) and personification, nipi balit (balilit) kania (the meat ran away—said when a piece of meat falls on the floor), and oklhili nukshoblit pisa, they want to frighten the darkness.

Learning a language solo or through instruction

I have started keeping a daily journal in Choctaw, which really stretches my understanding of the language. The only dictionary was published in the 1800’s, and some of those words are not used by the Oklahoma Choctaw in present time. Most of the published materials are from the 1800’s in a language that most present day Choctaws cannot understand. My instructor goes over what I write and corrects the vocabulary and sentence structure. It feels like my understanding is beginning to take off. Part of the outcome of working with my instructor is that I now understand what the texts are trying to tell me. Most of the material written for the teaching of Choctaw was developed without linguistic input, and that has hindered the clarity of the descriptions of the language. Leroy, my instructor, and I are working on clearing up some of those descriptions. We have started with the sound system to see if we can give people clearer information.

In addition to writing, I try to read aloud some Choctaw daily. This helps to build my vocabulary. I also listen to recorded Choctaw to help me with comprehension. Comprehension precedes speaking. The result is that I feel more comfortable with Choctaw now.

Another language I have been learning is Scottish Gaelic from an online BBC program. I don’t really have too much time to devote to it, but then I don’t have to be in a big hurry either. I have been on Unit 3 for several weeks now. I have listened to all the little conversations while looking at the text. I have copied the texts. Now, I am just listening to the transcripts to be sure that I can understand what they are saying. I almost have the whole thing. Just to test myself, I want back to what I had copied, and I was able to read it aloud and understand what I was reading. Also, I know some of the phrases—meaning that I can say them. One of the most interesting things about Scottish Gaelic is the prosody of the spoken language, so I have been working on duplicating that as well. I want to thank Alasdair for letting me read his paper because that gave me a little insight into some of the grammar.

While these efforts may not make me a fluent speaker, they are providing me with some basic language that would help me with learning more in an immersion setting. I recall that even with the little bit of in-class instruction in Navajo last fall, I was able to get the gist of a conversation among a Navajo family who had come for the feast day at Jemez. I find the results encouraging for people who  may be studying a language on their own.

Still Waters Revisited

In my further discussions with my Choctaw instructor regarding the line in Psalms 23 about “still waters,” he reads that line as “the edge of the water”—oka ontulaka, with ontulaka meaning “the edge of something.” He also stated that he thought that Byington tried to translate directly from the Hebrew to Choctaw. There is a source (Holisso Anumpa Tosholi: English and Choctaw Definer) that shows how Byington did his translations with some samples. However, the samples show English to Choctaw, not Hebrew to Choctaw.

I did look at various translations of the Hebrew Psalms 23 (http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B19C023.htm), but I cannot find that particular wording anywhere. That line is variously translated as “still waters” (KJV, American Standard Version, Darby’s English Translation, Noah Webster Bible, and World English Bivle). It is translated as “quiet waters” in two versions (Bible in Basic English and Young’s Literal Translation) and as water of refreshment in Douay Rheims Bible, which translates that entire line this way: “He hath brought me up, on the water of refreshment.”

My translation of the Choctaw makes the ka on the end of ontulaka as a grammatical particle indicating the location and the ontula as a participle meaning “stranded” (according to Byington dictionary). However, if my Choctaw instructor is correct, Byington’s translation significantly differs in meaning from the original, shifting the meaning from the imagery of the condition of the water to the location of where the person is being lead.

My Choctaw instructor reads that line to mean to “rest on the edge of water,” but that is problematic too as he and I discussed early 19^th century Choctaw notions of water, which included stories of water monsters, not to mention mosquitoes, snakes, and other unpleasant creatures that often live by water in the Southeastern part of the U.S.  It occurs to me that this line might have been more meaningful to a Choctaw of the early 1800’s if the line had been simply rendered as  “he leads me to water.”

Still Waters

Yesterday, my Choctaw language instructor and I had an interesting discussion about Byington's translation of the 23rd Psalm. Previously, I had mentioned that his translation of the English "still waters," which he writes as oka ontvla, literally translated as stagnant water. (I have since looked at my notes and that is stranded water, which I apparently translated into stagnant water. ) My own research had given me the information that there were two Bibles that were popular in Byington's time, so I called the Global Bible Society to see if anyone had more information. Byington was a Congregationalist (now he is referred to as Presbyterian), and I did try to ascertain what role the beliefs of the Congregationalist church might have played in his translations.

My Choctaw language instructor translated Byington a bit differently, scanning it as oka afoha as a place to rest near the water--it is peaceful, no one is fishing or doing anything around there. I did point out that he was looking at the Psalm with modern eyes and wondered what it might have meant to a Choctaw of the early 1800's. Choctaws like other Southeastern Indians must have had numerous stories related to bodies of water, and water would have figured prominently in their ceremonies. Monsters with magical powers lived in water, for example. It is almost impossible to go back, however, and obtain clear data about those times and the thinking. Christianity and the Removal happened to the Choctaw. Stories about specific rivers, streams, or lakes no longer had any meaning or place in a new religion and land.

Byington's dictionary does have a word for still water, oklhimpa, so why didn't he use that? Or he could have  described the water as alhobi, "still and without wind." Byington's dictionary, of course, represents a lifetime of work. Perhaps, his translations of Psalms was done before he obtained a complete knowledge of the Choctaw language. Or the words for these ideas in the Byington dictionary may represent changes in the Choctaw language after the advent of Christianity.

My original interest in Psalms was to look for metaphors because these writings are metaphor rich. Part of what was interesting to me was that Byington apparently tried to translate the metaphors in the King James Version literally into Choctaw: There appears to be no effort find an equivalent idea in Choctaw. In contrast, in the Māori language, instead of joining the "body" of Christ, one joins his "canoe." Of course, enforcing the metaphors of the King James Version had a profound affect on the thinking of Choctaw people. Even though they were hearing their own language, that language no longer represented Choctaw ideas.

On my next meeting with my instructor, I will ask him about the ontvla to get his take on what Byington might have meant.

Inertia

There sits the Tagalog language materials on my brother’s desk. They are still unopened even though he has promised his wife that he will learn some of her language before their next visit to the Philippines.  The Irish professor ran into one of his former students on a train in Ireland. After the professor greeted the young man in Irish, the young man leans forward and whispers, “Do you mind if we speak in English,” as he indicated the older woman sitting next to him.

Inertia is resistance to change, and it takes a bit of force to overcome it. Historically, this has certainly been true. Consider the amount of force that was used against American Indian children in boarding schools to overcome their resistance to change. I am certainly not advocating brutality to children to return the use of our own languages. Actually, I am playing a bit with the different meanings of the word force.

Force is the amount of energy it takes to change motion. In a modern, technological world, often times too much energy is expended on just moving bodies over some distance several times a day, usually in some kind of vehicle. Surprisingly, not using a body does not conserve its energy, so people wind up with less energy than when they started. In terms of revitalizing languages, this means that adults come to evening classes with perhaps less energy than they feel they need to overcome this inertia. When the language classes are passive with students perhaps just listening and repeating, adult learners leave without sufficient “power” to make changes.

Power is related to energy and force, of course, but again I am playing a bit with the meanings of words. Power is part of empowerment, and we want our students, regardless of age, to have the power to use the language they learn. We want them revved up when they leave class so that they can overcome the inertia. We want them to leave so revved up that they want to use the language with everyone they see. They so enjoy their own language that they want to share it with everyone. And that is overcoming inertia.

Consider what kind of class that would be to rev up students and have them leave wanting to share their language with the world. It would be more like a fast game of stickball rather than like watching golf, wouldn’t it?

Barriers to Immersioin

Despite the evidence that immersion is the one method that actually produces speakers, many American Indian groups still resist it.  Instead the language is doled out in minute quantities as if it were toxic and too much might be harmful. These teachers make learning their own language as meaningless, difficult, and boring as many subjects taught in school. I have to wonder if this approach is the result of being schooled themselves.

Learning should be a joyful activity, so why are we making it such a chore?

I have to wonder if this joylessness is the result of joyless experiences that teachers have had in their own schooling. And the teachers perpetuate this cycle of joylessness. Teaching without joy could be classified as an abusive activity, and I, for one, would like to end this cycle of abuse. It is self-defeating.