GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2006-01 > 1137633182


From: (Floyd L. Davidson)
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:13:02 -0900
References: <1137338990.456458.231910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <mo4ms15t5bs77ev0ds8bhs690882gdmb15@4ax.com><1137393583.764351.82280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com><dqfnp4$11q$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk><1137537283.462245.280940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com><dqk8dk$api$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk><huuss15ojja0ida30hkla4racgf252j78d@4ax.com><p00ts1l7610qcmjl77gkia2rbidafjcg1q@4ax.com> <87k6cx157v.fld@apaflo.com><qukts1h4j9i5im2tcgvi7md6mqnuok3525@4ax.com>


Denis Beauregard <> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:33:40 -0900, (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>
>>Denis Beauregard <> wrote:
>>>
>>>Inuit is how they call themselves and means something like "us".
>>>Eskimo is how they are called by Crees and means "raw meat eaters".
>>
>>That sure sounds good eh? Makes your little Western heart feel good...
>>
>>Of course none of that is true, other than the term probably does
>>derive from the Algonquin language spoken by the Cree. Some think
>>it came from "snowshoe netter" others think it came from "people
>>who speak a different language".
>
>So many web sites say it comes from raw meat eater that I will
>ask your source.

They said it on the Internet, so it has to be true? ;-)

>For example:
>
>http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/wf/trmrslt_e.asp?term=9

Regardless of my snickering above, you have cited an excellent
example, because it *should* be a credible source. Shame on
them for posting misinformation that has been known false for
decades!

In fact the "snowshoe netter" interpretation comes from Ives
Goddard at the Smithsonian Institute. He is of course a
linguist who studies Algonquian languages.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5 (Arctic), p6.

The "speaks a different language" interpretation (which I
personally find more credible) is from Jose Mailhot, a Canadian
anthropologist who speaks fluent Cree, is from Quebec and
publishes in French and therefore is little known on the
Internet or in the US. She did a definitive study some years
ago, and no part of it has ever been questioned or refuted.

Mailhot, Jose, L'etymologie de *esquimau' revuew et
corrigee. In: Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2(2): 59-69.

For more discussion, see:

<http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html>;

Here is a URL that has more discussion of Goddard's theories,
however I would caution that some of the information about
various other terms given is clearly in error.

<http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html>;

>Eskimo
>
>"Eskimo" is the term once given to Inuit by European explorers and is
>now rarely used in Canada. It is derived from an Algonquin term

They got the first two lines correct. I've snipped the rest,
which was not correct.

>The Crees were initially the "continental" natives living not too
>far from Inuits.

Crees were no less "continental" than Inuit people. And they
lived literally adjacent to each other. Of course so did
several other Indian tribes...

...
>While Algonquins and Crees were speaking similar languages, they
>are not the same. The language family is called Algonquian.
>See for example:
>http://www.native-languages.org/famalg.htm

My mistake. The language family is Algonquian, and Algonquin is
one of those languages, as is Cree. I said

the Algonquin language spoken by the Cree

and it should have been

the Algonquian language spoken by the Cree

>>Inuit doesn't mean "us" either. It makes reference to a person
>>with a genuine human spirit. That is as opposed to a non-human
>>masquerading as a human and still with its own non-human spirit.
>
>From the same source:
>
>http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/info/info114_e.html

Actually that URL says,

"means 'the people' in their own language, Inuktitut."

Which is almost correct. Literally translated it would be
"genuine people". The problem is that neither of those words
necessarily has the same connotation to an English speaker as
the term Inuit has to a fluent speaker of Inuit.

Which is why I have more than just a literal definition.

Whatever, my sources for the meaning are personal communications
with many fluent speakers of Inupiaq and Yup'ik, along with the
research papers to define Proto-Eskimo, such as

"PE /inuy/ or *inuy* 'human being' [for Inu forms inuk, etc.,
compare /innar-/ and /inaluk/, and for Yup yuk, etc., compare
/ina(va)-/ and /inay-/; in possessed form (yua, /inyua/, etc.)
this base, the original Eskimo ethononym, is everywhere
attested also in the senses 'resident spirit', 'core of
boil' and 'chick in egg'; cf. also perhaps Aleut /inisxi-X/
'owner', ... ]

See "Comparative Eskimo Dictionary With Aleut Cognates", 1994,
by Fortescue, Jacobson, and Kaplan. Alaska Native Language
Center, Univ. of AK. Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska

PE stands for Proto-Eskimo, and /inuy/ is the base word from which
both "Yupik" and "Inuit" was derived for the two Eskimo languages.

>Obviously, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is not a relevant
>site...

That's a fact. And you have discovered the biggest problem with
trying to understand anything about Eskimos (Inuit or otherwise)
whether it is language or culture. There is so much false
information floating around that it takes an expert to sort
through it. One problem now being seen is that even Eskimos are
repeating a lot of it! They've now been educated in Western
schools for two or three generations, and for many of them their
cultural history is known only through the Western education
system, flaws and all.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

This thread: