FREE Two-Day Shipping for Students. Learn more |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Amateurish,
By
This review is from: Handbook of the Delaware Indian Language: The Oral of a Native People (Paperback)
There are some serious problems with this book.First of all, the so-called WALAM OLUM is a proven hoax, which is full of artificial "Delaware" words made-up by C.S. Rafinesque. Therefore, the references to it (pages 5,6,7 and 27), and the reproduction of its text and translation (pages 41-52) honestly have no place in a book on the REAL Delaware language. Second, Daniel G. Brinton's translation of Johannes Roth's Delaware version of Matthew 22:1-14 is terribly inadequate. There are numerous errors in the translation, and even the Delaware text is often transcribed wrong. For example: In verse 1, he renders "nuwuntschi" as "he-began." It actually means "therefore." The word, "neli" ["nelih" in Roth], was crossed out by Roth, so it shouldn't even be part of the text. In verse 2, the word, "na," does not mean "him," but "that-one;" and, "Witachpungewiwulatpoagan" is not "marriage," but "marriage feast." In verse 3, "wentschitsch" means "so-that-will," not "the-bidden," as Brinton writes. And, "schingipawak" means "they-are-unwilling-to-come," not "they-are-unwilling." In verse 4, "Mauwilo" means "Go-and-tell-them," not "those;" and "penna," for which Brinton offers no translation, means "Behold!" In the same verse, "nihillalachkik" means "those-whom-I-own," not "they-are-killed;" and "Wisuhengpannik" is "they-who-were-fattened," not "they-fattened-them." Brinton also leaves out three words, in this verse, which are found in Roth's work. Mistakes like this occur in every verse. Third, on page 18, information on the pronunciation of w, aa, ae, au, ee, eu, i, oa and oo is either incorrect or incomplete. W, before a consonant, is pronounced something like a whispered, whistled w. The aa, ee and oo are pronounced exactly like the long a, e and o. They are not slightly longer. The i can also be pronounced the same as ie, sometimes. Au and eu are pronounced like a + whispered w, and e + whispered w, when they occur at the end of a word. Finally, oa is more like the aw in "awful" than the oa in "soap." (Since the combination, ae, only appears in the words from Roth, it is irrelevant. However, it was to be pronounced like a long e.) Fourth, on page 20, the meanings for "-elendam," "-hilleu," "-it," "-wagan" and "-wi"/"-we" are wrong. "-elendam" is a verb suffix which expresses "a disposition, situation or operation of the mind" (Zeisberger). "-hilleu" is used to indicate "motion." "-it" means "he (or she) who ...," in participles. "-wagan" changes verbs into nouns. "-wi" is used to form negative verbs. I have no idea what "-we" signifies. It depends on what letter precedes it. I can't think of a single case where it means "s/he, it is ...," however. Fifth, also on page 20, it should be noted that "(w)ak" pluralizes ANIMATE nouns, while "(w)all" pluralizes INANIMATE nouns. The "-all" at the end of "amemensall" is NOT a plural. It is an obviative suffix used to mark grammatically subsidiary third persons. It doesn't distinguish between singular and plural. Thus, "amemensall" can mean either "child" or "children," depending on the context in which the word is used. The plural form of "amemens" is "amemensak." Sixth, on page 21, there are no such forms as "kquis" and "wquis" in Delaware. "Your son" is "quis," where the k merges with the q. "His son" is "quisall," where the w moves to the right and merges with the u, and the word is further marked for obviative with the "-all" suffix. Seventh, on this same page, the plural verb forms are correct, but they mix suffixes for indicative and subordinative modes. The n---neen should be changed to the indicative n---hena, in order to match the mode of the other affixes shown. Eighth, on page 22, the prefixes on the forms for "he loves us" and "he loves you (pl.)" should be n- and k-, respectively--not w-. Ninth, on page 23, so far as the "irregularity" of the last vowel of the verb stem is concerned, the forms which contain "-ge-" are Theme 2 Transitive Animate verbs. These are also known as "inverse" forms, because the action of the verb flows from right to left (i.e., object < verbal action < subject). Tenth, on page 55, ch and k cannot really be substituted for each other. Finally, there are some finer points of grammar which I won't get into, here. What I have mentioned should suffice to show that the grammar section of this book is horribly flawed.Raymond Whritenour LENAPE TEXTS & STUDIES
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A collection of existing material,
By
This review is from: Handbook of the Delaware Indian Language: The Oral of a Native People (Paperback)
I am the author, or should I say editor, of this book and wanted to include a review for this book other than the one already on this page. We have a small, family-run business, Wennawoods Publishing, and we specialize in reprinting material that is relevant to the history of the early eastern American frontier. That being said, I pulled 18th century sources(and a few 19th century) as the material for this book and have presented it to the reader as a collation of what is out there. I am not a native speaker of Lenape, but have my degree in Linguistics, specializing in Indo-European languages(especially German). Most of the material that I collected for this book was recorded by German-speaking missionaries, thus giving me an insight into the 'historic' Lenape language. If you're looking for an overly-technical approach to a modern, living dialect of the language, this book is not for you...perhaps the other reviewer can help you in that department. If you'd like a nice, little collection of some of the material that is out there concerning the historic Delaware Indian language of the 18th century, then you might want to consider purchasing this book.
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A poor choice...,
By Cathy Chadwick-Ciccone (New Jersey, USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Handbook of the Delaware Indian Language: The Oral of a Native People (Paperback)
The author/editor states he has a degree in linguistics, but not Lenape. So, what are his qualifications to butcher our language? As an enrolled Lenape, Munsee woman, Six Nations, I take personal offense to the many mistakes. It is bad enough we have so many masquerading as Lenape and stealing our culture, now we have to deal with misinformation from "scholars" who feed these charlatans drivel so they can go out and "educate" the uninformed public. This book does not have the support of legitimate, recognized Delaware Nation. Thank the Creator!
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
