Right before I walked away from the Mohegan language project, I noticed a very interesting pattern with some of the words. In particular I had noticed it with the colors. It all had to do with stems, or to use the older term roots.
A stem (root word) is the very base of what forms the word that you and I know. In English, many are given prefixes and suffixes to become something we use in conversation. For example, the word act becomes react or activity according to what has been added. There is also the word friend. We can go from having a friend to being unfriendly or having a good friendship.1
Algonquian languages construct sentences primarily from stems, which often require additional elements to expand into complete expressions. These can be viewed as word-sentences. A key feature of Algonquian languages, like Western Abenaki or Modern Mohegan, is their emphasis on identifying the participants, the quantity involved, and their animate or inanimate status when forming word-sentences.
Algonquian languages lack physical gender distinctions like he, she, and it, but they have their own form of gender classification. This is divided into two categories: animate and inanimate. The animate category applies to entities like a person, a strawberry, and many other things considered to possess life or vitality. In contrast, the inanimate category describes objects like a rock or a piece of lint, as if regarded lifeless.
A dog is clearly alive and considered animate, while a rock is typically viewed as inanimate. However, for many people, especially those who practiced animism before the spread of Christianity, a rock might be seen as animate. The distinction between animate and inanimate often depends more on cultural worldview than on literal life status.
A significant part of the language categorizes the world into animate and inanimate elements. Despite European contact and their influence, this perspective endured among the people. While not strictly binary, their worldview was distinct. For instance, a pipe is revered as a sacred, living entity, treated with utmost care due to its animate nature. Conversely, a rock casually kicked by the river is considered inanimate.
Of course I’m just showing a broad generalization. But this “life division” is something many of us have lost, even those of us trying to return to the language.
My experiences with classes and discussions with those more knowledgeable than I am have inspired me to address this topic. I’ve observed challenges in communicating about the animate and inanimate, with various approaches being taken. One method involves using the word “they” instead of ”he”, ”she”, or “it”. While “they” can be singular in informal language, without clarification from the start it can confuse new students.
On a side note, the use of gendered pronouns with objects in English is not unheard of. A sailboat has a female gender. Actually all boats are female. So are trucks, if you go deep enough into the American South. My ukulele is gendered male (given that I come at the language from a less than mainstream point of view). To translate something Algonquian as “she is small” when referring to a strawberry isn’t as outside of some English norms as many people seem to think it is2.
Recently, I’ve noticed a different approach. In translating sentences like ”get it (a strawberry) for me,” the translator often over-explains. The translation given is, “Go get me that someone.” The teacher further clarifies that the speaker is referring to an animate being, not an inanimate object, because the strawberry is considered animate and so it must be a someone. This approach seems to teach two languages at once: a revised way of speaking English while also teaching the Algonquian language. This method can be confusing not just for students, but everyone involved.
I suggest we trust students to grasp basic theory presented in a simplified manner. While excessive theory would complicate language learning, students can understand the differences in gender usage between Algonquian languages and English. It’s crucial for students to become comfortable with the absence of gendered pronouns as used in English. Additionally, students should have the opportunity to adjust to new concepts with a solid understanding.
This ultimately boils down to the fundamental elements. Beginning with the basic colors and understanding the formation of each word might be the key.
To reiterate, colors exist in two forms: animate and inanimate. While there’s a single word for a color, like brown, these forms result in two distinct variations. I have often seen these forms presented as separate terms. My Mohegan Language dictionary is one such book that does this. The first step therefore would be to unify the terms to their common stem if they are not already.
Let’s take, for example, the color suk– (Fielding, 2006). The term “suk-” means that something is very dark or is being very dark. This word has been used for the color black. Although Algonquian lacks a direct equivalent to the English “to be,” the essence of the concept is conveyed clearly and effectively without unnecessary complexity. When approached correctly, the usage of the word naturally aligns itself.
Suk– has two forms: sukáyu (inanimate) and sukisu (animate).3 (Fielding, 2006) If I take those forms and illustrate into a table, I can see the pattern better:
| Stem | Identification |
|---|---|
| Suk- | áyu |
| Suk- | isu |
Essentially the word is saying “black alive” and “black not alive”. Or perhaps “dark being” and “dark thing”4, which I personally feel is more accurate. Other colors also follow this pattern.
musqáyu, musqisu (to be red)
siwôpáyu, siwôpisu (to be blue)
I can find the same pattern with other adjectives in Modern Mohegan.
| Word and Meaning | Stem | Identification |
|---|---|---|
| wutuk- (to be wet) | -áyu | it is wet; it is being a wet thing |
| -isu | he or she is wet; it is a wet being | |
| mush- (to be large, huge) | -áyu | it is huge; it is a large thing |
| -isu | he or she is huge; it is a large being |
There was indeed a pattern. I was curious to go further. When a word is shown in just one form, like the inanimate, I realized that a native speaker might apply the animate form similarly to how English speakers occasionally “create” words.
Kôskáyu (to be rough, or it is rough, to feel rough to the touch) could describe a rock, as it is used in the Mohegan to English Dictionary. Yo sun kôskáyuw: This stone is rough. (This stone is a rough thing.)
There are animate things that are rough to the touch. A kettle can be rough to the touch especially if it’s old and not usable anymore. To describe it, I simply have to follow the pattern. Kôskisuw yo kohq. It is a rough being, this kettle. This kettle is rough. Kôskisu- was not in my dictionary, but I was able to find it with the language pattern.
In another Algonquian language class I’m attending, I’ve observed this pattern once more. Interestingly, it also appeared with a word that wasn’t an adjective. This prompted me to look at other languages.
| muhkwauyooh – he or she is red muhkwauyuk – it is red skus-kwau-yooh – he or she is green uth-kuth-twau-yuk – it is green | Mohican (Miles)5 |
| askaskwigo – he or she is green askaskwigen – it is green mkwigen – it is red mkwigo – he or she is red | Western Abenaki6 |
| máxkeew – it is red máxksuw – he or she is red askáskweew – it is green/fresh askáskwusuw – he or she is green/fresh shiwapeu – it is blue schiwapueyeu – one is blue | Delaware-Munsee (O’Meara, Zeisberger)7 |
| Aone – it is blue Aonsu – he or she is blue màxkèke – (if) it is red màxksu – he or she is red | Lenape (Lenape Nation)8 |
| eenseenseeki – it is bright green eenseensici– he or she is bright green iihkipakileeci – he or she is blue iihkipakinki – it is blue | Myaami (Miami Nation)9 |
The pattern is shown there.
There seems to be a tendency to dance around this fact when teaching the language. Presenting both forms as two separate words, in my opinion, inhibits learning how to think like the language. Again, the language is built around the animate and the inanimate. Some words are made animate or inanimate before they are even given pronouns, number forms, and other branches to make sentences.
Algonquian languages are not the only ones that put things in the order they do. Some people have called the word order Yoda speak, but I think that it simply is being specific with how you choose to say things. You truly say what you mean and mean what you say with these languages. Word choices are deliberate.
The English language handles pronouns almost flippantly. It, the ball, was bouncing down the road. We don’t know what gender the road is and normally don’t care, and the same goes for the ball except for when we give the pronoun “it”. In an Algonquian language, we would almost always know.
The bird is red. In English, this sentence doesn’t specify whether the bird is animate or inanimate. From a Western perspective, the bird could be seen as a living being or merely an object depending on who is listening. Many people hold differing opinions about birds and their place in the world (or rather, in relation to their place in the world). Personally, I often refer to a bird, especially one in my care, as a person or someone. This reflects my background and worldview. However, I’ve encountered many who view birds as mere objects or possessions, sometimes because they are farmers who rely on chickens for food.
The bird is undeniably red—no more, no less. Its redness is simply a visible fact. This specific bird is red; it’s a distinct characteristic of this particular bird. While we cannot confirm the color of other birds, this one is definitely red.
The Modern Mohegan phrase – Musqisuw yo cits. – conveys a unique perspective. Literally translated, it means, “A red being this bird.” Although this might sound unusual, many sentences are structured this way. The term “cits” implies a small bird. Like the previous sentence, this one also refers to a specific bird. This succinct sentence tells us that this bird is not just red, but it is a living part of the world. It belongs to the sacred cycle of life, which encompasses natural, breathing entities around us. Unlike the English version which depends on the listener’s perception, the Mohegan form clearly identifies This Bird as a being.
If I were to say, “Musquáyu yo cits“, I am literally saying, “A red thing this bird.” I am immediately denoting the bird from living status to that of just being a thing. I might be talking about a piece of wood that happens to be shaped like a bird. (Dolls are animate, so it stands to reason I may not be referring to a figurine or any type of doll.)
Transforming the bird into an inanimate form distances it from the living world, relegating it to the realm of the lifeless and inactive, like the ground we tread upon. It becomes akin to the rocks we kick—unliving and not noteworthy enough to merit animate status. It simply becomes a thing.
Why wouldn’t we, as students of the Algonquian languages, embrace this traditional way of thinking? Embracing this fundamental pattern is essential. By starting with the stem and learning to split them into each form, animate and inanimate, we embrace it. Starting with divided terms may delay the learning experience.
For years, I’ve been refining my version of the Mohegan Dictionary. Whenever I update it, I might add a new word or include verified information. For instance, since “orange” is a relatively recent term, objects we now consider orange were previously described as red, yellow, red-yellow, or yellow-red. While other dictionaries may have a different approach to Algonquian adjective forms, I have opted for the following format:
Musq– ROOT –to be red, also for dark orange or red-orange. VAI – musqáyu– VII – musqisu–
musqáyu-, VII it is red, it is dark orange, it is red orange [traditional spelling: squayoh]
it is red musqáyuw, they are red musqáyush, that it is red másqák, that they are red másqáks
Musqáyuw yo pôhpaskôk. Musqáyush yosh pôhpaskôkansh: This ball is red. These balls are red.
musqisu-, VAI he is red, also for dark orange or red orange; example – a dark orange cat
I am red numusqis, s/he is red musqisuw, you and I are red kumusqisumun, they are red musqisuwak, that it is red másqisut, that they are red másqis’hutut
Musqisuw yo cits. Musqisuwak yok citsak: This bird is red. These birds are red.
Másqisut cits misum: Give me the red bird.
Ch’wi másqisucik citsak misum: Give me three red birds.
In this format, the stem acts as the starting point, rather than creating separate sections for teaching. I then introduce the two forms: animate and inanimate. Each form is followed by its own section, including sentence usage and definition. The layout is slightly spaced to enhance readability and help identify patterns. Although not visible here, in my dictionary subareas are indented to prevent confusion with stems. This approach effectively balances presenting each form as an individual word while connecting them to their root origin.
On the day I started to do this for myself, other patterns that I’d seen but never completely understood became more evident and clear to the eye. I feel working with color forms should be introduced on the first week of language learning. The color form patterns are straightforward and can be grasped without delving into more intricate language concepts. Introducing these early helps students identify patterns and prepares them for the language’s structure, allowing them to embrace its worldview. Gendered suffixes are foundational in sentence construction, acting as a cornerstone for a solid understanding of the language.
Imagine Algonquian words as trees, with stems as the foundation from which the trees flourish. The animate and inanimate aspects are like sprouts emerging from these roots. Just as the type of tree is determined by its roots, so too is the nature of a word. Unlike grafted trees where an apple branch is attached to another tree, these are naturally grown trees that branch out and produce leaves, much like a sentence organically expands and branches out to convey its unique form of expression.
I understand that not everyone learns in the same way. For some, dissecting words to grasp their essence and build from there might not be necessary, especially if the goal is to engage in simple conversations. However, to achieve fluency, this ability to analyze language without overthinking is crucial. Children cannot truly grasp the concept of balance if they aren’t shown what it means. If all information is delivered from a divisive perspective, they will inevitably interpret it through that same lens.
During college, I read an anecdote about a reservation where many young people had learned their native language. My memory wants to say it was one of the Lakota reservations, but don’t quote me on that. When an elder was asked if it was great that the youth were speaking the language again, he remarked that although they were using the words, they weren’t truly speaking the language. The way of thinking had faded enough for the elder to notice. This is something I earnestly wish to reverse, not only for my own people but for others as well. I believe that the color stems are an invaluable tool that we often overlook.
I believe that removing the division and teaching the two forms as an initial concept can help recover some lost understanding. I’m confident in this approach. Ultimately, I anticipate creating many more word charts in the future to trace their origins and plan how to use them effectively. I also find making these charts enjoyable, but that’s just my personal preference.
Even though it probably will be beating a dead horse here on this blog, perhaps whenever I make more charts showing the words and how they are put together I can put them here for anyone else that might be interested.
References.
FIELDING, Stephanie. “A Mohegan to English Dictionary, Prepared for the Council of Elders.” 2006. Digital.
ZEISBERGER, David. WHRITENOUR, Raymond. A Delaware-English Lexicon of Words and Phrases. 1995, Lenape Texts & Studies. ISBN 0-9652194-0-2. p 80,
- Examples retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/language-rules/root-words/, accessed December 13, 2024 ↩︎
- “Language must be a tool for communication, not for politicizing past moribund or quite dead patterns.” – Carl Masthay, Kaskaskia Illinois-to-French Dictionary, 2002 ↩︎
- Fielding, Stephanie. “A Mohegan to English Dictionary, Prepared for the Council of Elders.” 2006 ↩︎
- Shout out to Carl Masthay, who generously reminded me that the word suk- doesn’t actually mean black exactly. ↩︎
- Miles, Lion G. “Mohican Dictionary”, accessed via the Stockbridge-Munsee Nation’s homepage, December 13, 2024 ↩︎
- A snag has happened. I am aware this information is courtesy of Gordon Day’s dictionaries. I cannot verify page numbers as I am working off of an excerpt via a fellow student’s blog. ↩︎
- O’Meara, John. Delaware-English English-Delaware Dictionary, pg. 568, pg. 480 ↩︎
- The Talking Lenape Dictionary. https://www.talk-lenape.org/ , accessed December 13, 2024 ↩︎
- Miami-Illinois ILDA Dictionary, accessed December 13, 2024 ↩︎
