Buffalo terminology (American Bison)

[Jan]

Problems of BUFFALO TERMINOLOGY in Lakota

The following text attempts to describe and analyze some issues related to the Lakota terminology of the American Buffalo (scientifically called American Bison) and suggests some solutions.

Most animal terms in Lakota do not have gender specific names for the male, female and the young animal. For instance the word for bear is matȟó. It is not gender specific, so to differentiate the male bear, female bear and cub one adds the words bloká (‘male’), wíŋyela (‘female’) and čhiŋčála (‘young one’) to it. Among the very few animal names that do differentiate gender are buffalo, elk and turkey. The buffalo terms present particular issues in creating widely accepted terminology, especially with respect to a generic, gender non-specific term for buffalo.

In the oldest available text sources the word used for ‘buffalo bull’ is tȟatȟáŋka and the term for ‘buffalo cow’ is pté. In older texts these two terms were interchangeably used as the generic name for the buffalo species, although pté was used with this meaning much more frequently. The word pté is more common in texts written by Bushotter (1890), texts written by George Sword and Thomas Tyon (1915), texts collected by Buechel (1914-1920) and by Deloria (1930-1940’s). All of these texts have both terms and both are sometimes used as the generic name of the species, but pté is significantly prevalent in this sense.

After contact with the whites, the word pté started to be used in creating terminology for domestic cattle. The northern speakers named cattle ptewániyaŋpi (‘domesticated buffalo’) and the southern Lakotas called it ptegléška (‘spotted buffalo’). Many cattle related terms include the word pté; to give some examples: pteyúha ‘to keep cattle, to ranch’, pteóle ‘to look for cattle, be a cowboy’, pteǧúyA ‘to brand cattle’, ptemnáyaŋ ‘to herd cattle’, ptewók’u ‘to feed cattle’, pteóthi/pteónažiŋ ‘cow barn’.

The fact that pté, rather than tȟatȟáŋka (or the prefix tȟa-) was used in creating the cattle terminology is another indicator that pté was the word more commonly recognized as a generic name for buffalo.

Sometime after pté became the basis on creating cattle terminology, speakers felt the need to differentiate between the buffalo and the cattle terms to avoid ambiguity of the words involving pté (for instance ptekté could mean ‘to kill buffalo’ or ‘to kill cattle’). In the Lakota texts written in 1890 by Bushotter (a fluent Lakota speaker) we find the word ptéȟčaka used extensively as the name for the buffalo species. The word ȟčáka means ‘real’ so the literal meaning of ptéȟčaka is “real pté” or perhaps “original pté” and it is a way of differentiating it from “domestic pté” (ptewániyaŋpi, ptegléška). A similar semantic shift took place with many other words in which the traditional meaning was replaced with the new. For instance the word háŋpa originally meant ‘moccasins’ (the only footwear the Lakota knew), but later it was applied to ‘shoes’ and moccasins were renamed with haŋpíkčeka ‘ordinary/traditional shoes’. The word thípi was the original term for the conical tent but later it was applied to houses in general and traditional tents were re-named with thiíkčeya ‘ordinary dwelling’.

The 1904 English-Dakota Dictionary by John Williamson gives the following under buffalo: tȟatȟáŋka, pteíkčeka. The latter term is another indication that speakers of the language felt the need for having a non-ambiguous generic term for buffalo species. Although the word is not found anywhere else, in its essence pteíkčeka (‘ordinary pté’) is similar to ptéȟčaka (‘real pté’).

Bushotter’s 1890 texts are the first record of the word ptéȟčaka and the word occurs again in Deloria’s 1941 grammar and in a small dictionary by Sidney Keith (a fluent speaker from Cheyenne River) published probably sometime around 1989 or 1992. It is likely that Deloria learned the word from Bushotter’s texts because she worked on translating them, and it is probable that Keith learned it from Deloria’s grammar because there are other words in his dictionary that were obviously borrowed from that publication. However, the word ptéȟčaka is also used on several recordings by contemporary fluent speakers, such as Little Hawk, Victor Brave Thunder, Sam Different Horse and others. Most of the speakers using ptéȟčaka today are those who speak the northern Lakota dialect, but some of the oldest Southern speakers also use it, for instance Francis Apple from Kyle, Pine Ridge.
The southern Lakotas took a different approach to avoiding the ambiguity of pté. Most texts recorded after 1950’s among the southern Lakota speakers have the word tȟatȟáŋka (rather than pté) used as the generic term. We find this usage in a number of audio or written sources, such as the texts by Frank Fools Crow in the 1970’s. So what used to be pté oyáte (‘buffalo nation’) until the 1950’s became tȟatȟáŋka oyáte in the 1960’s.

Today there is much disagreement on the buffalo terminology among speakers and there is no widely accepted standard.

Most people (especially in the south) seem to use tȟatȟáŋka as the generic term, although when they are asked specifically to give a generic term they emphasize that tȟatȟáŋka really means “buffalo bull”. Not many people use or give pté as the generic term, because of its strong association with cattle. Due to this ambiguity speakers try to differentiate between buffalo and cattle, and between bull and cow in various ways, resulting in complex, non-standardized and ambiguous terminology (listed are all variants given by various speakers):

buffalo (generic): tȟatȟáŋka, pté, ptéȟčaka
buffalo bull: tȟatȟáŋka, tȟablóka, ptekhíyuȟa, tȟakhíyuȟa
buffalo cow: pté, ptewíŋyela

cattle (generic): ptegléška (south), ptewániyaŋpi (north)
domestic bull: pteblóka, tȟablóka, ptekhíyuȟa
domestic cow: ptewíŋyela


The above list shows the complexity and ambiguity of the buffalo and cattle terminology and reveals the need for a more consistent approach. In everyday speech people can make themselves understood even with the non standardized vocabulary. But clear and consistent terminology would be very helpful for more specific purposes, such as writing an encyclopedic article on buffalo in Lakota or writing a research paper on buffalo in Lakota. Similarly, the term buffalo is traditionally used in English, although the scientific (and perhaps more proper) name is American Bison.
Below is a suggested terminology which is simple, non-ambiguous and based on the traditional terms used usages as they are found in older texts and among some contemporary speakers:


buffalo (generic): ptéȟčaka
buffalo bull: tȟatȟáŋka
buffalo cow: pté
buffalo calf: ptehíŋčala


cattle (generic): ptewániyaŋpi, ptegléška
domestic bull: pteblóka
domestic cow: ptewíŋyela
domestic calf: ptečhíŋčala


This standardized terminology is now adopted by the LLC, the Standing Rock Bison Project and other subjects.

Lakota Language Consortium

[Daniel]

Háu, Jan tȟaŋháŋši !

How an instructive topic !

I'll try to do a few sentences with the words of the standardized terminology about buffaloes :

Eháŋkʼehaŋ makȟóblaye tȟaŋkíŋkiŋyaŋ ektá ptéȟčaka kiŋ líla okáblaya úŋpe ló. > In the old days the buffalos lived free on the great plains.

Tȟatȟáŋka kiŋ hená ópi šni yo ! > Don't shoot (you all) those buffaloes-bulls !

Pté káŋ kiŋ lé líla khúža owáŋyaŋke : ečháŋni tʼíŋ kte. > This old buffalo-cow looks very sick/ill : she will die soon.

Wáŋ ! Ptehíŋčala k'úŋ hé wičȟíhakab ikáčhaŋčhaŋ. > Look ! The (aforesaid) buffalo-calf is trotting behind them.

(Corrections made after Ali's assistance)

Tókša akhé,

Daniel

[Ali]

Hi Daniel,

Nice sentences. I would put the first sentence like this:

Eháŋkʼehaŋ makȟóblaye tȟaŋkíŋkiŋyaŋ ektá ptéȟčaka kiŋ líla okáblaya úŋpe ló. > In the old days the buffalos lived free on the great plains.

Also, you might want to call Jan tȟaŋháŋši and not haŋkáši

AV

[Daniel]

Hi Ali,

Thank you for your reply.
I am a real scatterbrain. First, I call Jan "haŋkáší" and not "tȟaŋháŋši", and then I write "uŋk'úŋpi" and not "úŋpi". Damned it !
If Jan reads this post, I apologize for that mistake in terms.
I'll edit my sentence corrected with your help.

To my great surprise I realized that in Lakota language animals and children are inanimate things. For instance I found this sentence in NDL :

Čhiŋčá kiŋ waná tȟaŋkíŋkiŋyaŋpila. > By now the children were big.

Philámayaye ló.

Tókša akhé,

Daniel

[Jana]

To my great surprise I realized that in Lakota language animals and children are inanimate things. For instance I found this sentence in NDL :

Čhiŋčá kiŋ waná tȟaŋkíŋkiŋyaŋpila. > By now the children were big.
Daniel

Dear Daniel,

Be assured that children and animals are regarded as animate things.
Just body parts are regarded as inanimate - when speaking about your eyes or such.
I guess "tȟaŋkíŋkiŋyaŋ" might be some special word, because there is also an example sentence with "men"...

Tókša akhé!
Jana

[Ali]

Hi Ali,

Thank you for your reply.
I am a real scatterbrain. First, I call Jan "haŋkáší" and not "tȟaŋháŋši", and then I write "uŋk'úŋpi" and not "úŋpi". Damned it !
If Jan reads this post, I apologize for that mistake in terms.
I'll edit my sentence corrected with your help.

To my great surprise I realized that in Lakota language animals and children are inanimate things. For instance I found this sentence in NDL :

Čhiŋčá kiŋ waná tȟaŋkíŋkiŋyaŋpila. > By now the children were big.

Philámayaye ló.

Tókša akhé,

Daniel

Hi Daniel,

Good observation. However, animals and people are animate. It seems that you were thrown with the reduplication of (tȟáŋka--->tȟaŋkíŋkiŋyaŋ ) here. The animate is shown by the plural suffix –pi here and it is also added by suffix –la. You can view these suffixes in NLD-O or from the hard copy.

AV

[Jana]

Mitákuyepi,

So, what word is "tȟaŋkíŋkiŋyaŋ"? The NLDO says "vs-red. +1", so I'm wondering what kind of reduplication it is and why it can be used with animate things.
Maybe somebody else, too, so I post it here.

Tókša akhé!
Jana

[Daniel]

Dear Jana and Ali,

Reduplications in animate plural.

I have consulted the NLD and have found this :

"There are comparatively few instances where reduplication marks intensity, although this is sometimes perhaps the case when verbs marked for animate plural are reduplicated :

Leháŋl oyáte kiŋ húŋȟ líla čhebčhépapi. Today some people are very fat.

Kȟoškálaka kiŋ wičháša waštéštepi. Those young men are really handsome."


Tókša akhé,

Daniel

[Ali]

Yes, that is true. Sometimes the intensity is shown like this. When you are really emphasizing the fact, you can use the reduplication but you can notice that the verb ending is –pi , which is animate plural suffix.

AV

[Daniel]

Yes, that is true. Sometimes the intensity is shown like this. When you are really emphasizing the fact, you can use the reduplication but you can notice that the verb ending is –pi , which is animate plural suffix.

AV

Thank you, Ali.
I won't forget that rule.

Tókša akhé,

Daniel