Dr. Scouler’s analogy between the Nootkan and “Columbian,” or Chinook, was founded on the following words:
English | Tlaoquatch and Nutka | Columbian |
| plenty | *aya | *haya |
| no | *wik | *wake |
| water | tchaak | chuck |
| good | *hooleish | *closh |
| bad | *peishakeis | *peshak |
| man | *tchuckoop | tillicham |
| woman | *tlootsemin | *clootchamen |
| child | *tanassis | *tanass |
| now | tlahowieh | clahowiah |
| come | *tchooqua | *sacko |
| slave | mischemas | *mischemas |
| what are you doing | *akoots-ka-*mamook | ekta-*mammok |
| what are you saying | *au-kaak-*wawa | ekta-*wawa |
| let me see | *nannanitch | *nannanitch |
| sun | *opeth | ootlach |
| sky | *sieya | *saya |
| fruit | *chamas | *camas |
| to sell | *makok | *makok |
| understand | *commatax | *commatax |
* But of these, none marked with an asterisk belong to the Chinook or any of its dialects.
The greater part of them are undoubtedly Nootkan, though there are errors in the spelling and, in some instances, in the meaning. Of the rest, the Nootkan “tchaak” and the Chinook “tl’tsuk” alone presents an analogy. “Klahowiah” does not mean “now,” nor do I believe it is Nootkan, in any sense. It is, as explained in the dictionary, the Chinook salutation, “How do you,” “Good-bye,” and is supposed to be derived from the word for “poor”, “miserable”. “Mischemas” is not Chinook, and is probably not Nootkan. With the exception of Franchere, whose short vocabulary was published by Mr. Gallatin, and Mr. Hale, all the writers mentioned by Ludwig who have given specimens of the Chinook language, have presented it in its Jargon form, more or less mixed with the neighboring ones, and with corruptions of French and English words. Mr. Swan, among others, has been led into this error. The place of his residence, Shoalwater Bay, is common ground of the Chinook and Chihalis Indians, and the degraded remnants of the two tribes are closely intermarried, and use both languages almost indifferently.