|
Post by brokennock on Jan 17, 2022 18:03:19 GMT -7
Just a few different words, but a vast difference in meaning. We have two translations that include the key word here, "and." Then we have one that does not which changes the differentiation between corn and maize and changes it to explaining them as synonymous. Does anyone have the original untranslated text?
Edit: Sorry. Rereading what was written and what I wrote, I knew what I meant, but didn't write it correctly. The difference is between, "and we saw," or, "and we call." One word, huge difference.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 17, 2022 18:34:31 GMT -7
I'm still failing to understand why y'all trying to get references to wheat out a quote that never mentions it. The word "corn" in the English language predates it's discovery by Europeans. corn (n.1) "grain," Old English corn "single seed of a cereal plant; seeds of cereal plants generally; plants which produce corn when growing in the field," from Proto-Germanic *kurnam "small seed" (source also of Old Frisian and Old Saxon korn "grain," Middle Dutch coren, German Korn, Old Norse korn, Gothic kaurn), from PIE root *gre-no- "grain." The sense of the Old English word was "grain with the seed still in" (as in barleycorn) rather than a particular plant. Locally understood to denote the leading crop of a district. It has been restricted to the indigenous "maize" in America (c. 1600, originally Indian corn, but the adjective was dropped), usually "wheat" in England, "oats" in Scotland and Ireland, while Korn means "rye" in parts of Germany.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 17, 2022 18:41:20 GMT -7
So, the quote is from the journal of Harmen Meyndertsz van den Bogaert, 2 days after he left Fort Orange ,near Albany New York. His journal was translated by Charles Gehring of the New Netherland Project/institute.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 17, 2022 18:47:15 GMT -7
"The houses were full of corn that they call onersti, and we saw maize; yes, in some of the houses more than 300 bushels." Is seems logical that the sentence should say, "The houses were full of corn that they call onersti, and we call maize; yes, in some of the houses more than 300 bushels" ewoaf, where is your translation from? Spence the book
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 17, 2022 18:50:09 GMT -7
There's no difference. Your poor translation is full of typos. We all know europeans called Indian corn maize. The Haudenosaunee word for corn is onaste. They also baked cooked beans into their corn bread. That's all he's taking about. Corn is corn, wheat is wheat, and reinvented wheels don't roll. I missed your comment about beans. You're right they did cook beans into bread. I wondered myself if the quote might be referring to beans, it's hard to say without addition context. I guess I have a hard time with someone calling "beans" corn. I've never seen that reference before.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 17, 2022 19:01:56 GMT -7
"The houses were full of corn that they call onersti, and we saw maize; yes, in some of the houses more than 300 bushels." Is seems logical that the sentence should say, "The houses were full of corn that they call onersti, and we call maize; yes, in some of the houses more than 300 bushels" Spence You make a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jan 19, 2022 18:18:14 GMT -7
I'm still failing to understand why y'all trying to get references to wheat out a quote that never mentions it. In the 18th century and earlier the word corn could be applied to wheat or most any other grain. Wm. Strachey 1610-12: “The natives have here a kinde of wheat which they call poketawes, as the West Indians call the same maiz. The forme of yt is of a man's tooth, somewhat thicker..." Martin Martin, A Description of the Western Isles of Scotland (1703): Re: Lewis Island "This Island was reputed very fruitful in Corn, until the late Years of scarcity and bad Seasons. The Corn sown here is Barley, Oats and Rye : they also have Flax and hemp." Peter Kalm, Travels into North America (1749) "The goods with which the province of New York trades are not very numerous. They chiefly export the skins of animals, which are bought of the Indians about Oswego; great quantities of boards coming for the most part from Albany; timber and ready made lumber, from that part of the country which lies about the river Hudson; and lastly wheat, flour, barley, oats and other kinds of corn, which are brought from New Jersey and the cultivated parts of this province. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of the word corn as a noun was prior to 1149, generally understood to mean before written records. The first sense defined for corn was "a small hard particle, as of sand or salt." Spence
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 20, 2022 5:30:44 GMT -7
I'm still failing to understand why y'all trying to get references to wheat out a quote that never mentions it. In the 18th century and earlier the word corn could be applied to wheat or most any other grain. Wm. Strachey 1610-12: “The natives have here a kinde of wheat which they call poketawes, as the West Indians call the same maiz. The forme of yt is of a man's tooth, somewhat thicker..." Martin Martin, A Description of the Western Isles of Scotland (1703): Re: Lewis Island "This Island was reputed very fruitful in Corn, until the late Years of scarcity and bad Seasons. The Corn sown here is Barley, Oats and Rye : they also have Flax and hemp." Peter Kalm, Travels into North America (1749) "The goods with which the province of New York trades are not very numerous. They chiefly export the skins of animals, which are bought of the Indians about Oswego; great quantities of boards coming for the most part from Albany; timber and ready made lumber, from that part of the country which lies about the river Hudson; and lastly wheat, flour, barley, oats and other kinds of corn, which are brought from New Jersey and the cultivated parts of this province. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of the word corn as a noun was prior to 1149, generally understood to mean before written records. The first sense defined for corn was "a small hard particle, as of sand or salt." Spence Y'all keep reiterating that, but the guy clearly says that it's onersti, a word that clearly means maize.
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jan 20, 2022 8:13:49 GMT -7
Ewoaf said, "Y'all keep reiterating that, but the guy clearly says that it's onersti, a word that clearly means maize."
I think everyone understands that. I do. My last comment was for general background, not intended to be argumentative.
Spence
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 12:03:03 GMT -7
Ewoaf said, "Y'all keep reiterating that, but the guy clearly says that it's onersti, a word that clearly means maize." I think everyone understands that. I do. My last comment was for general background, not intended to be argumentative. Spence I'm not 100% convinced. When I translate "Onersti" I get corn. If we put corn in to period context it doesn't mean Maize. So It could be a case of poor sentence structure in the journal or it could be a poor translation. We know they grew wheat in that area and they traded it to the Indians. Personally, I think he seems surprised by the sight of it, suggesting that the natives might have pilfered it, which is totally plausible. Bogaert was only 2 days out from the fort and never traveled more than 100 miles total, at best I figure he was at most 20 miles from the fort and likely a lot closer.. The purpose of his journey was to figure out why the fur trading had suddenly dropped off. Well, if the natives had pilfered a winters worth of wheat they'd have little need for trading furs for food. It's all just speculation on my part (all our parts) but it's fun. A bread made from rye and corn was very popular throughout that region. If you get a chance read through Isaac Jogues journal, it's a real eye opener, but remember the lens from which it was viewed.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 20, 2022 12:11:22 GMT -7
Ewoaf said, "Y'all keep reiterating that, but the guy clearly says that it's onersti, a word that clearly means maize." I think everyone understands that. I do. My last comment was for general background, not intended to be argumentative. Spence I'm not 100% convinced. When I translate "Onersti" I get corn. If we put corn in to period context it doesn't mean Maize. So It could be a case of poor sentence structure in the journal or it could be a poor translation. We know they grew wheat in that area and they traded it to the Indians. Personally, I think he seems surprised by the sight of it, suggesting that the natives might have pilfered it, which is totally plausible. Bogaert was only 2 days out from the fort and never traveled more than 100 miles total, at best I figure he was at most 20 miles from the fort and likely a lot closer.. The purpose of his journey was to figure out why the fur trading had suddenly dropped off. Well, if the natives had pilfered a winters worth of wheat they'd have little need for trading furs for food. It's all just speculation on my part (all our parts) but it's fun. A bread made from rye and corn was very popular throughout that region. If you get a chance read through Isaac Jogues journal, it's a real eye opener, but remember the lens from which it was viewed. Are you suggesting the mohawk word for wheat is onersti? It's not.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 12:21:10 GMT -7
I'm not 100% convinced. When I translate "Onersti" I get corn. If we put corn in to period context it doesn't mean Maize. So It could be a case of poor sentence structure in the journal or it could be a poor translation. We know they grew wheat in that area and they traded it to the Indians. Personally, I think he seems surprised by the sight of it, suggesting that the natives might have pilfered it, which is totally plausible. Bogaert was only 2 days out from the fort and never traveled more than 100 miles total, at best I figure he was at most 20 miles from the fort and likely a lot closer.. The purpose of his journey was to figure out why the fur trading had suddenly dropped off. Well, if the natives had pilfered a winters worth of wheat they'd have little need for trading furs for food. It's all just speculation on my part (all our parts) but it's fun. A bread made from rye and corn was very popular throughout that region. If you get a chance read through Isaac Jogues journal, it's a real eye opener, but remember the lens from which it was viewed. Are you suggesting the mohawk word for wheat is onersti? It's not. Agreed!. No, I'm suggesting that onersti means corn when translated to English, and that corn in the period meant wheat, rye, oats, or some other European grain, but not Maize.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 20, 2022 12:30:42 GMT -7
So if he saw onersti, he didn't see wheat.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 12:46:23 GMT -7
So if he saw onersti, he didn't see wheat. We don't know exactly what he saw, but we know he called it corn, and "corn" in the period didn't mean Maize. The etymology of of what we call "corn" today started as maize, then was called Indian Corn, and is commonly just referred to as corn today. 300 years ago Corn and Maize were two distinctly different things, yet they could also be the same thing. I know it's confusing. Try reading through old receipts.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 12:49:28 GMT -7
So if he saw onersti, he didn't see wheat. What do you think he saw ?
|
|