A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

(26) inashke in providing examples (Kegg 1991:142)
a) Mii ingiw anishinaabeg, mii giiwenh ezhi-inawendiwaad akeyaa
DP those Indians that apparently how they are related way
ezhi-odoodemindiwaad.
when they have the same totem
b) Nashke a’aw waabizheshi, iniw waabizheshiwan gaawiin odaa-wiidigemaasiin.
see that marten that marten not s/he couldn’t marry him/her
a) ‘Those Indians were related to each other in a way when they had the same
totem. 36
b) A marten, you see, couldn’t marry another marten.’
In (26), the speaker first describes the tradition that persons having the same clan did not
marry each other because they are related by clan. This description is then followed up
with an illustration, i.e. that a marten clan member could not marry another marten clan
member. In this way, inashke allows the speaker to provide an example of how the
general taboo against marrying a member of your own clan might be violated.
Sometimes speakers may use inashke to make clarification or explanations as part of
its highlighting function. One example of this is illustrated in an excerpt below where the
speaker clarifies his own contribution to the language loss of the younger generation.
(27) inashke to make clarifications (Clark 2003:58-59, audio)
a) Gaye niin igo imaa indaa-anaamindiz igo dibishkoo epiitiziwaad ongow
also I EMPH there I should blame myself EMPH same as age these
niij-anishinaabeg epiitiziyaan gaa-izhaajig imaa gikinoo’amaadiiwigamigong.
my fellow Indians the age I am who went there to school
36
In other words, those that had the same clan. My consultants prefer the use of the term clan here, rather
than totem (as published).
70