Talk:Nicola people

Untitled
I don't agree with the proposal to rename this Stuwix. The stated reason is that "Nicola" refers to the Sce'emx-Siylx alliance, but this usage is unknown outside the immediate area and even in BC one rarely if ever hears any reference to these people as the Nicola people. People who know of the existence of the Nicola Tribal Association know enough not to confuse this organization with a "people".


 * On the other hand, there are two good reasons for retaining the existing name. The first is that it is established in the anthropological literature. In the absence of a good reason for change, we should follow established usage. Second, Stuwix is not an English word. If pronounced following English spelling rules, the result is quite different from the actual pronounciation.Bill 06:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Stuwix is what's becoming the norm in modern English when they're discussed or mentioned in journalistic and non-fiction popular writing; "Nicola" by itself is perceived (apparently) as too confusing BECAUSE of the existing of the Nicola Tribal Association, as well as a looser "people" terminology of "the Nicolas", or someone being "Nicola" rather than Okanagan or Thompson or Shuswap. And, historically, to me the Nicola name is important because of the legacy of Old Nicholas, Nicola, whose native name I can't remember at present, much less spell, to which the valley's history and its community of native peoples are tied.  So to me, when I see "Nicola people" and say I didn't know about the Nicola Athapaskans, I'd presume it was the Nicolas of the Nicola Valley that were being talked about, the heirs of Nicola.  Not the Athapaskan speaking people who once lived in the valley, and according to Sce'emx tradition came down from the mid or upper Fraser to "get away from bad neighbours" (the Tsilhqot'in, perhaps); a variant version mentions a group of people who travelled up the Columbia and Okanagan to the Similkameen and up that way, but that's a Wasco story I heard, not something from the Nicola Valley per se).


 * Anyways, OK, so Stuwix (means "strangers", doesn't it?) is no good; but just because the anthropological literature calls them Nicola people doesn't validate it as a useful term for ordinary folks, so on their behalf the article MUST make mention of the modern meaning of the Nicola alliance/community- that they're NOT Athapaskans, except some by family inheritance one supposes. Or because the article contains no reference to the others, they won't know that, and someone is going to throw a hissy fit during their game of Trivial Pursuits (Native American edition).Skookum1 07:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment: I don't buy the logic that because Stuwix won't be pronounced properly in English it shouldn't be used. You're kidding, right?  Secwepemc, Kwakwaka'wakw, Tsilhqot'in, Nlaka'pamux and the immortally unpronounceable St'at'imcets.  And I don't even want to try giving the correct spelling of Squamish or Homulchesan.  Standard English prononciation rules won't help you with any of those, and with St'at'imcets it's even more hopeless because the St'at'imc-ist preference for [t'] instead of [tl] has nothing at all to do with English; but then Stl'atl'imx has that [x] at the end.  You can't tell me that St'at'imc is easier re English usage than Stl'atl'imx; sure, you have to know that that [x] works like it does in Spanish, more or less; and most British Columbians who make a stab at native names know, if no one else does, that an 'X' is most likely to represent an 'h' sound, not 'ks' (except in the Tsimshianic languages?  I'm not sure about how Gitlakdamix or Gitanmaax are supposed to be pronounced).Skookum1 07:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)