Talk:Samoset

Untitled
According to the book The Greatest Stories Never Told, his first words to the Pilgrims were, "Greetings, Englishmen. Do you have any beer?" Although I consider this to be a reputable source (it's published by the History Channel, it could still use additional confirmation. --WikiMarshall 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found no additional confirmation of that quote. He did ask for beer, but using that exact quote isn't necessary and might be inaccurate. It's said that his English was rather broken, so that quote seems unlikely.

I've added the exact source material that settles the 'Welcome/Beer' controversy. He did say something that was reported as a 'welcome' and it appears at a later time he did asked for some 'beer'. I believe he did not say ' Greetings Englishman, Do you have any beer?' as popularly reported. What do you think?Calixte 21:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This chap was featured on the British TV show QI, where they claimed that he did in fact ask for beer, and also that he had already crossed the atlantic working on a ship, and returned back to North America.

I have absolutely no source for this, but QI must have; and they are usually pretty correct.

2007 (UTC)


 * You`re probably thinking of Squanto who had been to England although it is possible..Europeans had been in the area for a long time before the Plymouth colony which is why the Indian villages were deserted by the time the pilgrims arrived..most of them had died from communicable diseases. 66.177.244.25 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Plimoth vs Plymouth
The spelling 'plimoth' is from the source (1623 Mourt's Relation); please leave it alone. Thanks! Calixte

confusing?
This article is not confusing or poorly written... it is a meat and potatoes, no foolin' around, good piece of history writing. -comments??? Calixte

"Samoset could communicate with the Nauset and Wampanoag people"
Abenaki is a distinct Algonquian language from Wampanoag and the Nauset were closely related to the Wampanoag, so there shouldn't have been full mutual intelligibility. It is possible that there was partial mutual intelligibility and, importantly, a degree of passive bilingualism. But for this sentence to be correct, it should be made clear (if known) what the situation really was exactly, or (if not known) what is and isn't known about this. --JorisvS (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it says he could communicate, not that he could speak fluently. Communication is a much broader concept. I speak only a few words in French, but combined with some hand gestures, etc, I can probably communicate to one degree or another with a native French speaker. I think you're getting a bit too far into the weeds on this one, no offense intended. I think it's perfectly fine to say that because he also spoke an Algonquin language, he was able to communicate. It doesn't inherently assume fluency. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)