What connotation does "powwow" have for you?

Exotic; down-home; or silly?

This is because someone was telling me that it felt like a silly word to him -- something cute you would say when you wanted to confer with someone. Not a connotation I want.
 

As part of a title, I would be ok with it no matter what. In fact, I think words like this draw interest in the story because everyone brings their own ideas into it.
 

But keep in mind English is not my first language, and history tends to be my gut reaction in any case.
 

just checked Merian-Webster. What I said pretty much sums it up. I don't know why it would sound juvenille or silly. I guess in elementary school we might have had a powwow when discusing Native Americans but that's still in line with the only definition I'm aware of.
 

If I used it today in conversation, it would be with a faintly joking, sarcastic sense (like I say a lot of things). But I wouldn't think anything odd about a character (especially if he's a character with a sense of humor that enjoys the slightly-out-of-place) using the term in conversation. And in a book title, I wouldn't have any particular expectations at all.

[This message has been edited by Minister (edited April 11, 2006).]
 

Not sure. Generational, maybe? Regional? I don't want anyone to think I'm being cute; I intended only the "Indian gathering" meaning.

 

I imagine the extent to which "powwow" is going to deflect the needle on the sillyometer is going to be dependent upon the reader.
 

But if it becomes clear from the cover art, or the first few pages, that the older and more dignified meaning is the correct one, it's probably not going to be a problem.

It's my understanding that novel titles are often changed by the editors before publication - so I wouldn't get too attached to it, whatever you decide.
 

If you want to get that impression but avoid powwow, I'm not sure what other words you could use. So I'd suck it up and reclaim the word for its proper meaning (I'm generally a fan of this, although some words have been devalued so much they're beyond hope).
 

Would also likely depend on the context the word is used in.
 

I don't have a problem with it in your book title, because the association there is sufficiently close to the specific meaning that we're mot inclined to take it seriously.
 

Native Americans are also pretty proprietary about their language being co-opted by whites for commercial purposes. If your story doesn't have anything at all to do with a proper powwow, I'd seriously consider looking for a different term. It's a matter of respect, IMHO.
 

And "Big Powwow" is a great title. There's just something about that title that feels *right*, *classic*, you know? It's like the melody of a perfectly-constructed song.

It's a tapped-into-the-zietgiest title.

If you change that to "Great Powwow" you're insane.

"Great Powwow" is a bland, boring title, because it plays to expectations people already have. ("Great". Vey.)

When I hear the title "Big Powwow" I think, that's a book I want to read. When I hear the title "Great Powwow" I think so what?
 

Initially for me 'powwow' is a term for having an informal and probably low-key meeting. A sit-down talk with someone. I know where the word comes form, but powwow is used as a kind of 'cutesy' word for a meeting that is more than informal but less than formal/offical.

It CERTAINLY does not imply anything solemn.

A 'big powwow' compounds the silliness, as would 'heap-big powwow'

BUT: If 'big powwow' is not used as though it is silly, or applied to an indigenous culture that would not use that word, then it would be fine, barring Elan's concern. I once heard someone refer to Australian Aborigines having a 'powwow' -- that was just stupid.

I don't know how detailed a response you want but I will expand anyway: If I described a meeting that I attended as a 'powwow' it would mean a low-key informal discussion. If I used the word 'powwow' to describe a meeting that I had not attended, it would be meant as a vague put-down, as if those that did attend were taking themselves too seriously.

These are probably regionally specific takes on the word but hope it helps.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited April 11, 2006).]
 

I'm not sure why I think of the latter, but I do.
 

Also, from what I know about the story, it concerns itself primarily with events that take place somewhere in North America prior to any extensive contact with European culture. So the term "powwow" would be considered in that context.

It wouldn't be at all surprising if the cover art (if any) were to depict "Native Americans", no doubt in an embarrassingly inaccurate and purile manner. I can't consider that a plus, but it's highly likely anyway.
 

[Aside: all you would-be writers out there, and maybe some of you already-writers, should get big and thick dictionaries and use them. There are a lot of answers in there.]

The religious implications of "powwow" are unmistakable in this definition. But, nowadays, in Modern America, it's more of a term for a general discussion between two groups, any two groups, than one between Indians or between Indians and others.
 

[This message has been edited by Jammrock (edited April 12, 2006).]
 

An old cartoon. Other than that, I'm familiar with the other definitions mentioned, specifically the meeting/gathering of Indian tribes--and the more colloquial "let's get together to hash things out" between various groups or individuals. Like others have said--it's silliness is based upon context.
 

quote:

---

But, nowadays, in Modern America, it's more of a term for a general discussion between two groups, any two groups, than one between Indians or between Indians and others.

---

This is not a fact. This is a perception. My guess is that it is the regional perspective of someone who does not live close to (or associate with) the Native American population.

Out in the Old West where I live, within a couple of hours of a multitude of various Indian Nations (Yakama, Wisham, Warm Springs, Umatilla, Silez, Nez Perce, Klamath to name just a few), the word Powwow is rarely used in the manner you suggest. It is, as I said in my earlier post, used in OUR region as a reference to a specific type of Native American gathering. While the usage of the word Powwow to mean an informal meeting between two people or two groups is not startling or unheard of in this area, it's also not common.
 

There is only one thing puzzling me.

You don't have to be a Frenchman to have a rendezvous.
You don't have to be German to yodel.
You don't have to be Filipino to live in the boondocks.

But you have to be Native American to have a powwow?

[This message has been edited by Snowden (edited April 12, 2006).]
 

The word "powwow" is no longer a "Native American term". It is a term picked up by early English settlers that was applied as a blanket description to any "Indian gathering".

Each tribe has its own word for a sacred gathering. I grew up around the Navajo and Ute reservations. They only time they advertised "Navajo powwow" was when they were trying to pull in tourist dollars.

If they were performing a Blessing Way or a Night Chant- it was a ceremony referred to in their own language with their own words. And it wasn't performed by the Navajo- it was performed by the Dineh. It wasn't advertised and it wasn't called a powwow.

There is only one post here that has kind of gotten me to the point where I am like "Whoa- easy there."

>If it's two white guys saying "let's have a powwow." Then it is >silly. If it is a meeting between the Shoshone and the Soux then >it's not silly.

I mentioned before- I hear it said several times a year among "white people". "Let's have a powwow".

That may seem silly, but...to defend it with

>if it is a meeting between the Shoshone and the Soux then it's >not silly.

Well, most "ShoshonE" refer to themselves as "newe" and use the word "shosonI" to refer to "other native americans". Sioux (not Soux) is pretty much an artificial term used to describe several large groups of culturally similar people- their own word for their own selves is "Lakota".

What may be happening is a whole lot of people discussing whether or not a group of people would be offended if white people use a word we appropriated from people who vaguely look the same (but have a completely different culture and language) as the people Europeans borrowed the term from in the first place.

In short, it appears people are being offended and defensive FOR a group of people we are in no position of even remotely understanding- much less "sticking up for".
 

Powwow is a word that has been co-opted into wider English usage with a general meaning of 'a meeting where you hash things out.' But there still exists a specific meaning which in a sense 'belongs' to a group of people. The nuances of meaning that exist in the areas between the general and specific meanings will always be debatable.

On a practical note, the only time I would hesitate to use powwow is when you are referring to a meeting between indigenous peoples, especially Indigenous Americans. I know that's exactly the opposite of what has been suggested in some posts above. Snowden's response shows what can happen when you try to use such a word's specific meaning.

I got a fair grilling recently on a thread when I assumed someone was using a term in a specific way when they intended the term in a general sense.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited April 12, 2006).]
 

powwow. American Indians called the medicine man a powwow, ultimately from an Algonquian word meaning "dreamer". Early settlers used the word in the same way but were soon applying it to a ceremony or meeting where the medicine man performed his magic. It wasn't until the early 19th(italics added) century that powwow was extended to mean any meeting or conference at all.

[This message has been edited by Smaug (edited April 12, 2006).]
 

I'll give mine, as though I hadn't started the thread. For me, a powwow is an Indian festival, with vendors and fry bread, centered around a dance competition.

I think it's not only regional but generational.
 

But that doesn't exclude the traditional use, at least in this case. Words do evolve in meaning, and what seems set in stone may actually be fluid. I figure the colonists learned the word in its original context of an Indian religious ceremony, applied it to meetings between colonists and Indians, and eventually to any meetings.
 

But I have known a family that refered to themselves as Sioux.

(One last bit, if they call themselves newe, would they be offended if I called them that?)