Potawatomi animacy extends to rocks, water, fire, and made objects only when spirit-infused

Evidence

To whom does our language extend the grammar of animacy? Naturally, plants and animals are animate, but as I learn, I am discovering that the Potawatomi understanding of what it means to be animate diverges from the list of attributes of living beings we all learned in Biology 101. In Potawatomi 101, rocks are animate, as are mountains and water and fire and places. Beings that are imbued with spirit, our sacred medicines, our songs, drums, and even stories, are all animate. The list of the inanimate seems to be smaller, filled with objects that are made by people. Of an inanimate being, like a table, we say, “What is it?” And we answer Dopwen yewe. Table it is. But of apple, we must say, “Who is that being?” And reply Mshimin yawe. Apple that being is. — Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass, 197

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the Potawatomi animacy boundary, contrasting it with the Western biological living/nonliving split
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: is human-made-ness really the dividing criterion for inanimacy across Indigenous languages, or does this differ by nation?