From mosind at yahoo.com Thu Apr 1 13:02:10 1999 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 05:02:10 -0800 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. Message-ID: --- "Robert L. Rankin" wrote: > I wonder if those few other archaic verbs do the same > thing. Either hi > 'arrive' or ?u 'come'(or both) has a 1st sg. in p-, > which, if > reduplicated, should produce *phVphV. Buechel (1980) mentions archaic paradigm for ?u: phu = wa?u (p.449) sku = ya?u [BigHead] (p.465). I didn't find any reduplicated forms of ?u in the Dictionary. Perhaps outdated forms for hiyu (hibu, hilu, uNhiyu) also match this pattern. Connie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Thu Apr 1 16:17:30 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:17:30 -0600 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: <19990401130210.10440.rocketmail@web125.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: > Buechel (1980) mentions archaic paradigm for ?u: > phu = wa?u (p.449) > sku = ya?u [BigHead] (p.465). This is a mixed conjugation in which two different verb roots (at least) have been incorporated in what amounts to a suppletive conjugation. One of the verbs is {?u}/{hu}, the other is {ku}, which is quite distinct. This verb behaves like what I normally call an H-stem. The archaic, probably proto-Siouan, conjugation for them was: 1sg *w-hu > phu 2sg *y-hu > s^u (the h is lost after s^ in all these verbs) Some of these are better preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. The set of H-stems includes ?*u/hu 'come', *hi 'arrive', *-he 'say', *he 'be' and perhaps a few others. Note that it is not uncommon for these verbs to be lacking an inflectional prefix in one or more persons in some languages. With so few members, the prefixes in this subclass are probably just not recognized as signaling person and case by most speakers. Thus the full reduplication of 'say' mentioned earlier. I couldn't find any reduplicated forms either. If they turn up they might be of several shapes. Perhaps phuphu, phuhu, huhu, phu?u or something else. Dakotan has lost or reduced most of the proto-Siouan irregular, conjugations. Thanks for checking. If all of us keep after these things, there's no telling what we may find. Bob From cqcq at compuserve.com Thu Apr 1 23:22:12 1999 From: cqcq at compuserve.com (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:22:12 -0500 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. Message-ID: I'll look for reduplicated forms in Osage, but I don't recall any from earlier data. Ps^u, I'm coming; ps^i, I arrive there, yes. What's the meaning of hiyu which Connie mentions? I'll look for its cognate, too. Carolyn Quintero From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Fri Apr 2 15:00:14 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:00:14 +0200 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: <199904011822_MC2-704C-77FE@compuserve.com> Message-ID: Somewhere (perhaps in the grammar rather than in the dictionary) I think Buechel gives the conjugation form wahibu for first person of hiyu 'to start coming'. I can't find a copy of the grammar in the library here in Koeln and I didn't bring mine with me (the local library copy anonymously disappears periodically, then reappears -- but now it's gone). I don't remember what he says about the second person form. I almost think I remember a "bu" form for ?u, too -- but definitely NOT "phu". Can someone with ready access to the Buechel grammar verify this? If I remember right, what is there about the history of "u" vs. "eya" that would make the "b"/"ph" difference? (Note that it's NOT "?u", but "u" for 'come' -- the dual is uNku, not *unk?u.) At the risk of telling everyone things you already know, I should probably remind you that ku is the suus form of u 'come'; hi is 'to arrive coming', i is 'to arrive going'; their suus forms are gli and khi, respectively. So hiyu is 'to start coming', suus glic^u, (gli + ku) just as iyaya is 'to start going' (suus khigla). Note, too that there are quite a few cases where a compound verb is conjugated on both parts -- iyaNka 'to run" (wa?imnake), hiyotaka 'to come and sit down' (wahiblotake), etc. (again, I'm using my memory --these should be checked against some more reliable source), and what is probably etymologically a reduplicated form, iyaya 'to start going', iblable, ilale, double inflects but only on the two halves of the reduplication, not on the first verb in the compound. I have just returned to Koeln after 3 days teaching Lakhota in Denmark -- a very nice experience. Classes start here again next Tuesday (today and Monday are Easter holidays) and run to July 2. David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Fri Apr 2 15:47:40 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:47:40 -0700 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: <199904011822_MC2-704C-77FE@compuserve.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > What's the meaning of hiyu which Connie mentions? I believe it should be, morpheme for morpheme, thi(h)i in OP: 'arriving here to set out thither', but I'm not positive with this form, for several reasons, and I'm not in a position at the moment to check. I suppose, then, that Osage would be something like chihu? I'm not aware of forms like this being reduplicated in OP unless the second element is a positional, in which case it isn't inflected. Such forms are used as aorist/inceptive auxiliaries. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Fri Apr 2 17:13:07 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:13:07 -0600 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > > What's the meaning of hiyu which Connie mentions? > I believe it should be, morpheme for morpheme, thi(h)i in OP: 'arriving > here to set out thither',... Osage would be something like chihu? I was never able to elicit a cognate for that particular compound motion verb in Kaw (Kansa). They have chili 'come back suddenly' and chiye 'arrive suddenly', but no *chihu". The paper to read on the Siouan motion verbs and their compounds is Allan Taylor's article in IJAL back around 1974 or 75 or so. It covers the territory very well. Allan sent out questionnaires to everyone engaged in field work at the time, so his data are quite accurate. I would think that few if any emmendations are necessary to his work. The conjugation of these verbs is particularly interesting since (like verbs of motion in many languages) they show interesting and archaic irregularities. I can't remember if Allan reconstructed person-number paradigms for each of the verbs or not, but that would be a next logical step. You have to compare several Mississippi Valley Siouan languages to piece together the paradigms. Even then, there may be holes. Dakotan massively replaces the old p- and s^- allomorphs of 1st and 2nd person prefixes with the productive wa- and ya- respectively. As for the conjugation of {hiyu} 'to come forth', David's right on the money. Buechel (p. 83) gives several alternative forms. The conservative conjugation is: 1sg hi-b-u 2sg hi-l-u 3sg hi(y)u (where -y- is just an epenthetic glide) 1du u~-hi(y)u There are alternative forms wa-hi-b-u, ya-hi-l-u, etc. Then the "modern form of this verb is:" wa-hiyu, etc., i.e., fully analogized into the "regular" patterns and utterly useless to historical linguists! :) The -b- allomorph of the 1st person is precisely what we would expect from a glottal-initial (or a vowel-initial) root. When the vowel is nasalized we expect -m- in the 1st person, when the vowel is oral, it should be /b/. It's important to note that, although it bears a very low functional load in Dakotan, /b/ is not only phonemic but actually has a clear and distinct etymological source apart from /p/ and /m/. {?o} 'to shoot' is another such verb. Historically it should have had the conjugation /b-o, l-o, ?o, u~k-?o/, but it probably doesn't. I'd guess probably wa?o, ya?o or something like that. Your analogical dollars at work.... Bob From mosind at yahoo.com Sat Apr 3 09:41:12 1999 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 01:41:12 -0800 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan + apologies. Message-ID: --- Constantine Xmelnitski wrote: > Buechel (1980) mentions archaic paradigm for ?u: > phu = wa?u (p.449) > sku = ya?u [BigHead] (p.465). With apologies, archaic A2 sing. was actually s^ku. For Carolyn Quintero: To memorize the 14 Dakotan locomotive verbs I used a following figure: THERE ----- glic^u' i' V ^ ku' yA' V ^ gli' iya'yA HOME ---> hiya'yA ---- <--- gliglA' hiyu' khi V ^ u' glA V ^ hi' khiglA HERE ---- Where HOME is (as in Taylor's article) 'home or previous location'; hiyayA and gliglA - verbs of movement past the speaker; each direction (here/there, home/not home) has three verbs of start/process/arrival (e.g. iyayA-yA-i). You should use a proportional font to view the figure properly (like Courier) Connie _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Sat Apr 3 14:57:59 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:57:59 +0200 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan + apologies. In-Reply-To: <19990403094112.3277.rocketmail@web108.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: Connie is quoting Buechel with complete accuracy, but I think Buechel is wrong about this. These forms should, given the sentence examples, be vertative ("home") forms -- a man is greeting and seeking information from someone he hasn't seen in a long time and who has been away. So the correct substitutions are waku and yaku, not wa?u and ya?u. I'm pretty positive that's true for s^ku, because the vertative is the only possible source I can imagine for the "k" in the Buechel form. But now I wonder about the other one, and the fact that Bob tells me I'm right about Buechel's grammar having "bu" for "wa?u". Bob, I need a lesson in sound changes: you said "bu" is expected for a glottal or vowel initial verb, so what's expected for a k-initial verb -- maybe phu? Why not *pku? And how does this relate to the "say" paradigm, with ephe 'I say" and ehe 'you say'? And while you're on the subject of "b" in Dakotan, is there an etymology for "abeya" 'scattered, helter-skelter'? That "b" never bothered me until one of the really alert Danish students noticed it last week, to my embarrassment. There's always something new to learn, eh? David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Constantine Xmelnitski wrote: > --- Constantine Xmelnitski wrote: > > Buechel (1980) mentions archaic paradigm for ?u: > > phu = wa?u (p.449) > > sku = ya?u [BigHead] (p.465). > > With apologies, archaic A2 sing. was actually s^ku. > > For Carolyn Quintero: > To memorize the 14 Dakotan locomotive verbs I used > a following figure: > THERE > ----- > glic^u' i' > V ^ > ku' yA' > V ^ > gli' iya'yA > HOME ---> hiya'yA > ---- <--- gliglA' > hiyu' khi > V ^ > u' glA > V ^ > hi' khiglA > HERE > ---- > Where HOME is (as in Taylor's article) 'home or > previous location'; hiyayA and gliglA - verbs of > movement past the speaker; each direction (here/there, > home/not home) has three verbs of > start/process/arrival > (e.g. iyayA-yA-i). > You should use a proportional font to view the figure > properly (like Courier) > > Connie > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 3 16:24:28 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:24:28 -0600 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Connie is quoting Buechel with complete accuracy, but I think Buechel is > wrong about this. These forms should, given the sentence examples, be > vertative ("home") forms.... Yeah, or his linguistic informant providing archaic conjugations was mixed up. phu and $ku may come from different verbs -- it depends on what meaning was given. If the vertitive meaning was given for both phu and $ku, then the Dakotan conjugation patterns like the Dhegiha conjugation, with assimilation of the root-initial /k/ to the labial place of articulation of the 1st person *w. I can't speak first hand about the vertitive verb in this series in Dakotan, but in Dhegiha the conjugation runs Underlying 1sg *w-ku --> p-pu (Dakotan phu??) Underlying 2sg *y-ku --> $-ku (Dakotan $ku) The Dhegiha forms I give here are the attested Kansa forms. Omaha-Ponca and Quapaw unround the u (IPA [y]) to i. Otherwise it's the same. John's looked at the Dakotan and Chiwere-Winnebago conjugations in detail in his pronoun paper and may be able to clarify it for us > I wonder about the other one, and the fact that Bob tells me I'm right > about Buechel's grammar having "bu" for "wa?u". Bob, I need a lesson in > sound changes: you said "bu" is expected for a glottal or vowel initial > verb, so what's expected for a k-initial verb -- maybe phu? Why not > *pku? Right. *pku for pre-Dakotan is perfectly possible. Whether that goes on to become ph in Dakotan I don't know. Basically, /pk/ is an "unacceptable" cluster in Dakotan, isn't it? It may metathesize or something else.... > And how does this relate to the "say" paradigm, with ephe 'I say" and > ehe 'you say'? 'Say' is an "H-stem" and p-h should be the usual 1st person (Omaha and Quapaw have lost the p- but Ponca, Kansa preserve it here). The 2nd person should be *e-$-e, but as I said a day or so ago, sometimes persons go missing in various languages and you have to compare 'em all to see the picture. > And while you're on the subject of "b" in Dakotan, is there an etymology > for "abeya" 'scattered, helter-skelter'? That "b" never bothered me > until one of the really alert Danish students noticed it last week, to > my embarrassment. There's always something new to learn, eh? Always. I can't think of any cognates for your Dakota "scattered" term. They should be looked for. As I mentioned, /b/ really has its own distinct history in Dakota and can't always be related to /p/. Historically most of them seem to be "strengthened" */w/s. (I have a theory that even the b's that are derived from p's as in sabya 'to blacken' or sabsapa 'black.redup.' go by way of a labial resonant, w or m, in parallel with t>l in the same constructions. But I digress.) This is fun. I had at first assumed that Buechel had just gotten parts of two different verbs, hu (?u) 'come' and ku 'come.vert', but now I'm not so sure. There's still a lot I don't understand about the details of Dakotan sound changes, esp. in these paradigms. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 3 16:34:49 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:34:49 -0600 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Underlying 1sg *w-ku --> p-pu (Dakotan phu??) > Underlying 2sg *y-ku --> $-ku (Dakotan $ku) it just occurred to me that you guys living in Europe may be using fonts or terminals that are not displaying my dollar signs correctly. I was using the dollar sign, $, for [s^] as in "SHip". If this causes display problems, lemme know and I'll shift back to s^. Bob From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 08:00:09 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:00:09 -0700 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > ... If the vertitive meaning was given for both phu and > $ku, then the Dakotan conjugation patterns like the Dhegiha conjugation, > with assimilation of the root-initial /k/ to the labial place of > articulation of the 1st person *w. I can't speak first hand about the > vertitive verb in this series in Dakotan, but in Dhegiha the conjugation > runs > > Underlying 1sg *w-ku --> p-pu (Dakotan phu??) > Underlying 2sg *y-ku --> s^-ku (Dakotan $ku) > > The Dhegiha forms I give here are the attested Kansa forms. Omaha-Ponca > and Quapaw unround the u (IPA [y]) to i. Otherwise it's the same. Precisely. > John's looked at the Dakotan and Chiwere-Winnebago conjugations in detail > in his pronoun paper and may be able to clarify it for us Actually, I would like to modestly remind those interested in this issue that I wrang two pages out of these forms in: Koontz, John E. 1985. A syncopating conjugation *k-stem in Lakota. IJAL 51.4: 483-4. They had been drawn to my attention by Allan Taylor, and I had noticed, as Bob has here, that given the behavior of Proto-Mississippi Valley preaspirated stops they fitted the pattern of the Dhegiha vertitive gi' 'to return hither' (here in OP form), presumably Proto-Dhegiha *ku. It is possible, of course, that the paradigm offered is mixed, but from the context I doubt it. In the paper I suggest that the first persons of this Dakotan form and the Dhegiha form might have been reformulated by analogy with the *p-stems, but this doesn't seem all that likely. I guess that sort of analogy would be more likely to occur to an apprentice linguist than a speaker! I imagine that something about the history of *w-k is relevant instead, though it's always interesting that this produces *hk in *kaN= cf. OP gaN=dha 'to want', but *hp in other *k-stems, like *kaghe 'to make (marks)', *ku 'to return hither', *kaN=yiNka 'be unskillfull', *kare 'to donate'. I'm not sure that the ?*wke 'turtle' form is relevant, but this is an area where the inner circle of the Comparative Siouan Dictionary might have opinions (possibly differing!). Assuming Mandan pke matches Da kheya and OP kke, it looks like *pku should yield ?khu regularly in Da, presumably via *hku, like other hypothetical preaspirates that yield aspirates in Da and IO and preaspirates or tense stops throughout Dh and voiceless stops in Wi (Ho). Anyway, in the paper I suggest that *hp for expected *hk in the A1 form of *k-stem paradigms might be an innovation shared by Da and Dh. Gee, I wish there were a few more proper *k-stems in Da, though, and that all the shared innovations didn't require one to flip a coin to decide whether one believes them to be shared or independent. I have to admit that the coins I flip usually come up heads. Note that I'm not distinguishing at all carefully among *wVC, *wC, *pC and *hC, in this respect following what I think is the current trend, in contrast with the approach of G.H. Matthews. JEK From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 08:12:50 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:12:50 -0700 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > As for the conjugation of {hiyu} 'to come forth', David's right on the > money. Buechel (p. 83) gives several alternative forms. The conservative > conjugation is: > > 1sg hi-b-u > 2sg hi-l-u > 3sg hi(y)u (where -y- is just an epenthetic glide) > 1du u~-hi(y)u > > There are alternative forms wa-hi-b-u, ya-hi-l-u, etc. > > Then the "modern form of this verb is:" > > wa-hiyu, etc., i.e., fully analogized into the "regular" patterns and > utterly useless to historical linguists! :) Given the usual pattern of serial motion verbs in Dhegiha, I'm inclined to wonder if the middle variant (cf. wa-hi-b-lu) isn't the most conservative, i.e., inflect both stems, except with the inclusive a/k/a dual, which precedes all (once). Just a suggestion! > The -b- allomorph of the 1st person is precisely what we would expect from > a glottal-initial (or a vowel-initial) root. When the vowel is nasalized > we expect -m- in the 1st person, when the vowel is oral, it should be /b/. It might be worth pointing out that these stems are fairly rare and mostly nasal. Oral ones like this are extremely rare, and the speakers who use them probably ought to consider charging extra for them. > It's important to note that, although it bears a very low functional load > in Dakotan, /b/ is not only phonemic but actually has a clear and distinct > etymological source apart from /p/ and /m/. I think b here qualifies as a Da reflex of *W a/k/a "funny *w." Although I expect the b in Santee and m or even w in Teton. > {?o} 'to shoot' is another such verb. Historically it should have had the > conjugation /b-o, l-o, ?o, u~k-?o/, but it probably doesn't. I'd guess > probably wa?o, ya?o or something like that. Your analogical dollars at > work.... Buechel's dictionary gives wa[?]o, unk?o=pi. I think that 'to shoot' and u in hiyu are the only known oral ?-stems (or V-stems), the former in Winnebago (Hochank) and the latter in Dakotan. JEK From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 09:21:09 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 03:21:09 -0600 Subject: Serial Motion Verns (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Koontz John E wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > > What's the meaning of hiyu which Connie mentions? > > I believe it should be, morpheme for morpheme, thi(h)i in OP: 'arriving > here to set out thither', but I'm not positive with this form, for several > reasons, ... Mainly that it looks hard to achieve in OP and I certainly don't remember anything like it. Bob says in a post that he never got anything like that and Dorsey doesn't have it. In fact, it's something that occurs in Da, but not in Dh, presumably. The Osage do try hard to be different. Taylor (1976) on motion verbs notes in Da that the arriving motion and motion under way stems compound to form departing motion stems (here) hiyu < hi + u, and (there) iyaya < i + ya (with unexplained, but delightful reduplication). There is also a stem that combines the arriving here form with the motion under way there stem to produce hiyaya (more unexplained reduplication). This form is glossed 'tp pass by going'. There are corresponding vertitives glic^u < gli + ku, khigla < khi + gla, and gligla < gli + gla (no reduplication, though the possibilities cause a slight shiver to run down my back). For Dhegiha he reports only the 'there' serials: *hidha < *hi + *dha and *khikdha < *khi + *kdha. These are glossed 'to have gone' and 'to pass by going homeward'. The attestation is somewhat spotty across the branch, though this is entirely due to the difficulty of getting Dhegiha data. So, under the circumstances I thought I'd venture to summarize what I know about OP serial motion verbs, some of it freshly learned today. By way of pour parlers, the sense 'pass' is usually rendered in Dorsey 1890/1 with the preceding coverbs i'he 'to pass (by)', a'he 'to pass over', and uhe' 'to pass toward'. This is followed by an inflected verb of motion, but is not inflected itself. I think it refers to pass in the sense of following a trail, and that these are all related to the verb uhe' 'to follow a route', which also has a derivative udhuhe 'to follow a route by some means (e.g., tracks, the sight of the animal, etc.)'. The udhu- here corresponds to Da iyo- and Wi hiro- ~ roo-. Sometimes -he forms seem to be inflected, e.g. idha'he 'you pass in (by the smokehole)' and udha'he 'you passed along'. However, the first of these may be an idha- locative (cf. Da iya-) and the second is just an inflected form of uhe'. Proceding now to serials proper, i.e., those that Dorsey writes as a single word, the there-compounds a la Dakotan, as mentioned by Taylor, do exist. In OP they are *hidhe and khigdhe. I have to star the first because what one does find is the a-prefixed proximate form a'ia'dha=i, in which the h is missing by the usual process of deletion of h in the context V'hV, cf. maNa' 'bank', or s^aaN', or ppai' ~ ppe' 'sharp'. The only inflected form I know for this is the inclusive aNga'iadha=i. This stem is usually glossed by Dorsey as 'to have gone'. The vertitive is glossed 'to have gone home/again/by'. Providing a hint at the origin of the Dakotan reduplicated forms, there is a'ia'dhadha 'to have gone repeatedly'. The here-compounds seem to be missing: no trace of *thii or *gdhigi. The cross-compounds here-arriving x there-in motion are represented by thidhe. I haven't found the vertitive *gdhidha. The non-vertitive is glossed similarly to the Dakotan form as 'to pass on/by', cf., a common example thigdha=ga 'pass on! (male speaking)'. Interestingly enough, there is an additional pattern of cross series compound, involving combining the here and there motion under way verbs. These yield: idhe < i + dhe and gigdhe < gi + gdhe. These are glossed 'to have gone' and 'to go and pass' (perhaps better, 'to come and pass homeward/again/by'. The first is inflected ibdhe, ihne (is^ne), idha=i, ??? (inclusive unknown). Dorsey also lists: gdhigdhiN, gdhi naNz^iN, higdhiN, hi naNz^iN, khigdhiN, khi naNz^iN, respectively various motions and sit or stand. This looks like only some of the possible forms. Motion verbs have datives, cf. agi'thidha 'to pass on for one'. The grammar (p. 70) suggests also agihi 'he comes [arrives there] for it', agigi, etc., but inflects these appiphi, as^kis^i, agihi, aNgagiaNgahi, which has two problems. First, the double inclusive is unprecedented, and second, the texts give iNhi 'he has gone for me', which follows the expected dative paradigm. I would interpolate ?iNhi, dhihi, agihi, ???. The paradigm Dorsey gives in his grammar looks wrong. I suspect he guessed, as he seems sometimes to do in the grammar. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 10:09:48 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 04:09:48 -0600 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > This is fun. I had at first assumed that Buechel had just gotten parts of > two different verbs, hu (?u) 'come' and ku 'come.vert', but now I'm not so > sure. There's still a lot I don't understand about the details of Dakotan > sound changes, esp. in these paradigms. There are a couple of little things that make me wonder if the stem for 'to come' (or 'to be en route hither') might not be PS *u (or *?u) instead of *hu. - Dakota inflects it as bu, lu, (y)u in that hi=yu compound. - All MV languages have a vertitive form in *k, not *kh, cf., OP gi, Da ku, Wi guu. Of course Wi guu could be from *khuu or *kuu, but then it wouldn't inflect as a *k-stem, which it does. - OP seems to have i, not hi. The proximate is ai, which could represent loss of h between vowels, and the first and second persons phi and s^i certainly have hi, but the stem is just i. I'm not sure of the inclusive. From BARudes at aol.com Sun Apr 4 14:49:36 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:49:36 EDT Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) Message-ID: In response to John's comment on the form of the verb 'come' in PS, to the extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., Siebert 1945, which contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' (where h- is the 3rd singular marker), etc. Blair From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 18:36:37 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 12:36:37 -0600 Subject: Archiving Siouan Languages List Message-ID: Some of you may remember that I made an abortive attempt to have the have the Siouan list archived by the listserve at the University of Colorado. This worked for a few weeks, until the authorities noticed that I had turned on archiving. Apparently they don't really have the space to accomodate this and we started to fill up what there was. Recently - well ages ago, but I move slowly - I noticed that the Linguist List organization offers to archive linguistically-oriented lists at their site. I have availed us of that opportunity and you can now find the list archived at: http://linguistlist.org/list-archives.html under the heading of Siouan. Recent posts are already there and the backlog has been formatted and submitted. Note that there is a subscription link which still forwards through our approval process. It's something you can refer colleagues to. http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-siouan.html Here are a few comments from Anthony Aristar that I'd like to read into the record: "Please note that the mirroring procedure we use depends crucially on the e-mail addresses which we've taken from the mail-header of the message you sent us. So tell us when any of these are about to change, or the mirroring will fail. If you decide to moderate your list, for example, the address of originating messages will almost certainly change. So please do tell us *before* you do this, so we can make the necessary changes." "Please note that the Listserv will correctly store messages with MIME attachments. However, such messages will appear as gibberish on the Web, since the listserv does not decode them." "Welcome to the LINGUIST archive! Anthony" Thanks! JEK From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Apr 5 01:46:15 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 20:46:15 -0500 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: <9ff4ccfe.2438d600@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba > is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., Siebert 1945, which > contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I > come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' (where h- is the 3rd singular > marker), etc. That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several languages treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. And there are also interesting correspondences between syllable-initial and syllable-final glottalization across Siouan. If the Catawban 3rd person can definitively be shown to have been h- and Siebert proved wrong on this, we would have a good analogical model to explain the Siouan reflexes. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Mon Apr 5 13:12:39 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:12:39 EDT Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) Message-ID: The crucial evidence that the verb 'come' is uu?- in Catawba is the fact that the third person plural, for some speakers, is iruu?- where i- is the third plural marker and the r is epenthetic. If the stem began with h-, one would expect the third plural to be huu?- just like the third singular. As for h- 3rd person (usually singular), this is the regular reflex of hi- 'third singular' with mutating verbs in Catawba. Blair From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Mon Apr 5 15:01:59 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:01:59 -0600 Subject: Catawba 'go' & 'come' Message-ID: For what it's worth, I examined Frank Speck's Catawba texts more closely to see whether the many verbs of going and coming there could be matched to the typical Siouan semantic divisions. Perhaps the following have some small measure of validity. At least they seem to fit their contexts some of the time. This presentation supersedes previous speculations I have made about the meanings of these verbs, and no doubt this will be superseded in turn. (Phonemics are mostly a guess. Verbs are cited with the 3rd sg prefix if any.) da:' 'to be going', Dakota 'ya/e' hu:' 'to be coming', Dakota 'u' ku: 'to leave (going)', Dakota 'iyaya/e' ku:wa: 'to leave (coming)', Dakota 'hiyu' mara: 'to arrive (going)', Dakota 'i' hau 'to arrive (coming), Dakota 'hi' ku:ra -- possibly 'to go and return' ha:ra -- could this be 'to come and then depart' ? kuci 'to leave (ascending)' mahu:ci 'to arrive (ascending)' It has been suggested that da:' and hu:' not only translate Dakota ya/e and u respectively but are also cognate with them. Otherwise note that ku:wa: appears to contain ku: and mara: apparently derives from da:' with a prefix, or compounded with, ma. Maybe there was just ku: 'to leave' and hau 'to arrive' originally and they have been differentiated for going and coming with -wa: and ma more recently. mahu:ci may contain ma plus kuci too. Both the d~r and the k~h alternations occur elsewhere in Catawba. ku:ra may be a compound of ku: with da:' and ha:ra might come from hu:' and da:'. To what extent the apparent changes in phonemes in some of these complex stems is real or just an artifact of poor transcription remains uncertain for now. ' ... home, ... back' is expressed by duk ..., Dakota 'k-' (sometimes appearing as hd-). Verbs of going and coming are converted into verbs of conveying and bringing by prefixing du-, Dakota 'a-'. Just my 2 cents Canadian (= about 1.33 cents US). Paul From STRECHTER at csuchico.edu Mon Apr 5 16:20:09 1999 From: STRECHTER at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:20:09 -0700 Subject: archive Message-ID: Thanks for setting up the archive with linguist list, John. No more saving every message for me. Sara T. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 5 17:54:00 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:54:00 -0600 Subject: Stem 'to come' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba > > is -uu?-, not -huu?- ... > > That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a > verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several languages > treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. One possible explanation for *u ~ *hu in the verb 'to come' is analogy with *hi 'arrive there', but, given Blair's observations, I wonder if it couldn't be that there were competing inflectional systems, one based on the root proper (*u), and one based on an old third person in hi (*hu). I'm not sure to what extent such a third person can be hypothesized, but I do tend to assume that Catawba hi is connected with Siouan *i, even though evidence of *i in verb paradigms is somewhat sparse. One other verb with a clear h in the first and second persons and waffling in the third is 'to say'. We tend to assume that the h is removed by some process when it is missing in the third person, but we might want to look at this more closely. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 5 17:56:39 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:56:39 -0600 Subject: archive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Thanks for setting up the archive with linguist list, John. No more saving > every message for me. You're welcome! I think I'll keep it up for a while myself, but I tend to think that the Linguist List is at this point a more stable part of the linguistic community than me or the Siouan List! From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 5 23:32:22 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 17:32:22 -0600 Subject: Josephine White Eagle Winnebago Dictionary Message-ID: I believe that the Josephine White Eagle Winnebago dictionary (exact citation unknown) used to be available from MIT as a working papers publication. It doesn't seem to be any more. Does anyone know anything about where and how it might be available? From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Tue Apr 6 07:34:29 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:34:29 +0200 Subject: vowel initial stems are not glottal initial in Lak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Bob, John, et al, Naturally it would behoove me to do some homework before plunging into this, since I haven't memorized even the regular sound laws for Dakotan or Siouan yet, but I jump in recklessly anyway. I need to point out, in the light of the 'come' discussion with Blair et al., that there is a CONTRAST synchronically in Lakhota between vowel-initial and glottal-initial stems. It shows up in the dual forms by contrasting uNkV with uNk?V. (By the way, dollar signs appear just fine on this computer.) I haven't memorized all the right examples, but 'come' is definitely vowel-initial (uNku pi), whereas 'use' and 'be' are both glottal initial (uNk?uN pi). "i" 'to arrive going' is vowel initial, I think, and I'm not sure about 'shoot' or 'wear around the shoulders' (stems "o" and "iN", respectively). Buechel gives "uNk?o" for shoot, and that sounds right, but I can't check "iN" since it occurs in Buechel only in compounds (and I can't think of an example to look up right now). So it seems to me that your alleged parallel between 'come' and 'shoot' might be wrong -- it's not analogy that keeps 'shoot' from having *bo as the first person, but whatever the ancestor of that glottal stop is. 'to think', echiN, conjugates echami, echani, but uNkechiN pi, unfortunately -- and I'm not sure this "iN" is the same as the shawl verb anyway. It is perhaps significant, however, that it's echiN and not *ec?iN. David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > > > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba > > is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., Siebert 1945, which > > contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I > > come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' (where h- is the 3rd singular > > marker), etc. > > That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a > verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several languages > treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. And there are > also interesting correspondences between syllable-initial and > syllable-final glottalization across Siouan. If the Catawban 3rd person > can definitively be shown to have been h- and Siebert proved wrong on > this, we would have a good analogical model to explain the Siouan > reflexes. > > Bob > > From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Tue Apr 6 10:32:26 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:32:26 +0200 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't understand how the analogy would work. David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > > > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba > > is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., Siebert 1945, which > > contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I > > come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' (where h- is the 3rd singular > > marker), etc. > > That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a > verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several languages > treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. And there are > also interesting correspondences between syllable-initial and > syllable-final glottalization across Siouan. If the Catawban 3rd person > can definitively be shown to have been h- and Siebert proved wrong on > this, we would have a good analogical model to explain the Siouan > reflexes. > > Bob > > From BARudes at aol.com Tue Apr 6 13:00:19 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:00:19 EDT Subject: Catawba 'go' & 'come' Message-ID: For the record, the phonemic forms for some of the Catawba verbs Paul cited (i.e., those which I have found so far in Siebert's data) are as follows. da:?- ‘to move on foot' (Siebert 1945: 103) (underlying |-ra:?-| with regular shift of |r| to /d/ when initial) (As Siebert [1945: 103] notes, the verb da:?- is to be distinguished from the inflectable instrumental prefix da:- ‘by foot', although the two are almost certainly related historically) which is also used in compounds to form motion verbs.) hu:?- ‘to arrive, come' (Siebert 1945: 102) (stem |-u:?-| with /h-/ as 3rd singular marker) (I have not yet encounterd ku:-, ku:wa in Siebert's notes, although they occur in Raven McDavid's and Bill Sturtevant's notes, whose transcriptions suggest /ku:?-/ and /ku:wa-/) mara:?- ‘to arrive (going)' (a compound of ma- ‘cislocative' and da:?- ‘to move on foot' [see Siebert 1945: 102 -- mahu:?- ‘to bring hither' with hu:?- ‘to arrive, come') (I have not yet encountered hau, ku:ra, ha:ra, kuci, or mahu:ci in Siebert's notes. I agree with Paul that ku:ra- is probably a compound of ku:- and da:?- (thus, phonemic /ku:ra:?-); I am more skeptical about ha:ra being a compound of hu:?- and da:?-, since a change of /u:/ to /a(:)/ would be unprecedented; similarly, I am not convinced that mahu:ci contains kuci, since a /h/, /k/ alternation would be unusual; to me, mahu:ci looks more like a compound of ma- ‘cislocative' + hu:?- ‘arrive, come' plus an element -ci-, just as kuci looks like ku:- ‘leave' plus the element -ci-.) duk- ‘back, backwards' (Siebert, notes): dukh'u:re: (‘ = stress) ‘he comes back, returns'. Catawba verbs of motion compound with a variety of adverbial preverbs indicating direction/location, some of which behave like prefixes and some like proclitics. Others include haap- 'up, towards the top', huk- 'below, down', and c^ik- 'forward, to the front'. The verb hau- is intriguing for it bears an uncanny resemblence to the widespread particle hao?, h'au? (Seneca and Tuscarora forms, respectively) which variously means o.k., already, hello, come on in, welcome in languages throughout the east and into the plains. It might be a predication of that particle. Paul's note on verbs of going and coming being converted into verbs of conveying and bringing by prefixing du- refers to the addition of the inflectable instrumental du- ‘by hand' (Siebert 1945: 103). From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 6 15:27:11 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:27:11 -0600 Subject: vowel initial stems are not glottal initial in Lak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, David Rood wrote: > Naturally it would behoove me to do some homework before plunging > into this, since I haven't memorized even the regular sound laws for > Dakotan or Siouan yet, but I jump in recklessly anyway. I need to point > out, in the light of the 'come' discussion with Blair et al., that there > is a CONTRAST synchronically in Lakhota between vowel-initial and > glottal-initial stems. It shows up in the dual forms by contrasting uNkV > with uNk?V. Yes, this is true, of course, in Dakotan. I think Bob Rankin and I are phrasing things very carefully because there is some disagreement on the status of the ?-stop stems in Proto-Siouan. > I haven't memorized all the right examples, but 'come' is > definitely vowel-initial (uNku pi), whereas 'use' and 'be' are both > glottal initial (uNk?uN pi). "i" 'to arrive going' is vowel initial, I > think, and I'm not sure about 'shoot' or 'wear around the shoulders' > (stems "o" and "iN", respectively). Buechel gives "uNk?o" for shoot, and > that sounds right, ... The V-initial examples in Dakotan that are cited here are h-initial in Dhegiha and Winnebago-Chiwere, except to the extent that 'come' behaves in Dakotan and elsewhere as V-initial (?-initial). The original *h-initial verbs have reflexes of phV in the first person. They may be reformulated as synchronic V-initial in Dakotan where verb initial *h disappears ('say' is something of an exception). The Dakota h-stems are usually reinflected regularly as waV, 'say' being the exception. The original *?-initial stems are usually nasal and have first persons in mVN, though *u (?) 'come', which is oral, has bV in older Dakotan (wa)(hi)bu. I seem to recall that something reasonable occurs with ?o 'shoot' in Winnebago, but I forget what. I've suggested that *?-initial stems may actually be *V-initial, because there's no trace of ? except in the third persons (word initially) and in the Dakotan and Winnebago inclusives (as I remember it). The last I knew Bob really did think that these stems were *?-initial in Proto-Siouan, so I think that by referring to them as ?-stems or V-stems he's being polite as much as anything. In my analysis I pointed out that some Dakotan ?-stems seemed to have unglotalized inclusives, at least as variants. I believe the source was Boas & Deloria. I think that a lot of *?-stem paradigms are heavily contaminated by *r-stems, e.g., the Dakotan second persons in n. In Dhegiha the w-stems have *r-stem second persons and the first persons tend to have *r-stem alternatives. The w in the third persons (or so I argue) is epenthetic, all of these verbs have a rounded vowel preceding or following the pronominal slot. The standard example is 'to interrogate': imaNghe, i(s^)naNghe, iwaNghe. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 16:28:07 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:28:07 -0500 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Actually, I would like to modestly remind those interested in this issue > that I wrang two pages out of these forms in: > > Koontz, John E. 1985. A syncopating conjugation *k-stem in Lakota. > IJAL 51.4: 483-4. Sorry, John, ...just goes to show how my memory is doing these days! > I'm not sure that the ?*wke 'turtle' form is relevant, but... Assuming > Mandan pke matches Da kheya and OP kke, it looks like *pku should yield > ?khu regularly in Da, presumably via *hku, like other hypothetical > preaspirates that yield aspirates in Da and IO and preaspirates or tense > stops throughout Dh and voiceless stops in Wi (Ho). It's more than just hypothetical. Root mah- 'earth' with the noun formative -ka (i.e., mah-ka) gives Dakota makha, so hC > Ch was definitely a Dakotan sound change. There are a couple of other parallel cases in the CSD maybe. 'Turtle', like many other animal names, presumably had a wa- or wi- prefix at one time (I make a case for wi- in a couple of papers). Like the 1st person pronominal, it lost its vowel in 'turtle, bison cow, otter', etc. giving a secondary cluster, again like the 1st person (if we're right about the underlying 1st person). Dheghiha has both patterns for secondary pk- clusters. Usually they go through the changes: *w-k > pk > kp > hp > pp (like in vertitive ku we've been discussing). In Dakotan the last stage is different: hp > ph as we've seen. 'Want' in proto-Dhegiha is ko~ra and it is doubly conjugated. 'I want', *w-ko~-w-ra, where both w's are 1st person markers, you get 1st sg. kko~bla in Kansa (with exact analogs in the other Dhegiha lgs.) So this verb for some reason apparently didn't undergo the metathesis that the other verbs in its class did: *w-k > pk > hk > kk It remains unclear what the chronology of morphological (as opposed to phonological) changes was with the noun prefix wi- or wa- and the 1st person wa-. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 16:38:50 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:38:50 -0500 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > 1sg hi-b-u > > 2sg hi-l-u > > 3sg hi(y)u (where -y- is just an epenthetic glide) > > 1du u~-hi(y)u > > > > There are alternative forms wa-hi-b-u, ya-hi-l-u, etc. > Given the usual pattern of serial motion verbs in Dhegiha, I'm inclined > to wonder if the middle variant (cf. wa-hi-b-lu) isn't the most > conservative, [lu] is the 2nd person form; there isn't a form wahiblu, just wahibu, yahilu... I agree both verbs might well be conjugated, but then I'd expect conservative 1sg *phibu, 2sg *$ilu and god knows what in the inclusive given its idiosyncracies. I'd say that ANY verb beginning with *r, *h, *?, *w, *p, *t, *k that is conjugated with wa-, ya- has undergone analogical change. > I think b here qualifies as a Da reflex of *W a/k/a "funny *w." > Although I expect the b in Santee and m or even w in Teton. Most of our "funny W's" (e.g. in 'snow') come historically from a secondary sequence of w-w. So in 'snow' the wa- prefix with the wa root gives w-wa > Wa. John may be right that *w-? also gives W-, which would be Dakota b ~ m (the latter before nasal vowels). It's surprising, given the 'snow' word in other languages, that Dakota 'snow' isn't [ba]. It's just [wa], isn't it? Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 16:48:24 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:48:24 -0500 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > There are a couple of little things that make me wonder if the stem for > 'to come' (or 'to be en route hither') might not be PS *u (or *?u) > instead of *hu. Dakota inflects it as bu, lu, (y)u in that hi=yu > compound. All MV languages have a vertitive form in *k, not *kh, cf., OP > gi, Da ku, Wi guu. Of course Wi guu could be from *khuu or *kuu, but > then it wouldn't inflect as a *k-stem, which it does. > - OP seems to have i, not hi. ... the first and second persons phi and > s^i certainly have hi, but the stem is just i. Well this is just what Blair has found in Catawba. It looks like the root was something like *?u: (maybe from earlier u:?) and the h- found its way into the conjugation by analogy with 'arrive coming'. nevertheless, the h- is part of the verb in most Siouan languages, so any alternations here are very old. that's what makes them so interesting. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 17:20:06 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:20:06 -0500 Subject: glottal stems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I haven't memorized all the right examples, but 'come' is definitely > vowel-initial (uNku pi), whereas 'use' and 'be' are both glottal initial > (uNk?uN pi). While the inclusive u~k- is often glottalized with "glottal stems", I've found that it isn't always reliably that way. Since u~k- seems to be a more recent pronominal prefix (appearing to the left of others in the verb prefix template, such as it is) it sometimes seems to be added to the 3rd person form and sometimes not, at least in the languages I've studied. I'd say it's certain that 'come' is unique. The known glottal stop stems (from my memory, which may be missing a couple) are few. Most are nasal: *?u~ 'do, be' *i?u~ 'do with, use' (same root as 1) *?i~ 'wear about the shoulders' *ya-?i~ 'think' *?o 'shoot, wound' *?u 'arrive coming (?)' MAY be such a verb because of (a) its conjugation in Dakotan (b) its parallel irregularities in other Siouan (c) the Catawba alternations Blair points out. Any verb with parallel irregularities in both Siouan and Catawban is showing some VERY old alternations -- probably 4K years plus. We may never understand all the complexities, but we can be thankful that Buechel and others recorded the conservative conjugation when they did. I bet it would be hard to elicit nowadays. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Tue Apr 6 17:22:04 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:22:04 EDT Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. Message-ID: With respect to ‘snow', Catawba dialects and Woccon show three different forms that appear to reflect reduplication. I don't have the data in front of me at the moment, but I seem to remember that either Saraw has wa:?, while the Esaw has wa:?wa (or the first could be Esaw and the second Saraw), and Woccon has something like Wawawa. The w-w form in Siouan may result from syncope in something like Catawba wa:?wa, while the Dakota form may be comparable with Catawba wa:?. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 19:44:44 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:44:44 -0500 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: <102a62af.243b9cbc@aol.com> Message-ID: > With respect to �snow', Catawba dialects and Woccon show three different > forms that appear to reflect reduplication. In Siouan it's clear there was (and still is) a common prefix with the form wa-. If the root is also wa, it would appear to be reduplication, but wouldn't be. Lawson's Woccon form is indeed wawawa, suggesting that redup. is a possibility however. > The w-w form in Siouan may result from syncope in something like Catawba > wa:?wa, while the Dakota form may be comparable with Catawba wa:?. As far as we can tell, the form with the wV- prefix is reconstructible as such, so Dakotan, if it has just wa 'snow' would either have lost the prefix via a morphological (i.e. not sound change) reanalysis OR the regular reflex of "funny W" in Dakotan is just [wa]. I can't remember enough funny W forms from Siouan (it's rare) in their Dakotan reflex to know. Bob From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 6 20:09:48 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:09:48 -0600 Subject: Funny *W (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Koontz: > > I think b here qualifies as a Da reflex of *W a/k/a "funny *w." > > Although I expect the b in Santee and m or even w in Teton. > > Most of our "funny W's" (e.g. in 'snow') come historically from a > secondary sequence of w-w. So in 'snow' the wa- prefix with the wa root > gives w-wa > Wa. John may be right that *w-? also gives W-, which would > be Dakota b ~ m (the latter before nasal vowels). It's surprising, given > the 'snow' word in other languages, that Dakota 'snow' isn't [ba]. It's > just [wa], isn't it? I think that's right and w is the usual Teton reflex of *W. I think I was wrong in wondering about hibu as *thiWu. It's *thiwu, or maybe the w is a special "pronominal w" as opposed to *w and *W. I've often wondered if something like that might explain why *wa A1 => (h)a in Dhegiha, Chiwere, Winnebago, while *wa INDEF => wa. On the other hand, a potential problem, we have lots of cases where we want *pr clusters to come from *wV + r. The *wV here is presumably one of Bob's classifiers, though, rather than *wa INDEF. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 6 20:26:05 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:26:05 -0600 Subject: PS *th => Da h (Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > 1sg hi-b-u > > > 2sg hi-l-u > > > 3sg hi(y)u (where -y- is just an epenthetic glide) > > > 1du u~-hi(y)u > > > > > > There are alternative forms wa-hi-b-u, ya-hi-l-u, etc. > Koontz: > > Given the usual pattern of serial motion verbs in Dhegiha, I'm inclined > > to wonder if the middle variant (cf. wa-hi-b-lu) isn't the most > > conservative, > > ... I agree both verbs might well be conjugated, but then I'd > expect conservative 1sg *phibu, ... Oops, as I was thinking about the *W stuff I remembered that PS *re (RE?) + *hi => PS *thi => Da hi, while PS *hi => Da i. That is, the h here (in hiyu) is from Taylor's *rh (which I've written *th), which was one of the main points of his article on motion verbs. So, this Da hi is the one that would be inflected regularly ab initio, cf. Dhegiha athi 'I arrive here', dhathi 'you arrive there', a'thi=i 'he arrives there', aNfathi=i 'we arrive here'. I'm afraid we students of Dhegiha find Dakota verbs of motion very confusing, what with all the unusual phonology that converges there. Of course, this isn't really a critical point in the context of the discussion, since I'd readily concede that if it were i < *hi, then the regular inflection here would have to be secondary. That is, for my point to hold, i in a putative *iyu would have to be being regularized along with i, without losing the double inflection *waibu, *yailu, etc. Of course, in the event, this is just a thought experiment. The form is hiyu < PS *thi=u. To see Bob's point where it applies, consider iyaya, in which the i is from *hi, but isn't inflected. I'd expect that formerly this was inflected *phibleble, *hilele, *iyeye, *uNkiyeye=pi, though I don't know of any such forms being attested, so this is also something of a thought experiment. JEK From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Wed Apr 7 00:13:09 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:13:09 -0500 Subject: 1st person wa- vs. other wa-'s in Siouan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I think I was wrong in wondering about hibu as *thiWu. It's *thiwu, or > maybe the w is a special "pronominal w" as opposed to *w and *W. > I've often wondered if something like that might explain why *wa A1 => > (h)a in Dhegiha, Chiwere, Winnebago, while *wa INDEF => wa. I'd say *rhi_?u. But John is right that the 1st person wa- in Siouan languages routinely behaves differently from the other prefixes with the shape wa-. There is evidence for 1st person *wa- in virtually every Siouan language, so its existence is indisputable. But it misbehaves in many of the languages: It loses its w- in DH, CH and WI as John mentions above, replacing w with h, which may simply be epenthetic, in WI. It is regularly b- instead of w- in Ofo, a language which lost initial w's regularly. Why? There is a possibility that the one or more of the other wa- prefixes was, in fact, long, /wa:-/ rather than just /wa-/. That might explain why syncope regularly affects the pronominal but not the other(s). So might relative chronology of the morphology; pronominals have been on verbs forever but other wa-'s are derivational and they come and go. But vowel length wouldn't explain why the labial "misbehaves" so often. It could have to do with the phonology involved in replacement of the older, dental Proto-Siouan-Catawban 1st person marker, d-~n- with the innovated Proto-Siouan *wa-. If you think about it, such replacements don't just get substituted overnight. Speakers didn't just get up one morning and say "hey, enough of those antiquated dental 1st persons, let's replace it with something cool, like wa-!" Presumably the old pronominals became morphologically opaque (Catawba shows them fusing with verb roots in a variety of confusing paradigms). Comparing Siouan and Catawban, we see that what Siouan did was apparently form new 1st persons by prefixing *wa- (from whatever source) to the *third* person form of the verb, totally dropping the old, fused 1st person forms. Two things could have happened: (a) some of the new wa- prefixes could have been added to the older 1st persons in d- or n-, yielding as yet unexplored morphophonemic changes that give us the peculiar 1st person forms we get in Siouan, or, I think more likely, (b) the 3rd person always served as the analogical model for new 1st persons with wa-. And if Blair is right and the earlier 3rd person marker was not "zero" but *h(i)-, then we have an h- that would have interacted with wa- in various ways. One could always appeal to the fact that the pronominals are often closer to the accent than other wa-'s, which often are in the outer, derivational layer, but I personally think that the Proto-Siouan *wa- '1st person' must have had some interaction with older 1st or 3rd person prefixes. > On the other hand, a potential problem, we have lots of cases where we > want *pr clusters to come from *wV + r. The *wV here is presumably one > of Bob's classifiers, though, rather than *wa INDEF. The 'animate' classifier (if it was a classifier) was *wi-. Why not think of wa- as the inanimate one? It shouldn't matter whether w- goes back to *wi- or *wa- from the point of view of sound change. They should both work the same. Some languages (Ofo, at least) have different reflexes of secondary *wr and *pr clusters. As I recall 'flat' and some of its derivatives had *p. Bob From munro at ucla.edu Wed Apr 7 01:29:31 1999 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:29:31 -0700 Subject: assiniboine Message-ID: Hello, all -- May I ask you nice people if anyone knows of any lexical work that has been done on Assiniboine? Are any of you currently working on this language? In addition to my current field methods class on Lakhota, which is lots of fun, I am meeting this quarter with two students to go through some Assiniboine lessons prepared for a course offered in a college near Fort Peck. (Perhaps some of you know about these.) One of these students is a semi-speaker, and it is very interesting to be exposed to the differences between Assiniboine and Lakhota, particularly in the area (so far; it's early yet) of stress. This student tells me that people in her family really want to see a dictionary of Assiniboine prepared, and so I wondered if anything has been done on this. (I have Levin's book, but have not worked through it carefully yet.) Thank you for any help you can provide. Pam Munro From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Wed Apr 7 06:05:01 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:05:01 +0200 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Most of our "funny W's" (e.g. in 'snow') come historically from a > secondary sequence of w-w. So in 'snow' the wa- prefix with the wa root > gives w-wa > Wa. John may be right that *w-? also gives W-, which would > be Dakota b ~ m (the latter before nasal vowels). It's surprising, given > the 'snow' word in other languages, that Dakota 'snow' isn't [ba]. It's > just [wa], isn't it? yes. David From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Wed Apr 7 14:00:49 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:00:49 -0600 Subject: 1st person wa- vs. other wa-'s in Siouan. Message-ID: Koontz > > It's *thiwu, ... Rankin > I'd say *rhi_?u. I think Bob realized I meant a first person by the w here, and the *th and *rh are to some extent notational variants, but just in case it's not clear to others, I do agree with his *rhi_?u (or maybe *_rhi=_?u). Because the "X-stem" notation is probably somewhat obscure to some folks, this implies a paradigm something like: PS Da (old) 1st person * wa-rhi=w-?u wa-hi-b-u 2nd person * ya-rhi=y-?u ya-hi-l-u 3rd person * rhi= ?u hi- yu Inc. person *waNk=rhi= ?u uN-hi- yu(=pi) I'm not sure I have the inclusive here in the form Bob prefers, and I think the ? may be a bit of an epenthetic ghost myself. It should perhaps have deleted or leaped to the end of the stem in the 1st and 2nd persons. The leading regular inflection in Dakotan may be a reintrodution following a period in which the leading inflection had been lost. The modern pattern is an invariant hiyu, inflected regularly. One big caveat: it's not clear that this particular pattern of compounding was used in PS. The PS form is really just a statement about the inflection patterns of *rhi and *?u, plus the comment that the Dakotan form hiyu derives from a compound of *rhi and *?u. JEK From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Fri Apr 9 17:42:04 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:42:04 -0500 Subject: Catawba 'go' & 'come' Message-ID: Blair Rudes wrote: > I am more skeptical about ha:ra being a > compound of hu:?- and da:?-, since a change of /u:/ to /a(:)/ would be > unprecedented; There is occasional confusion between a and u in Speck's transcription; hence the possibility that written hara might represent hura, but I think the confusion only occurs when the vowels are short and all indications are that this syllable has a long vowel. So I agree that it is very unlikely that ha:ra contains hu:'. > similarly, I am not convinced that mahu:ci contains kuci, > since a /h/, /k/ alternation would be unusual; to me, mahu:ci looks more like > a compound of ma- cislocative' + hu:?- arrive, come' plus an element -ci-, > just as kuci looks like ku:- leave' plus the element -ci-.) Could be. I don't know what -ci- might be, but it would join a lot of syllables I'm similarly unsure about in the same location. Root extentions? -wa- in ku:wa is another, fairly frequent one. > duk- back, backwards' (Siebert, notes): dukh'u:re: ( = stress) he comes > back, returns'. Catawba verbs of motion compound with a variety of adverbial > preverbs indicating direction/location, some of which behave like prefixes > and some like proclitics. Others include haap- 'up, towards the top', huk- 'below, down', ha:p- with da:'- seems to provide the missing progressive form for verbs of ascending that I listed previously. Absent from that list is any parallel set of verbs referring to descending. huk- with da:'- forms the progressive 'to be descending', but how does Catawba say 'to leave (descending)' and 'to arrive (descending)'? Perhaps ha:ra is one of the descending verbs, but the examples aren't convincing. The other may be ha:tkut which refers once to going down a hill and once to the sun setting. > The verb hau- is intriguing for it bears an uncanny resemblence to the > widespread particle hao?, h'au? (Seneca and Tuscarora forms, respectively) > which variously means o.k., already, hello, come on in, welcome in languages > throughout the east and into the plains. It might be a predication of that > particle. Or could hau and ha:ra both contain an obsolete ha(:)-, before da:'- in the latter verb and before (h)u:' in the former? Obviously this speculation needs the meaning of ha:ra to be firmed up. hau appears a few times written as haw@ (@ = schwa) so its phonemic form might be more like ha:wi, making my proposal of its origin untenable and Blair's less likely. It seems to form an exotic 3pl by reduplication: ha'au. Whatever the exact details of the history of these verbs, the Catawba system of verbs of locomotion appears to me to be rather similar to the present Siouan one. But the two seem to have arrived at the same place from different starting points. Using Dakota examples for Siouan, the primitive verb roots seem to be: Dakota Catawba ya/e 'to be going' da:' 'to be going' u 'to be coming' hu:' 'to be coming' i 'to arrive going' hau originally just 'to arrive' ? hi 'to arrive coming' --- none --- --- none --- ku:' originally just 'to leave' ? And it's possible that Catawba hau isn't primitive either. Doesn't this all suggest that the present similarity might be due to recent contact more than to remote common origin? Paul From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Fri Apr 9 23:45:25 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:45:25 -0600 Subject: How! (was Re: Catawba 'go' & 'come') In-Reply-To: <01J9TVNETXZM96VKU9@BrandonU.CA> Message-ID: > BARudes: > > The verb hau- is intriguing for it bears an uncanny resemblence to the > > widespread particle hao?, h'au? (Seneca and Tuscarora forms, respectively) > > which variously means o.k., already, hello, come on in, welcome in languages > > throughout the east and into the plains. It might be a predication of that > > particle. I've always thought this was an interesting form. Because it is so widespread (though I have no idea precisely how widespread), I've tended to suspect that it might be pre-Contact. Greetings in h-back vowel are certainly fairly common in Europe, too, perhaps without inheritance, though I've not seen anything on the subject. However, hau certainly also looks like an English loan, i.e., from "How (do you do)?" I imagine it might be possible to document the progress of the term, it it is a loan, though I don't know of any relevant comments, and it might be difficult to get past misconceptions on the part of the recordists. By the way, add Hopi to the list of languages with hau. From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Sat Apr 10 05:05:07 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 00:05:07 -0500 Subject: How! Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > I've always thought this was an interesting form. Because it is so > widespread (though I have no idea precisely how widespread), I've tended > to suspect that it might be pre-Contact. Greetings in h-back vowel are > certainly fairly common in Europe, too, perhaps without inheritance, > though I've not seen anything on the subject. However, hau certainly also > looks like an English loan, i.e., from "How (do you do)?" I imagine it > might be possible to document the progress of the term, it it is a loan, > though I don't know of any relevant comments, and it might be difficult to > get past misconceptions on the part of the recordists. By the way, add > Hopi to the list of languages with hau. Just to complicate things, a widespread Cree greeting is ta:nsi and a widespread Ojibwe one is a:ni:n. Both of these are literally 'how?' and are assumed by native speakers to be short for 'How are you?', 'How are things going?' or the like. So did the popular Indian English greeting "how!" arise as a translation of these Cree and Ojibwe words, possibly to be passed on thereafter from English to Siouan, Iroquoian and Algonquian languages (+ Hopi) as hau, etc., or was hau borrowed from one of those languages into English as "how" which was then translated into Cree and Ojibwe? Note that other Cree and Ojibwe greetings are borrowed, Cree wa:ciyi from English 'what cheer?' and Ojibwe po:s^o: from French bon jour. Paul From BARudes at aol.com Sat Apr 10 14:49:17 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 10:49:17 EDT Subject: Catawba 'go' & 'come' Message-ID: With reference to a descending series of motion verbs in Catawba, Siebert (railway repair schedule notes) gives hukh'u:re: 'he comes down', so apparently huk- was used to form a descending series parallel to ha:p-. For 'leave, go away, depart' there is another prefixed verb given by Siebert in his field notebook, c^apad'u:c^ire: 'I go away, leave', c^apay'u:c^ire: 'you go away, leave', c^apah'u:c^ire: 'he goes away, leaves, departs'. The verb here is -u:c^i- plus a preverb c^apa-. Just to reiterate that the underlying form of the verb 'arrive, come' is -u:?-, not hu:?-, and since I did not cite the relevant data in my previous note, the pertinent citations in Siebert's 1945 classification article on p.102 are: "hu:?- 'to arrive, come'; inflected verb, c^ y h, h w i-r)" which translates as: c^u:?- 'I arrive, come', yu:?- 'you (sg.) arrive, come', hu:?- 'he, she, it arrives, comes'; hu:?- 'we arrive, come', wu:?- 'you (pl.) arrive, come', iru:?- 'they arrive, come'. The third plural allows prefixes between the /i/ and the /r/, as in (Siebert 1945, footnote 22) imar'u:?ire: 'they bring hither' (ma- 'cislocative'). There is no marker of 3rd plural in Catawba that is /r/ alone. The /r/ appears to be an epenthetic consonant between contiguous vowels. I say "appears to be" because, in other cases in Catawba, when there are contiguous vowels in Catawba, either one vowel is deleted or there is contraction. If this is the same epenthesis of /r/ that occurs in Plains Siouan languges, it is archaic in Catawba, which might explain why it has been lexicalized as a discontinuous marker of third person plural. In any event, before a truly /h/-initial verb that takes prefixed subject markers in Catawba, one would expect the third person plural to be marked either by /i-/ alone or, more usually, by hi- (in analogy with the third person singular). In summary, the "primative" motion verbs in Catawba appear to be underlying /-ra:?-/ 'to go', /-u:?-/ 'to arrive, come', and /- ku:?-/ 'to leave (?)'. (I would second Paul's suggestion that hau- is probably not "primative", whatever its origin [the possibility of a prefix /ha(:)-/ does need looking into].) From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 10 14:54:41 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 09:54:41 -0500 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Someone, I think at CU, once told me that Allan Taylor had made a study of "hau". I don't know if he wrote it up or not, but it might be worth one of you guys in Boulder asking him about. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Sat Apr 10 14:55:09 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 10:55:09 EDT Subject: How! (was Re: Catawba 'go' & 'come') Message-ID: The fact that the word = hau is recorded for Huron by French Jesuits (it appears, for example, in the Rev. Pierre Potier's manuscripts which are, for the most part, copies of the manuscripts of Chaumanot, who recorded the Huron language in the mid-seventeenth century) long before the Huron had substantial contact with English speakers makes it unlikely that the word is borrowed from English . Also, the range of meaning in Iroquoian languages (o.k., all-right, sure, welcome, come on in) would be hard to derive from the meaning/usage of in English. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 10 18:08:38 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:08:38 -0600 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Someone, I think at CU, once told me that Allan Taylor had made a study of > "hau". I don't know if he wrote it up or not, but it might be worth one > of you guys in Boulder asking him about. I gather that Allan has views on the subject from observations similar to Blair's, but has not worked them up. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 10 18:17:00 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:17:00 -0600 Subject: How! (was Re: Catawba 'go' & 'come') In-Reply-To: <399138b7.2440c04d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > The fact that the word = hau is recorded for Huron by French Jesuits > (it appears, for example, in the Rev. Pierre Potier's manuscripts which are, > for the most part, copies of the manuscripts of Chaumanot, who recorded the > Huron language in the mid-seventeenth century) long before the Huron had > substantial contact with English speakers makes it unlikely that the word is > borrowed from English . This is the sort of attribution I was hoping for, actually: evidence from French or Spanish speakers dealing with groups that hadn't had English contact (or, at least, not extensive English contact). Unfortunately, it may be difficult to extend this evidence to other groups, but it definitely helps to have it. > Also, the range of meaning in Iroquoian > languages (o.k., all-right, sure, welcome, come on in) would be hard to > derive from the meaning/usage of in English. Actually, this is comparable to the use of Ahau ~ hau in Omaha-Ponca. I'd say something like 'hello (male to male); right, agreement, approval, appreciation; listen'. In a few examples in Dorsey it seems to mark a heading in a presentation. Dorsey translates it as a paragraph marker. Things have been somewhat complicated by the replacement of the former male declarative ha and vocative ha particles with hau during a period (mostly) subsequent to Dorsey. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 10 18:36:43 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:36:43 -0600 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: <01J9UJI3EEUQ96VKUI@BrandonU.CA> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA wrote: > Just to complicate things, a widespread Cree greeting is ta:nsi and a > widespread Ojibwe one is a:ni:n. Both of these are literally 'how?' and are > assumed by native speakers to be short for 'How are you?', 'How are things > going?' or the like. So did the popular Indian English greeting "how!" arise > as a translation of these Cree and Ojibwe words, possibly to be passed on > thereafter from English to Siouan, Iroquoian and Algonquian languages (+ Hopi) > as hau, etc., or was hau borrowed from one of those languages into English as > "how" which was then translated into Cree and Ojibwe? Note that other Cree and > Ojibwe greetings are borrowed, Cree wa:ciyi from English 'what cheer?' and > Ojibwe po:s^o: from French bon jour. I wonder whether some sort of question word, especially a manner question word, is not typical in greetings? This is certainly true in Europe, along with h-words (hail, hals, hola, hey, etc.). Of course, in English, there's some overlap in the two categories, thanks to the evolution of PIE *kw there! Two greeting formulae in Omaha-Ponca, said to be women's forms, but also apparently used between the sexes, are EaN' niN=a? 'how you-are Q' and Ea'thaN niN=a? what's-wrong you-are Q. It's easy to interpret the first of these as English influence, but I'd want to know more about the general pattern of greeting questions across the world before being very positive of this. Unfortunately, I don't know, off the top of my head, of any reference on the subject of greeting formulae. It's hard to believe, however, that the subject can have been entirely overlooked. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 10 18:41:10 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:41:10 -0600 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: <01J9UJI3EEUQ96VKUI@BrandonU.CA> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA wrote: > Note that other Cree and Ojibwe greetings are borrowed, Cree wa:ciyi from > English 'what cheer?' and Ojibwe po:s^o: from French bon jour. The Long Expedition recorded an Omaha exclamation rendered "zut oda" said to be used in admiring a "fine trinket." I've always wondered if this wasn't "Zut, alors!" I've been warned to check the age of that exclamation in French. From BARudes at aol.com Sat Apr 10 18:55:02 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:55:02 EDT Subject: How! Message-ID: Among the Northern Iroquoian languages, Tuscarora, Seneca and Cayuga use a question for greetings that translates roughly as "are you still well (at peace)?". The Catawb greet (ta~c^i) contains a question word, as well. However, other Northern Iroquoian languages (Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Wyandot) simply use a particle with no real translation other than "hi". From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sat Apr 10 19:38:16 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:38:16 EDT Subject: Active/Stative Verbs in Crow Message-ID: As a change of pace from 'hau' and 'hiyu', something more on stative verbs: Crow has a small set of verbs that can be inflected with either active or stative person prefixes. Most of these have the dak/daC 'by force' instrumental prefix. The following are the ones that I have come across in my data, with the glosses for active (A) and stative (S) uses: dasshipi' (A) 'go beyond, pass'; (S) 'cave in, sink, collapse' daxchi' (A) 'tie up, imprison' (S) 'choke on food, gag' datchi'pi (A) 'carve, chip away, pare, whittle'; (S) da'tchipi 'pinched' daxshia'shishii (A) 'break into pieces, smash'; (S) daxshishi 'broken' (active form is reduplicated) du'sshua (A) 'bend'; (S) dasshua' 'bent' (active form has the 'by hand' prefix) Karen Wallace mentions in her dissertation that xachi'i 'move' can occur with either active or stative prefixes. The dak- prefix also occurs in a number of stative stems that have no active counterparts. I have about 25 of these in my data; the following is a sampling: dakka'hpi 'blown away, blown by the wind' dakkawi' 'wide apart' dakku'chi 'swing, wave' dappachi' 'wide' dappia'xi 'light in weight' dappi'chi 'soaked' dappo'oshi 'inflated, blown up' dappo'oxi 'blistered' (this pair looks like consonantal ablaut) daschushi' 'smoothed down, flat' datcheepi 'penetrate, go inside the body' datchichi' 'winded, exhausted, played out' Randy From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 10 19:42:48 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:42:48 -0500 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [Rood]: > I don't understand how the analogy would work. [Rudes]: > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in > Catawba is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., > Siebert 1945, which contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The > conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' > (where h- is the 3rd singular marker), etc. [Rankin]: > That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a > verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several > languages treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. And > there are also interesting correspondences between syllable-initial and > syllable-final glottalization across Siouan. If the Catawban 3rd person > can definitively be shown to have been h- and Siebert proved wrong on > this, we would have a good analogical model to explain the Siouan > reflexes. I guess what I meant here was that, at present, we can't account for why some languages have reflexes of a verb *hu while others, like Dakota, seem to have reflexes of *?u or just *u. Or they may have a mix. It seemed to me that either the *h- was there in the proto form or it wasn't. If it was a 3rd person allomorph in Proto-Siouan-Catawban, as Blair's data suggest, then it's the 3rd person that is providing the model in the languages/persons where h- occurs. In verb paradigms, if analogical extension occurs, it is usually the 3rd person form that provides the model adopted in other persons, e.g., English, where 3rd person -s is generalized for some speakers "I sees, you sees, we sees," etc. Bob From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sat Apr 10 19:46:45 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:46:45 EDT Subject: How! Message-ID: The most common Crow greeting is sho'ota 'how is it, how goes it' which contains the Crow equivalent of a wh-word. An older greeting (still heard occasionally) is kahe'e. Anyone seen anything like this? Randy From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 10 20:05:28 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:05:28 -0500 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The most common Crow greeting is sho'ota 'how is it, how goes it' which > contains the Crow equivalent of a wh-word. An older greeting (still > heard occasionally) is kahe'e. Anyone seen anything like this? Nope. Quapaw has "hawe':", apparently a women's speech form of "(a)hau". {he(:?)} by itself is one of the archaic Siouan verbs of being. It's reflexes are locative in Dhegiha languages, where it is found only in compounds with positionals that form continuative auxiliaries and is conjugated only in the 2nd person, and then only if a V precedes. The 2nd person actor allomorph with "H-stems" is $- (=s^). tha~-he 'be, standing' 2sg ya-tha~-$-e yi~-he 'be, moving' 2sg ya-yi~-$-e ni~k-he 'be, sitting' 2sg $-ni~k-he z^a~k-he 'be, lying' 2gs ya-z^a~k-he I don't know if this verb is part of the Crow or Quapaw greetings or not. bob From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sun Apr 11 01:27:34 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 21:27:34 EDT Subject: Crow Motion Verbs Message-ID: The discussion on motion verbs started me thinking about kuu' 'return, come back', the only vertitive motion verb in Crow. It has a rather strange paradigm, even by Crow standards: bakku' ba'akkuu dala'akku dala'akkuu kuu' da'akkuu kk is phonetically kh, so the 3sg form is really not different from the forms with kk. So we rewrite the paradigm: bakhu' ba'akhuu dala'akhu dala'akhuu khuu' da'akhuu Now if we subtract khu(u), we come up with something very close to the paradigms for other motion verbs in Crow, minus the plural marker u: baa' ba'a(u) dala'a dala'a(u) -- da'a(u) The following are the paradigms for hi'i 'arrive', de'e 'go', and hu'u 'come': baa' bi'io baale'e ba'au boo' bu'uo dala'a dali'io dale'e dala'au dalo'o dalu'uo hi'i di'io de'e da'au hu'u du'uo The paradigm with kuu' subtracted looks like the singular of hi'i combined with the plural of de'e. About the short a in the 1sg form: Crow disfavors a long unaccented vowel in the initial syllable followed by a cluster, i.e. *CVVCCV'. That's just too heavy a beginning! So that vowel could have been shortened to give it a more acceptable syllable structure/accentual pattern. There are still some details to be worked out, but I am suggesting that kuu' is actually a compound motion verb composed of forms of the 'arrive' stem (Crow and Hidatsa have merged the two PSi 'arrive' stems) plus vertitive kuu'. This fits the patterns noted in Taylor's article: 'arrive' stem plus 'motion prior to arrival' stem. Randy I have no idea what happened to the missing stem in the 3rd person of kuu', except to suggest that it was lost after the compound nature of this verb was no longer transparent. While there is no trace of double inflection in these forms, I note that at least some of the Lakhota compound motion verbs are not doubly inflected. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 11 04:18:38 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 22:18:38 -0600 Subject: Crow Motion Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > There are still some details to be worked out, but I am suggesting that kuu' > is actually a compound motion verb composed of forms of the 'arrive' stem > (Crow and Hidatsa have merged the two PSi 'arrive' stems) plus vertitive > kuu'. This fits the patterns noted in Taylor's article: 'arrive' stem plus > 'motion prior to arrival' stem. I've always found the Crow-Hidatsa motion verbs fascinating. It sure looks like analogy run amuck. It's interesting to think that some of it may have come from verb compounding, because that would yet another indication that Crow-Hidatsa had once been more like a Mississippi Valley language, but one potential problem with that in this case is that only the (k)kuu part is clearly vertitive, whereas in the Dakotan examples, if one stem is vertitive, so is the other. Of course, this is the only vertitive stem in Crow, and Dhegiha suggests that MV actually has quite a bit of variety in verb compounding patterns. What do you think about the d's in the plural stems of the h-initials, Randy? From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Sun Apr 11 11:41:25 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:41:25 -0500 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > The most common Crow greeting is sho'ota 'how is it, how goes it' which > contains the Crow equivalent of a wh-word. An older greeting (still heard > occasionally) is kahe'e. Anyone seen anything like this? > > Randy > I'm told by the male Ponca elder that I work with that men say "ahau!" as a greeting and that the women don't say anything! (The two female Ponca elders that I work with confirm this.) He says that, if I want to, I can say "hawe'" but that that's really Osage, the male counterpart being "huwe'," and he sometimes greets me with this as I come in the door. (Some Kaw women that I was talking with said that they say "hawe'" also, but, of course, that could also be borrowed from Osage, irrespective of the fact that there are no fluent Kaw speakers.) The Poncas don't seem to be big on greetings. I'm told that often a visitor will just be greeted with "dhathi'a" 'Did you (sg.) arrive?' or "dhathii'a" 'Did you (pl.) arrive?' By the way, I'll try to comment on the Catawba stuff whenever I have a chance to go back to reread my thesis and get in a "Catawba mindset." I would love to see Siebert's fieldnotes. I always intended to make a trip to meet him, but, unfortunately, he passed away before I had the opportunity. There's a lot that needs to be done and that could be done with analyzing the morphology, so I'm glad to see that it's under discussion. Kathy From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 11 20:23:58 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:23:58 -0600 Subject: How In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE wrote: > I'm told by the male Ponca elder that I work with that men say "ahau!" as > a greeting and that the women don't say anything! (The two female Ponca > elders that I work with confirm this.) ... > ... The Poncas don't seem to be big on > greetings. I'm told that often a visitor will just be greeted with > "dhathi'a" 'Did you (sg.) arrive?' or "dhathii'a" 'Did you (pl.) arrive?' This is mirrored by information on saying goodbye in Omaha. I was told that men can just leave, perhaps saying "Agdhe hau!" 'I'm going home' (using whatever motion verb is appropriate, presumably). I asked what women would say and the folks I was consulting looked taken aback and then ventured that they wouldn't say anything. On the other hand, some lessons I've seen gave the two greetings I listed earlier. These might be on the analogy of English usage, calqued or otherwise made up to supply English-imposed categories, but I had the impression that they had at least some currency outside the lessons, so that the categories seem to exist outside the context of the lessons. To some extent differing descriptions of practice might be due to differing contexts, e.g., formal vs. casual, but, unfortunately, I have insufficient exposure to Omaha culture to be sure whether this is the case, which is one reason I'm hoping we'll hear more from Kathy, with her greater experience in such things. And you other students of Omaha-Ponca should feel free to jump in, too! :-) From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Apr 11 22:53:40 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:53:40 -0500 Subject: How In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > ... The Poncas don't seem to be big on greetings. I'm told that often a > visitor will just be greeted with "dhathi'a" 'Did you (sg.) arrive?' or > "dhathii'a" 'Did you (pl.) arrive?' The Kaws have similar expressions that Mrs. Rowe used. There is an older tradition for asking how a person is doing, for men at least, among both the Kaws and the Osages. It is much more elaborate. I won't go through the whole thing here, but it involves the terms "da~he'" (Kaw) and "ta~he'" (Osage) followed by a classificatory verb ('sitting, standing, lying, moving') in the 2nd person. So, for example, in Kaw you might say "da~he yayi~$e" 'how are you doing?' (literally 'how are you moving?'). Same for sitting, etc. And with analogous expressions in Osage. There's a long list. None of the Kaws or Osages I've talked to about it identify "da~he" as anything special, but if you look it up in La Flesche's 1932 Osage Dictionary (under "donhe" with raised "n"), you find that the concept was a somewhat complicated social one involving social status, personal honor, etc. The interesting part is that this could suggest that the Kaws and Osages were a part of some more complex and stratified social order at an earlier time (there's been much speculation among anthropologists about possible "Mississippian" affiliations of Dhegiha tribes). On the other hand, there may be Omaha/Ponca analogs of da~he that I don't know about. The form of the word if it exists should be [da~he'] or [do~he'], where ' represents accent. Bob From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sun Apr 11 23:48:23 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:48:23 EDT Subject: Jim McCawley Message-ID: I received a sad message this morning from Salikoko Mufwene, chair of the linguistics dept. at Chicago: "The police called me around 11:00 PM to report that they had found Jim McCawley lying on the ground at Ellis Ave. about 58th St. around 9:00 PM. He had apparently suffered a heart attack. They tried to revive him but the efforts were unsuccessful. He passed away." Randy From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 12 05:48:46 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:48:46 -0600 Subject: Enjoyment Verbs Message-ID: I think Bob pointed out, maybe only to me, that Caroline Quintero's Osage Grammar (UMI 9737573) has a section on doubly stative verbs (p. 158). This mentions the verbs i'_braN 'to have/get enough; be sated with', _o'xta 'to cherish'. The relevant examples are wawe'braN=pe 'we're tired of them', with two wa- prefixes (one 'them' and one 'us'), and aN'dhioxta 'you love me'. With the latter, interestingly, the 'I-you' form uses the transitive portmanteau wi, cf. wi'oxta 'I love you'. However, I've noticed this evening that she also has a section on Verbs of Enjoyment' (p. 268), listing kidhaliN 'to like, love to do something', kihoN'oN 'to really love to do something, to be pleased', and ki'zo 'to have fun doing something'. These are inflected as experiencer verbs, in that the (dative) patient is the one that enjoys, while the thing enjoyed appears as a noun. Caroline specifies that this noun cannot take the animate subject articles akxa and apa and considers that it cannot therefore be a subject. Her example z^ani'e dhaache' aN'dhaliN candy to eat I enjoy it I enjoy eating candy is very similar to Omaha niN'niN giu'daN= att(a)s^aN tobacco she enjoys it very She likes smoking too much, she enjoys smoking too much From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 12 05:53:27 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:53:27 -0600 Subject: Jim McCawley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It's very sad to hear that we've lost Jim McCawley. On the CU list Maher Awad pointed out that it's all the more poignant Jim didn't make it to another May. I'd like to point out the McCawley memorial verb, which is found in Dhegiha and Winnebago-Chiwere, where the verbs 'to kill' are all derivatives of the form 'to cause to die'. It has not yet been definitively established that this was done to amuse Jim. From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Mon Apr 12 09:37:56 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:37:56 +0200 Subject: How In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Two comments. First, greetings don't seem to be important to many of the people I've talked to. In Wichita you can say either acs tisa:khir7i 'it's a good day' or 'e*:si:rasi:ci*is', literally 'how are you' -- but both are considered kind of awkward. Violet tells me her preferred greeting in Lakhota is "wahi" 'I have arrived'. If the other person sees you first, that person can say instead "yahi", 'you have arrived'. That seems to match some of the things some of the others of you have been saying (and of course takes us back to the motion verb discussion by another route....) David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Apr 12 15:39:09 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:39:09 -0500 Subject: Enjoyment Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I've noticed this evening that [Carolyn Quintero] has a section on Verbs > of Enjoyment' (p. 268), listing kidhaliN 'to like, love to do > something', kihoN'oN 'to really love to do something, to be pleased', > and ki'zo 'to have fun doing something'. These are inflected as > experiencer verbs, in that the (dative) patient is the one that enjoys, > while the thing enjoyed appears as a noun. Caroline specifies that this > noun cannot take the animate subject articles akxa and apa and considers > that it cannot therefore be a subject. The observations about subject (agent?) markers is interesting. We need to check more of these, for example, the body parts used with -nie 'to hurt, ache' (Dakotan yaza~). Are the body parts subjects? Can they be agents? Is there a difference in Dhegiha or other Siouan lgs? Carolyn's dhali~ has a Kaw cognate, yali~, which alone has the clear meaning 'good'. So her examples could mean "X is good for/to me." But that would imply that X is indeed a subject. This fascinating discrepancy between morphology, syntax and semantics (the not-uncommon problem of what to do with inanimate agents -- if that is what they are) badly needs to be explored. Omaha and Ponca may be the only Dhegiha languages in which it's any longer possible. Bob From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Mon Apr 12 19:48:05 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:48:05 -0500 Subject: How Message-ID: > Two comments. First, greetings don't seem to be important to many > of the people I've talked to. In Wichita you can say either acs > tisa:khir7i 'it's a good day' or 'e*:si:rasi:ci*is', literally 'how are > you' -- but both are considered kind of awkward. > Violet tells me her preferred greeting in Lakhota is "wahi" 'I > have arrived'. If the other person sees you first, that person can say > instead "yahi", 'you have arrived'. That seems to match some of the > things some of the others of you have been saying (and of course takes us > back to the motion verb discussion by another route....) > David A Winnebago informant years ago was at a loss to suggest any greetings beyond comments on the weather, and Mesquakie (= Fox) informants couldn't think of anything at all except "Where are you going?" which they said was obsolete as a greeting. But the Mesquakie language was still in daily use in their community at that time, so I could observe what actually happened. Remarks about the weather were regularly the first words spoken when Mesquakie speakers encountered one another outside their homes. On approaching a native-style house, whether wigwam or teepee, it seems to me that people make a point of conversing loudly enough that those inside will be made aware of someone coming. Sound passes easily through the walls of such dwellings. The people in the house then usually shout out something to those approaching; whether it's "Come on in!" or "Wait a minute!" or "Who's there?" or a joking reference to the visitors depends on the situation. No greetings are really needed here nor is there a place for them. A widespread Central Algonquian remark on departure is the word for 'already'. It may be followed by an independent 1st person pronoun. It is more an announcement that one is leaving than a goodbye, though some seem to feel that it's required at the end of a visit. The Dakota equivalent would be "wana", "wana miye", or "wana uNkiyepi", but I have never heard these words used in the same way in Dakota. People tell me "wana wahde-kte" 'I'll go home now' or "wana uNhdap-te" 'we'll go home now' could be so used but I haven't heard those either out in the real world. The usual response to the 'already' of departure is the local expression for 'all right', which could even be the word "hau" that started this discussion. Paul From jggoodtracks at juno.com Tue Apr 13 00:49:31 1999 From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:49:31 -0500 Subject: How Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:37:56 +0200 (MET DST) David Rood writes: > > Two comments. First, greetings don't seem to be important to >many >of the people I've talked to. In Wichita you can say either acs >tisa:khir7i 'it's a good day' or 'e*:si:rasi:ci*is', literally 'how >are >you' -- but both are considered kind of awkward. > Violet tells me her preferred greeting in Lakhota is "wahi" >'I have arrived'. If the other person sees you first, that person can >say instead "yahi", 'you have arrived'. That seems to match some of the >things some of the others of you have been saying (and of course takes >us back to the motion verb discussion by another route....) > David > >David S. Rood >Professor of LInguistics >Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft >Universitaet zu Koeln >D-50923 Koeln >email: rood at uni-koeln.de >email: rood at colorado.edu > > For whatever it's worth, I've heard the same "raji(wi)/ you've come (pl)" among the older generation Ioway-Otoes. Jimm From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Tue Apr 13 09:28:18 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:28:18 +0200 Subject: How In-Reply-To: <01J9Y6Y4JEYA90S7AM@BrandonU.CA> Message-ID: Thanks, Paul, for some very nice insights. David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Tue Apr 13 14:33:16 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:33:16 +0200 Subject: How In-Reply-To: <19990412.195608.-438757.3.jggoodtracks@juno.com> Message-ID: I was just looking up something else and came across these examples in Kimball's Koasati Grammar, p. 222. The sentence "we are here", he says is said by people arriving at someone's house. Sounds familiar, and a propos of Paul Voorhis's remarks, the context is one where joking is invited, since the morphophonemics makes this sentence homophonous with one that means "it is dead". Naturally, the response (without further attention to greetings, apparently) is "What's dead?" David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From mosind at yahoo.com Wed Apr 28 15:03:19 1999 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:03:19 -0700 Subject: (In)dependent body parts in Dakotan? Message-ID: Dear Siouanists: As is known, there are two sets of affixes for inalienable possession in nouns in Dakotan, one for relatives (mi-... 'my', ni-... 'your', uNki-... 'our', 0-...-ku 'his/her'), another for body parts (ma-/mi-... 'my', ni-... 'your', uN(k)-... 'our', 0-... 'his/her'). The criteria of the choice between ma- and mi- 1p. sg. prefixes for body parts are obscure. D.Rood & A.Taylor (Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan Language, 1996) point for Oglala speech: "...ma- is used for concrete visible possessions, mi- of intangibles: manag^i kiN ' my shadow', minag^i kiN 'my spirit'. Speakers from other Lakhota speaking groups differ as to their use of ma- and mi-". However, if we look through the "Elementary Bilingual Dictionary. English-Lakhota, Lakhota-English" (1976), we'll find the forms mihublo 'my shin' and milez^e 'my urine' as "intangibles", both mi- and ma- forms for c^haNte 'heart', nape 'hand', nasula 'brain', thag^e 'saliva' and ma- variant for many internal organs as "concrete visible possessions". So the opposition "visible vs. intangible" does not seem to work for all the cases. To sum up Riggs (1852, Dakota), Boas&Deloria (1941), Buechel (1939, 1970), and Rood&Taylor (1976) (all - Lakhota) we can subdivide the "mi-" words into 3 categories: 1. Any of the "ma-" body parts that "is personified or addressed" (B&D, p.129), e.g.: miuNze, lena awaNmic^iyaka yo! 'my buttocks! watch these for me!'; 2. Body parts "which exibit independent actions" (Riggs, p.11), "are conceived as particularly subject to willpower" (B&D, p.128) (labeled as ma-/mi- words by R&T, ma- words in Buechel's Grammar, mi-words in his Dictionary): i 'mouth', is^ta 'eye', nuN'g^e 'ear', nape 'my hand' (ma- Buechel), si (L.)/siha (D.) 'foot', c^he 'penis' (only B&D), t(h)ezi 'stomach' (only Riggs); 3. "Incorporeal constituents" (Buechel, p.101) which I would call metaphysical parts of man: a) "intangibles" (only 'soul' and 'heart' in R&T): nag^i 'soul', thaNc^haN 'body', c^hexpi 'flesh, the physical body as opposed to the spiritual', c^haNte 'heart' (ma-/mi- R&T); b) social/behavioral features: ite 'facial expression' (as opposed to maite 'my face'), itognake 'countenance', c^haz^e 'name', ox?aN 'actions, deeds', oie 'word(s)', ho 'voice', owe 'footprints'; b) excreta (haven't found examples in Riggs and B&D!): le'z^e 'urine', thag^e 'salive', phaxli 'nasal mucus'; What is the common features of these words? The oppositions controllable-uncontrollable, passive-active (ma- prefix for "passive" lungs and kidneys coincides with the stative 1sg affix!), even inanimate-animate perhaps work for groups 1-2 but are inapplicable to #3, esp. to excreta. Maybe independency, alienation , or changeability are the tests for 3b-c? I've been "making" excreta, deeds, words, and footprints all the time, they change, disappear, sort of alienate but never to the extent that I could say that they are not mine. We could arrange the prefixes relative to the speaker: ma- 'wholly mine'; mi- '(originally) mine but temporarily/progressively alienating, never possessed by anybody else'; ni- 'your', etc. To strengthen the idea of genuine belonging of footprints and excreta to a man I�ll post two citations: Levy-Bruhl L. (The Soul of the Primitive, 1966, 115): �First of all the primitive�s idea of individuality comprises, in addition to his own body, all that grows upon it, all that comes from it, its secretions and its excretions.. The hair and secretions, etc., of the individual are his very self, just as his feet or his hands, his heart of his head, are. They �belong� to him in the fullest sense of the word. Henceforce I shall speak of them as his �appertenances�. Powers W.K. (Sacred Language, 1986, 47): �..song is consciously or unconsciously conceived to be an extension of the human body rather than smth external to it�. (Although olowaN �song� seems not to prefix mi-, it is inalienably possessed in Hitatsa (Matthews, Hidatsa Syntax, 1966). The weakest point in the criterion of independency is perhaps the soul and the body, though, at least in Christian anthropology, these are regarded as the least controlled components of modern human beings :-) So I take liberty to apply to you with this small questionnaire: 1. Is this dichotomy for 1p sg. prefixes for body part possession peculiar to Dakotan or some other Siouan languages follow this trait? (As a can judge by Matthews' "Hidatsa Syntax", Hidatsa has common wii- (my), rii- (your) 0- (his) paradigm for both �kinship terms and certain articles of the clothing, song, dance, arrow�). 2. What morpheme underly the mi- form? Is it S1 ma- + -I- element present in Ithawa 'belong to, own', Itha- prefix for alienably possessed nouns, Iye 'to be the one', and is^ , adversary/emphatic personal pron.? If so, why I- is deleted in 3p sg in Dakotan? Why Dakota Accent Rule is applied AFTER the deletion, not before it (yielding the forms, stressed on the first syllable, mi�-, ni�-)? Is ithaNc^haN 'chief' a frozen i- form of thaNc^haN 'body'? 3. Are/were there inalienably possessed "essentially personal things such as tools, clothing, and pets" (R&T, 1996: "formerly, at least")? I found only quirky paradigms for 'bow' and 'arrow' in Riggs, 1852 (no trace in B, B&D, R&T): itazipa, 'bow' mit(h)inazipe, 'my bow' nit(h)inazipe, 'your bow' t(h)i'nazipe, 'his bow' (Teton thiN'tazipa, B&D) waNhiNkp(h)e, 'arrow' mit(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'my arrow' nit(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'your arrow' t(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'his arrow' (B&D: thiN�tazipa) Looks like �arrow� once had i-/mi- pattern, superposed by itha- turning it into alienable property. Thank you for your attention! Connie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Wed Apr 28 16:29:50 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:29:50 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Here's something I got from Dan Jurafsky at the U of Colorado. > From: Ronald Sprouse > Subject: interlinearizing texts > Cc: johanna at uclink.berkeley.edu > > Fellow linguists, > > If you collect and interlinearize linguistic texts and might be > interested in doing that through a web browser (this is especially > useful if you are collaborating with a group), read on. > > As part of the Ingush project (P.I. Johanna Nichols) I have > written software for creating interlinear texts. It covers > most of the same basic functions as IT/Shoebox from SIL, including > semi-automatic glossing of texts. Unlike IT/Shoebox, however, it > is designed for group collaboration (e.g. field methods class > or your favorite language project). Once a group has set up the > interlinearizer on a central server (like socrates), all members > of the group can work on texts through any forms-capable web browser, > so you can collaborate from continents away, if you want. > Every gloss entered by any member of the group automatically becomes > part of the central dictionary used by all for automatic glossing. > Powerful search capabilities for dictionary lookup are also provided. > > As I see no benefit in hoarding this software, I am offering it > for use to anyone who wants it. I do this with the hope that... > > 1. you will find it useful. > 2. you will be inspired to make it better -- by returning to me > feedback, suggested improvements, bug reports, or even some > fixes/code/improved documentation of your own. > 3. you'll think of a good name -- my brain is stuck on > 'the interlinearizer', and I don't really like that. > > You can try it out at: > > http://socrates.berkeley.edu:7012/interlin.html > (Login as user 'guest', with password 'guest'.) > > Once there, click on '[HELP]' for assistance in navigating the > interface and a more detailed description of features. (A few > features aren't yet documented.) Feel free to create and/or edit > as many files as you want. You won't harm any of the Ingush project > files. > > Contact me if you are interested in using the interlinearizer > in your own research, and I'll provide more details. > > ronald > > > -------------------------- > Ronald Sprouse > Dept. of Linguistics > UC Berkeley > ronald at uclink.berkeley.edu > > From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Wed Apr 28 17:25:49 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:25:49 -0500 Subject: (In)dependent body parts in Dakotan? In-Reply-To: <19990428150319.8120.rocketmail@web125.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: This is a nice coincidence. I have an M.A. student, Dan Kelty, who is defending a thesis entitled "The Inalienability Opposition in the Siouan Languages" tomorrow afternoon. He discusses these phenomena in Dakotan and more. I noticed a couple of years ago that a number of Siouan languages split their inalienably possessed nouns in the 1st sing. into a group with a reflex of ma- and a group with a reflex of mi- (Crow ba-/bi-, Mandan ma-/mi-, etc.). The interesting thing is that there does NOT seem to be any semantic congruity from language to language in the groups of nouns that take one over the other prefix. And if there were a semantic split in the 1st person, why not in the 2nd person? So I think the alleged semantic division in Dakotan into body parts over which you can exercise will power, substantive vs. ephemeral, etc., etc. is the result largely of (a) accident and (b) later on folk taxonomy. People perceived an (inexact) match between prefixes and semantic classes and as a result, furthered the taxonomy by shuffling body parts from one class to the other, or, sometimes, creating doublets (shadow/spirit) The development of the two prefixes in the 1st person may be due to a number of factors originally. In Crow and some other languages, for example, it appears to be partly phonological. If the older prefix was mi-, the /i/ was lost if the noun began with /a/, so bi- > ba- (or vice versa if a noun begins with /i-/). Randy's grammar has lots of examples. As for the original, proto-Siouan prefix, there is room for speculation both ways. The vowel may have been i- in all three persons, and ma- may have developed on analogy with wa- '1sg actor'. Or the prefix may have been ma- with the i of the 3rd person replacing the /a/ via phonotactic rules. I once made the assumption that the prefixes were, roughly, mi-, yi-, i-. But I'm no longer so sure, thanks to Kelty's digging. Bob From mosind at yahoo.com Thu Apr 1 13:02:10 1999 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 05:02:10 -0800 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. Message-ID: --- "Robert L. Rankin" wrote: > I wonder if those few other archaic verbs do the same > thing. Either hi > 'arrive' or ?u 'come'(or both) has a 1st sg. in p-, > which, if > reduplicated, should produce *phVphV. Buechel (1980) mentions archaic paradigm for ?u: phu = wa?u (p.449) sku = ya?u [BigHead] (p.465). I didn't find any reduplicated forms of ?u in the Dictionary. Perhaps outdated forms for hiyu (hibu, hilu, uNhiyu) also match this pattern. Connie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Thu Apr 1 16:17:30 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:17:30 -0600 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: <19990401130210.10440.rocketmail@web125.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: > Buechel (1980) mentions archaic paradigm for ?u: > phu = wa?u (p.449) > sku = ya?u [BigHead] (p.465). This is a mixed conjugation in which two different verb roots (at least) have been incorporated in what amounts to a suppletive conjugation. One of the verbs is {?u}/{hu}, the other is {ku}, which is quite distinct. This verb behaves like what I normally call an H-stem. The archaic, probably proto-Siouan, conjugation for them was: 1sg *w-hu > phu 2sg *y-hu > s^u (the h is lost after s^ in all these verbs) Some of these are better preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. The set of H-stems includes ?*u/hu 'come', *hi 'arrive', *-he 'say', *he 'be' and perhaps a few others. Note that it is not uncommon for these verbs to be lacking an inflectional prefix in one or more persons in some languages. With so few members, the prefixes in this subclass are probably just not recognized as signaling person and case by most speakers. Thus the full reduplication of 'say' mentioned earlier. I couldn't find any reduplicated forms either. If they turn up they might be of several shapes. Perhaps phuphu, phuhu, huhu, phu?u or something else. Dakotan has lost or reduced most of the proto-Siouan irregular, conjugations. Thanks for checking. If all of us keep after these things, there's no telling what we may find. Bob From cqcq at compuserve.com Thu Apr 1 23:22:12 1999 From: cqcq at compuserve.com (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:22:12 -0500 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. Message-ID: I'll look for reduplicated forms in Osage, but I don't recall any from earlier data. Ps^u, I'm coming; ps^i, I arrive there, yes. What's the meaning of hiyu which Connie mentions? I'll look for its cognate, too. Carolyn Quintero From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Fri Apr 2 15:00:14 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:00:14 +0200 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: <199904011822_MC2-704C-77FE@compuserve.com> Message-ID: Somewhere (perhaps in the grammar rather than in the dictionary) I think Buechel gives the conjugation form wahibu for first person of hiyu 'to start coming'. I can't find a copy of the grammar in the library here in Koeln and I didn't bring mine with me (the local library copy anonymously disappears periodically, then reappears -- but now it's gone). I don't remember what he says about the second person form. I almost think I remember a "bu" form for ?u, too -- but definitely NOT "phu". Can someone with ready access to the Buechel grammar verify this? If I remember right, what is there about the history of "u" vs. "eya" that would make the "b"/"ph" difference? (Note that it's NOT "?u", but "u" for 'come' -- the dual is uNku, not *unk?u.) At the risk of telling everyone things you already know, I should probably remind you that ku is the suus form of u 'come'; hi is 'to arrive coming', i is 'to arrive going'; their suus forms are gli and khi, respectively. So hiyu is 'to start coming', suus glic^u, (gli + ku) just as iyaya is 'to start going' (suus khigla). Note, too that there are quite a few cases where a compound verb is conjugated on both parts -- iyaNka 'to run" (wa?imnake), hiyotaka 'to come and sit down' (wahiblotake), etc. (again, I'm using my memory --these should be checked against some more reliable source), and what is probably etymologically a reduplicated form, iyaya 'to start going', iblable, ilale, double inflects but only on the two halves of the reduplication, not on the first verb in the compound. I have just returned to Koeln after 3 days teaching Lakhota in Denmark -- a very nice experience. Classes start here again next Tuesday (today and Monday are Easter holidays) and run to July 2. David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Fri Apr 2 15:47:40 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:47:40 -0700 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: <199904011822_MC2-704C-77FE@compuserve.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > What's the meaning of hiyu which Connie mentions? I believe it should be, morpheme for morpheme, thi(h)i in OP: 'arriving here to set out thither', but I'm not positive with this form, for several reasons, and I'm not in a position at the moment to check. I suppose, then, that Osage would be something like chihu? I'm not aware of forms like this being reduplicated in OP unless the second element is a positional, in which case it isn't inflected. Such forms are used as aorist/inceptive auxiliaries. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Fri Apr 2 17:13:07 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:13:07 -0600 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > > What's the meaning of hiyu which Connie mentions? > I believe it should be, morpheme for morpheme, thi(h)i in OP: 'arriving > here to set out thither',... Osage would be something like chihu? I was never able to elicit a cognate for that particular compound motion verb in Kaw (Kansa). They have chili 'come back suddenly' and chiye 'arrive suddenly', but no *chihu". The paper to read on the Siouan motion verbs and their compounds is Allan Taylor's article in IJAL back around 1974 or 75 or so. It covers the territory very well. Allan sent out questionnaires to everyone engaged in field work at the time, so his data are quite accurate. I would think that few if any emmendations are necessary to his work. The conjugation of these verbs is particularly interesting since (like verbs of motion in many languages) they show interesting and archaic irregularities. I can't remember if Allan reconstructed person-number paradigms for each of the verbs or not, but that would be a next logical step. You have to compare several Mississippi Valley Siouan languages to piece together the paradigms. Even then, there may be holes. Dakotan massively replaces the old p- and s^- allomorphs of 1st and 2nd person prefixes with the productive wa- and ya- respectively. As for the conjugation of {hiyu} 'to come forth', David's right on the money. Buechel (p. 83) gives several alternative forms. The conservative conjugation is: 1sg hi-b-u 2sg hi-l-u 3sg hi(y)u (where -y- is just an epenthetic glide) 1du u~-hi(y)u There are alternative forms wa-hi-b-u, ya-hi-l-u, etc. Then the "modern form of this verb is:" wa-hiyu, etc., i.e., fully analogized into the "regular" patterns and utterly useless to historical linguists! :) The -b- allomorph of the 1st person is precisely what we would expect from a glottal-initial (or a vowel-initial) root. When the vowel is nasalized we expect -m- in the 1st person, when the vowel is oral, it should be /b/. It's important to note that, although it bears a very low functional load in Dakotan, /b/ is not only phonemic but actually has a clear and distinct etymological source apart from /p/ and /m/. {?o} 'to shoot' is another such verb. Historically it should have had the conjugation /b-o, l-o, ?o, u~k-?o/, but it probably doesn't. I'd guess probably wa?o, ya?o or something like that. Your analogical dollars at work.... Bob From mosind at yahoo.com Sat Apr 3 09:41:12 1999 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 01:41:12 -0800 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan + apologies. Message-ID: --- Constantine Xmelnitski wrote: > Buechel (1980) mentions archaic paradigm for ?u: > phu = wa?u (p.449) > sku = ya?u [BigHead] (p.465). With apologies, archaic A2 sing. was actually s^ku. For Carolyn Quintero: To memorize the 14 Dakotan locomotive verbs I used a following figure: THERE ----- glic^u' i' V ^ ku' yA' V ^ gli' iya'yA HOME ---> hiya'yA ---- <--- gliglA' hiyu' khi V ^ u' glA V ^ hi' khiglA HERE ---- Where HOME is (as in Taylor's article) 'home or previous location'; hiyayA and gliglA - verbs of movement past the speaker; each direction (here/there, home/not home) has three verbs of start/process/arrival (e.g. iyayA-yA-i). You should use a proportional font to view the figure properly (like Courier) Connie _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Sat Apr 3 14:57:59 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:57:59 +0200 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan + apologies. In-Reply-To: <19990403094112.3277.rocketmail@web108.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: Connie is quoting Buechel with complete accuracy, but I think Buechel is wrong about this. These forms should, given the sentence examples, be vertative ("home") forms -- a man is greeting and seeking information from someone he hasn't seen in a long time and who has been away. So the correct substitutions are waku and yaku, not wa?u and ya?u. I'm pretty positive that's true for s^ku, because the vertative is the only possible source I can imagine for the "k" in the Buechel form. But now I wonder about the other one, and the fact that Bob tells me I'm right about Buechel's grammar having "bu" for "wa?u". Bob, I need a lesson in sound changes: you said "bu" is expected for a glottal or vowel initial verb, so what's expected for a k-initial verb -- maybe phu? Why not *pku? And how does this relate to the "say" paradigm, with ephe 'I say" and ehe 'you say'? And while you're on the subject of "b" in Dakotan, is there an etymology for "abeya" 'scattered, helter-skelter'? That "b" never bothered me until one of the really alert Danish students noticed it last week, to my embarrassment. There's always something new to learn, eh? David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Constantine Xmelnitski wrote: > --- Constantine Xmelnitski wrote: > > Buechel (1980) mentions archaic paradigm for ?u: > > phu = wa?u (p.449) > > sku = ya?u [BigHead] (p.465). > > With apologies, archaic A2 sing. was actually s^ku. > > For Carolyn Quintero: > To memorize the 14 Dakotan locomotive verbs I used > a following figure: > THERE > ----- > glic^u' i' > V ^ > ku' yA' > V ^ > gli' iya'yA > HOME ---> hiya'yA > ---- <--- gliglA' > hiyu' khi > V ^ > u' glA > V ^ > hi' khiglA > HERE > ---- > Where HOME is (as in Taylor's article) 'home or > previous location'; hiyayA and gliglA - verbs of > movement past the speaker; each direction (here/there, > home/not home) has three verbs of > start/process/arrival > (e.g. iyayA-yA-i). > You should use a proportional font to view the figure > properly (like Courier) > > Connie > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 3 16:24:28 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:24:28 -0600 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Connie is quoting Buechel with complete accuracy, but I think Buechel is > wrong about this. These forms should, given the sentence examples, be > vertative ("home") forms.... Yeah, or his linguistic informant providing archaic conjugations was mixed up. phu and $ku may come from different verbs -- it depends on what meaning was given. If the vertitive meaning was given for both phu and $ku, then the Dakotan conjugation patterns like the Dhegiha conjugation, with assimilation of the root-initial /k/ to the labial place of articulation of the 1st person *w. I can't speak first hand about the vertitive verb in this series in Dakotan, but in Dhegiha the conjugation runs Underlying 1sg *w-ku --> p-pu (Dakotan phu??) Underlying 2sg *y-ku --> $-ku (Dakotan $ku) The Dhegiha forms I give here are the attested Kansa forms. Omaha-Ponca and Quapaw unround the u (IPA [y]) to i. Otherwise it's the same. John's looked at the Dakotan and Chiwere-Winnebago conjugations in detail in his pronoun paper and may be able to clarify it for us > I wonder about the other one, and the fact that Bob tells me I'm right > about Buechel's grammar having "bu" for "wa?u". Bob, I need a lesson in > sound changes: you said "bu" is expected for a glottal or vowel initial > verb, so what's expected for a k-initial verb -- maybe phu? Why not > *pku? Right. *pku for pre-Dakotan is perfectly possible. Whether that goes on to become ph in Dakotan I don't know. Basically, /pk/ is an "unacceptable" cluster in Dakotan, isn't it? It may metathesize or something else.... > And how does this relate to the "say" paradigm, with ephe 'I say" and > ehe 'you say'? 'Say' is an "H-stem" and p-h should be the usual 1st person (Omaha and Quapaw have lost the p- but Ponca, Kansa preserve it here). The 2nd person should be *e-$-e, but as I said a day or so ago, sometimes persons go missing in various languages and you have to compare 'em all to see the picture. > And while you're on the subject of "b" in Dakotan, is there an etymology > for "abeya" 'scattered, helter-skelter'? That "b" never bothered me > until one of the really alert Danish students noticed it last week, to > my embarrassment. There's always something new to learn, eh? Always. I can't think of any cognates for your Dakota "scattered" term. They should be looked for. As I mentioned, /b/ really has its own distinct history in Dakota and can't always be related to /p/. Historically most of them seem to be "strengthened" */w/s. (I have a theory that even the b's that are derived from p's as in sabya 'to blacken' or sabsapa 'black.redup.' go by way of a labial resonant, w or m, in parallel with t>l in the same constructions. But I digress.) This is fun. I had at first assumed that Buechel had just gotten parts of two different verbs, hu (?u) 'come' and ku 'come.vert', but now I'm not so sure. There's still a lot I don't understand about the details of Dakotan sound changes, esp. in these paradigms. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 3 16:34:49 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:34:49 -0600 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Underlying 1sg *w-ku --> p-pu (Dakotan phu??) > Underlying 2sg *y-ku --> $-ku (Dakotan $ku) it just occurred to me that you guys living in Europe may be using fonts or terminals that are not displaying my dollar signs correctly. I was using the dollar sign, $, for [s^] as in "SHip". If this causes display problems, lemme know and I'll shift back to s^. Bob From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 08:00:09 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:00:09 -0700 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > ... If the vertitive meaning was given for both phu and > $ku, then the Dakotan conjugation patterns like the Dhegiha conjugation, > with assimilation of the root-initial /k/ to the labial place of > articulation of the 1st person *w. I can't speak first hand about the > vertitive verb in this series in Dakotan, but in Dhegiha the conjugation > runs > > Underlying 1sg *w-ku --> p-pu (Dakotan phu??) > Underlying 2sg *y-ku --> s^-ku (Dakotan $ku) > > The Dhegiha forms I give here are the attested Kansa forms. Omaha-Ponca > and Quapaw unround the u (IPA [y]) to i. Otherwise it's the same. Precisely. > John's looked at the Dakotan and Chiwere-Winnebago conjugations in detail > in his pronoun paper and may be able to clarify it for us Actually, I would like to modestly remind those interested in this issue that I wrang two pages out of these forms in: Koontz, John E. 1985. A syncopating conjugation *k-stem in Lakota. IJAL 51.4: 483-4. They had been drawn to my attention by Allan Taylor, and I had noticed, as Bob has here, that given the behavior of Proto-Mississippi Valley preaspirated stops they fitted the pattern of the Dhegiha vertitive gi' 'to return hither' (here in OP form), presumably Proto-Dhegiha *ku. It is possible, of course, that the paradigm offered is mixed, but from the context I doubt it. In the paper I suggest that the first persons of this Dakotan form and the Dhegiha form might have been reformulated by analogy with the *p-stems, but this doesn't seem all that likely. I guess that sort of analogy would be more likely to occur to an apprentice linguist than a speaker! I imagine that something about the history of *w-k is relevant instead, though it's always interesting that this produces *hk in *kaN= cf. OP gaN=dha 'to want', but *hp in other *k-stems, like *kaghe 'to make (marks)', *ku 'to return hither', *kaN=yiNka 'be unskillfull', *kare 'to donate'. I'm not sure that the ?*wke 'turtle' form is relevant, but this is an area where the inner circle of the Comparative Siouan Dictionary might have opinions (possibly differing!). Assuming Mandan pke matches Da kheya and OP kke, it looks like *pku should yield ?khu regularly in Da, presumably via *hku, like other hypothetical preaspirates that yield aspirates in Da and IO and preaspirates or tense stops throughout Dh and voiceless stops in Wi (Ho). Anyway, in the paper I suggest that *hp for expected *hk in the A1 form of *k-stem paradigms might be an innovation shared by Da and Dh. Gee, I wish there were a few more proper *k-stems in Da, though, and that all the shared innovations didn't require one to flip a coin to decide whether one believes them to be shared or independent. I have to admit that the coins I flip usually come up heads. Note that I'm not distinguishing at all carefully among *wVC, *wC, *pC and *hC, in this respect following what I think is the current trend, in contrast with the approach of G.H. Matthews. JEK From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 08:12:50 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:12:50 -0700 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > As for the conjugation of {hiyu} 'to come forth', David's right on the > money. Buechel (p. 83) gives several alternative forms. The conservative > conjugation is: > > 1sg hi-b-u > 2sg hi-l-u > 3sg hi(y)u (where -y- is just an epenthetic glide) > 1du u~-hi(y)u > > There are alternative forms wa-hi-b-u, ya-hi-l-u, etc. > > Then the "modern form of this verb is:" > > wa-hiyu, etc., i.e., fully analogized into the "regular" patterns and > utterly useless to historical linguists! :) Given the usual pattern of serial motion verbs in Dhegiha, I'm inclined to wonder if the middle variant (cf. wa-hi-b-lu) isn't the most conservative, i.e., inflect both stems, except with the inclusive a/k/a dual, which precedes all (once). Just a suggestion! > The -b- allomorph of the 1st person is precisely what we would expect from > a glottal-initial (or a vowel-initial) root. When the vowel is nasalized > we expect -m- in the 1st person, when the vowel is oral, it should be /b/. It might be worth pointing out that these stems are fairly rare and mostly nasal. Oral ones like this are extremely rare, and the speakers who use them probably ought to consider charging extra for them. > It's important to note that, although it bears a very low functional load > in Dakotan, /b/ is not only phonemic but actually has a clear and distinct > etymological source apart from /p/ and /m/. I think b here qualifies as a Da reflex of *W a/k/a "funny *w." Although I expect the b in Santee and m or even w in Teton. > {?o} 'to shoot' is another such verb. Historically it should have had the > conjugation /b-o, l-o, ?o, u~k-?o/, but it probably doesn't. I'd guess > probably wa?o, ya?o or something like that. Your analogical dollars at > work.... Buechel's dictionary gives wa[?]o, unk?o=pi. I think that 'to shoot' and u in hiyu are the only known oral ?-stems (or V-stems), the former in Winnebago (Hochank) and the latter in Dakotan. JEK From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 09:21:09 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 03:21:09 -0600 Subject: Serial Motion Verns (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Koontz John E wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > > What's the meaning of hiyu which Connie mentions? > > I believe it should be, morpheme for morpheme, thi(h)i in OP: 'arriving > here to set out thither', but I'm not positive with this form, for several > reasons, ... Mainly that it looks hard to achieve in OP and I certainly don't remember anything like it. Bob says in a post that he never got anything like that and Dorsey doesn't have it. In fact, it's something that occurs in Da, but not in Dh, presumably. The Osage do try hard to be different. Taylor (1976) on motion verbs notes in Da that the arriving motion and motion under way stems compound to form departing motion stems (here) hiyu < hi + u, and (there) iyaya < i + ya (with unexplained, but delightful reduplication). There is also a stem that combines the arriving here form with the motion under way there stem to produce hiyaya (more unexplained reduplication). This form is glossed 'tp pass by going'. There are corresponding vertitives glic^u < gli + ku, khigla < khi + gla, and gligla < gli + gla (no reduplication, though the possibilities cause a slight shiver to run down my back). For Dhegiha he reports only the 'there' serials: *hidha < *hi + *dha and *khikdha < *khi + *kdha. These are glossed 'to have gone' and 'to pass by going homeward'. The attestation is somewhat spotty across the branch, though this is entirely due to the difficulty of getting Dhegiha data. So, under the circumstances I thought I'd venture to summarize what I know about OP serial motion verbs, some of it freshly learned today. By way of pour parlers, the sense 'pass' is usually rendered in Dorsey 1890/1 with the preceding coverbs i'he 'to pass (by)', a'he 'to pass over', and uhe' 'to pass toward'. This is followed by an inflected verb of motion, but is not inflected itself. I think it refers to pass in the sense of following a trail, and that these are all related to the verb uhe' 'to follow a route', which also has a derivative udhuhe 'to follow a route by some means (e.g., tracks, the sight of the animal, etc.)'. The udhu- here corresponds to Da iyo- and Wi hiro- ~ roo-. Sometimes -he forms seem to be inflected, e.g. idha'he 'you pass in (by the smokehole)' and udha'he 'you passed along'. However, the first of these may be an idha- locative (cf. Da iya-) and the second is just an inflected form of uhe'. Proceding now to serials proper, i.e., those that Dorsey writes as a single word, the there-compounds a la Dakotan, as mentioned by Taylor, do exist. In OP they are *hidhe and khigdhe. I have to star the first because what one does find is the a-prefixed proximate form a'ia'dha=i, in which the h is missing by the usual process of deletion of h in the context V'hV, cf. maNa' 'bank', or s^aaN', or ppai' ~ ppe' 'sharp'. The only inflected form I know for this is the inclusive aNga'iadha=i. This stem is usually glossed by Dorsey as 'to have gone'. The vertitive is glossed 'to have gone home/again/by'. Providing a hint at the origin of the Dakotan reduplicated forms, there is a'ia'dhadha 'to have gone repeatedly'. The here-compounds seem to be missing: no trace of *thii or *gdhigi. The cross-compounds here-arriving x there-in motion are represented by thidhe. I haven't found the vertitive *gdhidha. The non-vertitive is glossed similarly to the Dakotan form as 'to pass on/by', cf., a common example thigdha=ga 'pass on! (male speaking)'. Interestingly enough, there is an additional pattern of cross series compound, involving combining the here and there motion under way verbs. These yield: idhe < i + dhe and gigdhe < gi + gdhe. These are glossed 'to have gone' and 'to go and pass' (perhaps better, 'to come and pass homeward/again/by'. The first is inflected ibdhe, ihne (is^ne), idha=i, ??? (inclusive unknown). Dorsey also lists: gdhigdhiN, gdhi naNz^iN, higdhiN, hi naNz^iN, khigdhiN, khi naNz^iN, respectively various motions and sit or stand. This looks like only some of the possible forms. Motion verbs have datives, cf. agi'thidha 'to pass on for one'. The grammar (p. 70) suggests also agihi 'he comes [arrives there] for it', agigi, etc., but inflects these appiphi, as^kis^i, agihi, aNgagiaNgahi, which has two problems. First, the double inclusive is unprecedented, and second, the texts give iNhi 'he has gone for me', which follows the expected dative paradigm. I would interpolate ?iNhi, dhihi, agihi, ???. The paradigm Dorsey gives in his grammar looks wrong. I suspect he guessed, as he seems sometimes to do in the grammar. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 10:09:48 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 04:09:48 -0600 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > This is fun. I had at first assumed that Buechel had just gotten parts of > two different verbs, hu (?u) 'come' and ku 'come.vert', but now I'm not so > sure. There's still a lot I don't understand about the details of Dakotan > sound changes, esp. in these paradigms. There are a couple of little things that make me wonder if the stem for 'to come' (or 'to be en route hither') might not be PS *u (or *?u) instead of *hu. - Dakota inflects it as bu, lu, (y)u in that hi=yu compound. - All MV languages have a vertitive form in *k, not *kh, cf., OP gi, Da ku, Wi guu. Of course Wi guu could be from *khuu or *kuu, but then it wouldn't inflect as a *k-stem, which it does. - OP seems to have i, not hi. The proximate is ai, which could represent loss of h between vowels, and the first and second persons phi and s^i certainly have hi, but the stem is just i. I'm not sure of the inclusive. From BARudes at aol.com Sun Apr 4 14:49:36 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:49:36 EDT Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) Message-ID: In response to John's comment on the form of the verb 'come' in PS, to the extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., Siebert 1945, which contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' (where h- is the 3rd singular marker), etc. Blair From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 4 18:36:37 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 12:36:37 -0600 Subject: Archiving Siouan Languages List Message-ID: Some of you may remember that I made an abortive attempt to have the have the Siouan list archived by the listserve at the University of Colorado. This worked for a few weeks, until the authorities noticed that I had turned on archiving. Apparently they don't really have the space to accomodate this and we started to fill up what there was. Recently - well ages ago, but I move slowly - I noticed that the Linguist List organization offers to archive linguistically-oriented lists at their site. I have availed us of that opportunity and you can now find the list archived at: http://linguistlist.org/list-archives.html under the heading of Siouan. Recent posts are already there and the backlog has been formatted and submitted. Note that there is a subscription link which still forwards through our approval process. It's something you can refer colleagues to. http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-siouan.html Here are a few comments from Anthony Aristar that I'd like to read into the record: "Please note that the mirroring procedure we use depends crucially on the e-mail addresses which we've taken from the mail-header of the message you sent us. So tell us when any of these are about to change, or the mirroring will fail. If you decide to moderate your list, for example, the address of originating messages will almost certainly change. So please do tell us *before* you do this, so we can make the necessary changes." "Please note that the Listserv will correctly store messages with MIME attachments. However, such messages will appear as gibberish on the Web, since the listserv does not decode them." "Welcome to the LINGUIST archive! Anthony" Thanks! JEK From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Apr 5 01:46:15 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 20:46:15 -0500 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: <9ff4ccfe.2438d600@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba > is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., Siebert 1945, which > contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I > come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' (where h- is the 3rd singular > marker), etc. That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several languages treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. And there are also interesting correspondences between syllable-initial and syllable-final glottalization across Siouan. If the Catawban 3rd person can definitively be shown to have been h- and Siebert proved wrong on this, we would have a good analogical model to explain the Siouan reflexes. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Mon Apr 5 13:12:39 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:12:39 EDT Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) Message-ID: The crucial evidence that the verb 'come' is uu?- in Catawba is the fact that the third person plural, for some speakers, is iruu?- where i- is the third plural marker and the r is epenthetic. If the stem began with h-, one would expect the third plural to be huu?- just like the third singular. As for h- 3rd person (usually singular), this is the regular reflex of hi- 'third singular' with mutating verbs in Catawba. Blair From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Mon Apr 5 15:01:59 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:01:59 -0600 Subject: Catawba 'go' & 'come' Message-ID: For what it's worth, I examined Frank Speck's Catawba texts more closely to see whether the many verbs of going and coming there could be matched to the typical Siouan semantic divisions. Perhaps the following have some small measure of validity. At least they seem to fit their contexts some of the time. This presentation supersedes previous speculations I have made about the meanings of these verbs, and no doubt this will be superseded in turn. (Phonemics are mostly a guess. Verbs are cited with the 3rd sg prefix if any.) da:' 'to be going', Dakota 'ya/e' hu:' 'to be coming', Dakota 'u' ku: 'to leave (going)', Dakota 'iyaya/e' ku:wa: 'to leave (coming)', Dakota 'hiyu' mara: 'to arrive (going)', Dakota 'i' hau 'to arrive (coming), Dakota 'hi' ku:ra -- possibly 'to go and return' ha:ra -- could this be 'to come and then depart' ? kuci 'to leave (ascending)' mahu:ci 'to arrive (ascending)' It has been suggested that da:' and hu:' not only translate Dakota ya/e and u respectively but are also cognate with them. Otherwise note that ku:wa: appears to contain ku: and mara: apparently derives from da:' with a prefix, or compounded with, ma. Maybe there was just ku: 'to leave' and hau 'to arrive' originally and they have been differentiated for going and coming with -wa: and ma more recently. mahu:ci may contain ma plus kuci too. Both the d~r and the k~h alternations occur elsewhere in Catawba. ku:ra may be a compound of ku: with da:' and ha:ra might come from hu:' and da:'. To what extent the apparent changes in phonemes in some of these complex stems is real or just an artifact of poor transcription remains uncertain for now. ' ... home, ... back' is expressed by duk ..., Dakota 'k-' (sometimes appearing as hd-). Verbs of going and coming are converted into verbs of conveying and bringing by prefixing du-, Dakota 'a-'. Just my 2 cents Canadian (= about 1.33 cents US). Paul From STRECHTER at csuchico.edu Mon Apr 5 16:20:09 1999 From: STRECHTER at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:20:09 -0700 Subject: archive Message-ID: Thanks for setting up the archive with linguist list, John. No more saving every message for me. Sara T. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 5 17:54:00 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:54:00 -0600 Subject: Stem 'to come' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba > > is -uu?-, not -huu?- ... > > That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a > verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several languages > treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. One possible explanation for *u ~ *hu in the verb 'to come' is analogy with *hi 'arrive there', but, given Blair's observations, I wonder if it couldn't be that there were competing inflectional systems, one based on the root proper (*u), and one based on an old third person in hi (*hu). I'm not sure to what extent such a third person can be hypothesized, but I do tend to assume that Catawba hi is connected with Siouan *i, even though evidence of *i in verb paradigms is somewhat sparse. One other verb with a clear h in the first and second persons and waffling in the third is 'to say'. We tend to assume that the h is removed by some process when it is missing in the third person, but we might want to look at this more closely. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 5 17:56:39 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:56:39 -0600 Subject: archive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Thanks for setting up the archive with linguist list, John. No more saving > every message for me. You're welcome! I think I'll keep it up for a while myself, but I tend to think that the Linguist List is at this point a more stable part of the linguistic community than me or the Siouan List! From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 5 23:32:22 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 17:32:22 -0600 Subject: Josephine White Eagle Winnebago Dictionary Message-ID: I believe that the Josephine White Eagle Winnebago dictionary (exact citation unknown) used to be available from MIT as a working papers publication. It doesn't seem to be any more. Does anyone know anything about where and how it might be available? From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Tue Apr 6 07:34:29 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:34:29 +0200 Subject: vowel initial stems are not glottal initial in Lak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Bob, John, et al, Naturally it would behoove me to do some homework before plunging into this, since I haven't memorized even the regular sound laws for Dakotan or Siouan yet, but I jump in recklessly anyway. I need to point out, in the light of the 'come' discussion with Blair et al., that there is a CONTRAST synchronically in Lakhota between vowel-initial and glottal-initial stems. It shows up in the dual forms by contrasting uNkV with uNk?V. (By the way, dollar signs appear just fine on this computer.) I haven't memorized all the right examples, but 'come' is definitely vowel-initial (uNku pi), whereas 'use' and 'be' are both glottal initial (uNk?uN pi). "i" 'to arrive going' is vowel initial, I think, and I'm not sure about 'shoot' or 'wear around the shoulders' (stems "o" and "iN", respectively). Buechel gives "uNk?o" for shoot, and that sounds right, but I can't check "iN" since it occurs in Buechel only in compounds (and I can't think of an example to look up right now). So it seems to me that your alleged parallel between 'come' and 'shoot' might be wrong -- it's not analogy that keeps 'shoot' from having *bo as the first person, but whatever the ancestor of that glottal stop is. 'to think', echiN, conjugates echami, echani, but uNkechiN pi, unfortunately -- and I'm not sure this "iN" is the same as the shawl verb anyway. It is perhaps significant, however, that it's echiN and not *ec?iN. David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > > > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba > > is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., Siebert 1945, which > > contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I > > come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' (where h- is the 3rd singular > > marker), etc. > > That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a > verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several languages > treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. And there are > also interesting correspondences between syllable-initial and > syllable-final glottalization across Siouan. If the Catawban 3rd person > can definitively be shown to have been h- and Siebert proved wrong on > this, we would have a good analogical model to explain the Siouan > reflexes. > > Bob > > From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Tue Apr 6 10:32:26 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:32:26 +0200 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't understand how the analogy would work. David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > > > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in Catawba > > is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., Siebert 1945, which > > contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I > > come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' (where h- is the 3rd singular > > marker), etc. > > That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a > verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several languages > treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. And there are > also interesting correspondences between syllable-initial and > syllable-final glottalization across Siouan. If the Catawban 3rd person > can definitively be shown to have been h- and Siebert proved wrong on > this, we would have a good analogical model to explain the Siouan > reflexes. > > Bob > > From BARudes at aol.com Tue Apr 6 13:00:19 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:00:19 EDT Subject: Catawba 'go' & 'come' Message-ID: For the record, the phonemic forms for some of the Catawba verbs Paul cited (i.e., those which I have found so far in Siebert's data) are as follows. da:?- ?to move on foot' (Siebert 1945: 103) (underlying |-ra:?-| with regular shift of |r| to /d/ when initial) (As Siebert [1945: 103] notes, the verb da:?- is to be distinguished from the inflectable instrumental prefix da:- ?by foot', although the two are almost certainly related historically) which is also used in compounds to form motion verbs.) hu:?- ?to arrive, come' (Siebert 1945: 102) (stem |-u:?-| with /h-/ as 3rd singular marker) (I have not yet encounterd ku:-, ku:wa in Siebert's notes, although they occur in Raven McDavid's and Bill Sturtevant's notes, whose transcriptions suggest /ku:?-/ and /ku:wa-/) mara:?- ?to arrive (going)' (a compound of ma- ?cislocative' and da:?- ?to move on foot' [see Siebert 1945: 102 -- mahu:?- ?to bring hither' with hu:?- ?to arrive, come') (I have not yet encountered hau, ku:ra, ha:ra, kuci, or mahu:ci in Siebert's notes. I agree with Paul that ku:ra- is probably a compound of ku:- and da:?- (thus, phonemic /ku:ra:?-); I am more skeptical about ha:ra being a compound of hu:?- and da:?-, since a change of /u:/ to /a(:)/ would be unprecedented; similarly, I am not convinced that mahu:ci contains kuci, since a /h/, /k/ alternation would be unusual; to me, mahu:ci looks more like a compound of ma- ?cislocative' + hu:?- ?arrive, come' plus an element -ci-, just as kuci looks like ku:- ?leave' plus the element -ci-.) duk- ?back, backwards' (Siebert, notes): dukh'u:re: (? = stress) ?he comes back, returns'. Catawba verbs of motion compound with a variety of adverbial preverbs indicating direction/location, some of which behave like prefixes and some like proclitics. Others include haap- 'up, towards the top', huk- 'below, down', and c^ik- 'forward, to the front'. The verb hau- is intriguing for it bears an uncanny resemblence to the widespread particle hao?, h'au? (Seneca and Tuscarora forms, respectively) which variously means o.k., already, hello, come on in, welcome in languages throughout the east and into the plains. It might be a predication of that particle. Paul's note on verbs of going and coming being converted into verbs of conveying and bringing by prefixing du- refers to the addition of the inflectable instrumental du- ?by hand' (Siebert 1945: 103). From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 6 15:27:11 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:27:11 -0600 Subject: vowel initial stems are not glottal initial in Lak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, David Rood wrote: > Naturally it would behoove me to do some homework before plunging > into this, since I haven't memorized even the regular sound laws for > Dakotan or Siouan yet, but I jump in recklessly anyway. I need to point > out, in the light of the 'come' discussion with Blair et al., that there > is a CONTRAST synchronically in Lakhota between vowel-initial and > glottal-initial stems. It shows up in the dual forms by contrasting uNkV > with uNk?V. Yes, this is true, of course, in Dakotan. I think Bob Rankin and I are phrasing things very carefully because there is some disagreement on the status of the ?-stop stems in Proto-Siouan. > I haven't memorized all the right examples, but 'come' is > definitely vowel-initial (uNku pi), whereas 'use' and 'be' are both > glottal initial (uNk?uN pi). "i" 'to arrive going' is vowel initial, I > think, and I'm not sure about 'shoot' or 'wear around the shoulders' > (stems "o" and "iN", respectively). Buechel gives "uNk?o" for shoot, and > that sounds right, ... The V-initial examples in Dakotan that are cited here are h-initial in Dhegiha and Winnebago-Chiwere, except to the extent that 'come' behaves in Dakotan and elsewhere as V-initial (?-initial). The original *h-initial verbs have reflexes of phV in the first person. They may be reformulated as synchronic V-initial in Dakotan where verb initial *h disappears ('say' is something of an exception). The Dakota h-stems are usually reinflected regularly as waV, 'say' being the exception. The original *?-initial stems are usually nasal and have first persons in mVN, though *u (?) 'come', which is oral, has bV in older Dakotan (wa)(hi)bu. I seem to recall that something reasonable occurs with ?o 'shoot' in Winnebago, but I forget what. I've suggested that *?-initial stems may actually be *V-initial, because there's no trace of ? except in the third persons (word initially) and in the Dakotan and Winnebago inclusives (as I remember it). The last I knew Bob really did think that these stems were *?-initial in Proto-Siouan, so I think that by referring to them as ?-stems or V-stems he's being polite as much as anything. In my analysis I pointed out that some Dakotan ?-stems seemed to have unglotalized inclusives, at least as variants. I believe the source was Boas & Deloria. I think that a lot of *?-stem paradigms are heavily contaminated by *r-stems, e.g., the Dakotan second persons in n. In Dhegiha the w-stems have *r-stem second persons and the first persons tend to have *r-stem alternatives. The w in the third persons (or so I argue) is epenthetic, all of these verbs have a rounded vowel preceding or following the pronominal slot. The standard example is 'to interrogate': imaNghe, i(s^)naNghe, iwaNghe. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 16:28:07 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:28:07 -0500 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Actually, I would like to modestly remind those interested in this issue > that I wrang two pages out of these forms in: > > Koontz, John E. 1985. A syncopating conjugation *k-stem in Lakota. > IJAL 51.4: 483-4. Sorry, John, ...just goes to show how my memory is doing these days! > I'm not sure that the ?*wke 'turtle' form is relevant, but... Assuming > Mandan pke matches Da kheya and OP kke, it looks like *pku should yield > ?khu regularly in Da, presumably via *hku, like other hypothetical > preaspirates that yield aspirates in Da and IO and preaspirates or tense > stops throughout Dh and voiceless stops in Wi (Ho). It's more than just hypothetical. Root mah- 'earth' with the noun formative -ka (i.e., mah-ka) gives Dakota makha, so hC > Ch was definitely a Dakotan sound change. There are a couple of other parallel cases in the CSD maybe. 'Turtle', like many other animal names, presumably had a wa- or wi- prefix at one time (I make a case for wi- in a couple of papers). Like the 1st person pronominal, it lost its vowel in 'turtle, bison cow, otter', etc. giving a secondary cluster, again like the 1st person (if we're right about the underlying 1st person). Dheghiha has both patterns for secondary pk- clusters. Usually they go through the changes: *w-k > pk > kp > hp > pp (like in vertitive ku we've been discussing). In Dakotan the last stage is different: hp > ph as we've seen. 'Want' in proto-Dhegiha is ko~ra and it is doubly conjugated. 'I want', *w-ko~-w-ra, where both w's are 1st person markers, you get 1st sg. kko~bla in Kansa (with exact analogs in the other Dhegiha lgs.) So this verb for some reason apparently didn't undergo the metathesis that the other verbs in its class did: *w-k > pk > hk > kk It remains unclear what the chronology of morphological (as opposed to phonological) changes was with the noun prefix wi- or wa- and the 1st person wa-. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 16:38:50 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:38:50 -0500 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > 1sg hi-b-u > > 2sg hi-l-u > > 3sg hi(y)u (where -y- is just an epenthetic glide) > > 1du u~-hi(y)u > > > > There are alternative forms wa-hi-b-u, ya-hi-l-u, etc. > Given the usual pattern of serial motion verbs in Dhegiha, I'm inclined > to wonder if the middle variant (cf. wa-hi-b-lu) isn't the most > conservative, [lu] is the 2nd person form; there isn't a form wahiblu, just wahibu, yahilu... I agree both verbs might well be conjugated, but then I'd expect conservative 1sg *phibu, 2sg *$ilu and god knows what in the inclusive given its idiosyncracies. I'd say that ANY verb beginning with *r, *h, *?, *w, *p, *t, *k that is conjugated with wa-, ya- has undergone analogical change. > I think b here qualifies as a Da reflex of *W a/k/a "funny *w." > Although I expect the b in Santee and m or even w in Teton. Most of our "funny W's" (e.g. in 'snow') come historically from a secondary sequence of w-w. So in 'snow' the wa- prefix with the wa root gives w-wa > Wa. John may be right that *w-? also gives W-, which would be Dakota b ~ m (the latter before nasal vowels). It's surprising, given the 'snow' word in other languages, that Dakota 'snow' isn't [ba]. It's just [wa], isn't it? Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 16:48:24 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:48:24 -0500 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > There are a couple of little things that make me wonder if the stem for > 'to come' (or 'to be en route hither') might not be PS *u (or *?u) > instead of *hu. Dakota inflects it as bu, lu, (y)u in that hi=yu > compound. All MV languages have a vertitive form in *k, not *kh, cf., OP > gi, Da ku, Wi guu. Of course Wi guu could be from *khuu or *kuu, but > then it wouldn't inflect as a *k-stem, which it does. > - OP seems to have i, not hi. ... the first and second persons phi and > s^i certainly have hi, but the stem is just i. Well this is just what Blair has found in Catawba. It looks like the root was something like *?u: (maybe from earlier u:?) and the h- found its way into the conjugation by analogy with 'arrive coming'. nevertheless, the h- is part of the verb in most Siouan languages, so any alternations here are very old. that's what makes them so interesting. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 17:20:06 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:20:06 -0500 Subject: glottal stems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I haven't memorized all the right examples, but 'come' is definitely > vowel-initial (uNku pi), whereas 'use' and 'be' are both glottal initial > (uNk?uN pi). While the inclusive u~k- is often glottalized with "glottal stems", I've found that it isn't always reliably that way. Since u~k- seems to be a more recent pronominal prefix (appearing to the left of others in the verb prefix template, such as it is) it sometimes seems to be added to the 3rd person form and sometimes not, at least in the languages I've studied. I'd say it's certain that 'come' is unique. The known glottal stop stems (from my memory, which may be missing a couple) are few. Most are nasal: *?u~ 'do, be' *i?u~ 'do with, use' (same root as 1) *?i~ 'wear about the shoulders' *ya-?i~ 'think' *?o 'shoot, wound' *?u 'arrive coming (?)' MAY be such a verb because of (a) its conjugation in Dakotan (b) its parallel irregularities in other Siouan (c) the Catawba alternations Blair points out. Any verb with parallel irregularities in both Siouan and Catawban is showing some VERY old alternations -- probably 4K years plus. We may never understand all the complexities, but we can be thankful that Buechel and others recorded the conservative conjugation when they did. I bet it would be hard to elicit nowadays. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Tue Apr 6 17:22:04 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:22:04 EDT Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. Message-ID: With respect to ?snow', Catawba dialects and Woccon show three different forms that appear to reflect reduplication. I don't have the data in front of me at the moment, but I seem to remember that either Saraw has wa:?, while the Esaw has wa:?wa (or the first could be Esaw and the second Saraw), and Woccon has something like Wawawa. The w-w form in Siouan may result from syncope in something like Catawba wa:?wa, while the Dakota form may be comparable with Catawba wa:?. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Apr 6 19:44:44 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:44:44 -0500 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: <102a62af.243b9cbc@aol.com> Message-ID: > With respect to ?snow', Catawba dialects and Woccon show three different > forms that appear to reflect reduplication. In Siouan it's clear there was (and still is) a common prefix with the form wa-. If the root is also wa, it would appear to be reduplication, but wouldn't be. Lawson's Woccon form is indeed wawawa, suggesting that redup. is a possibility however. > The w-w form in Siouan may result from syncope in something like Catawba > wa:?wa, while the Dakota form may be comparable with Catawba wa:?. As far as we can tell, the form with the wV- prefix is reconstructible as such, so Dakotan, if it has just wa 'snow' would either have lost the prefix via a morphological (i.e. not sound change) reanalysis OR the regular reflex of "funny W" in Dakotan is just [wa]. I can't remember enough funny W forms from Siouan (it's rare) in their Dakotan reflex to know. Bob From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 6 20:09:48 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:09:48 -0600 Subject: Funny *W (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Koontz: > > I think b here qualifies as a Da reflex of *W a/k/a "funny *w." > > Although I expect the b in Santee and m or even w in Teton. > > Most of our "funny W's" (e.g. in 'snow') come historically from a > secondary sequence of w-w. So in 'snow' the wa- prefix with the wa root > gives w-wa > Wa. John may be right that *w-? also gives W-, which would > be Dakota b ~ m (the latter before nasal vowels). It's surprising, given > the 'snow' word in other languages, that Dakota 'snow' isn't [ba]. It's > just [wa], isn't it? I think that's right and w is the usual Teton reflex of *W. I think I was wrong in wondering about hibu as *thiWu. It's *thiwu, or maybe the w is a special "pronominal w" as opposed to *w and *W. I've often wondered if something like that might explain why *wa A1 => (h)a in Dhegiha, Chiwere, Winnebago, while *wa INDEF => wa. On the other hand, a potential problem, we have lots of cases where we want *pr clusters to come from *wV + r. The *wV here is presumably one of Bob's classifiers, though, rather than *wa INDEF. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 6 20:26:05 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:26:05 -0600 Subject: PS *th => Da h (Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > 1sg hi-b-u > > > 2sg hi-l-u > > > 3sg hi(y)u (where -y- is just an epenthetic glide) > > > 1du u~-hi(y)u > > > > > > There are alternative forms wa-hi-b-u, ya-hi-l-u, etc. > Koontz: > > Given the usual pattern of serial motion verbs in Dhegiha, I'm inclined > > to wonder if the middle variant (cf. wa-hi-b-lu) isn't the most > > conservative, > > ... I agree both verbs might well be conjugated, but then I'd > expect conservative 1sg *phibu, ... Oops, as I was thinking about the *W stuff I remembered that PS *re (RE?) + *hi => PS *thi => Da hi, while PS *hi => Da i. That is, the h here (in hiyu) is from Taylor's *rh (which I've written *th), which was one of the main points of his article on motion verbs. So, this Da hi is the one that would be inflected regularly ab initio, cf. Dhegiha athi 'I arrive here', dhathi 'you arrive there', a'thi=i 'he arrives there', aNfathi=i 'we arrive here'. I'm afraid we students of Dhegiha find Dakota verbs of motion very confusing, what with all the unusual phonology that converges there. Of course, this isn't really a critical point in the context of the discussion, since I'd readily concede that if it were i < *hi, then the regular inflection here would have to be secondary. That is, for my point to hold, i in a putative *iyu would have to be being regularized along with i, without losing the double inflection *waibu, *yailu, etc. Of course, in the event, this is just a thought experiment. The form is hiyu < PS *thi=u. To see Bob's point where it applies, consider iyaya, in which the i is from *hi, but isn't inflected. I'd expect that formerly this was inflected *phibleble, *hilele, *iyeye, *uNkiyeye=pi, though I don't know of any such forms being attested, so this is also something of a thought experiment. JEK From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Wed Apr 7 00:13:09 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:13:09 -0500 Subject: 1st person wa- vs. other wa-'s in Siouan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I think I was wrong in wondering about hibu as *thiWu. It's *thiwu, or > maybe the w is a special "pronominal w" as opposed to *w and *W. > I've often wondered if something like that might explain why *wa A1 => > (h)a in Dhegiha, Chiwere, Winnebago, while *wa INDEF => wa. I'd say *rhi_?u. But John is right that the 1st person wa- in Siouan languages routinely behaves differently from the other prefixes with the shape wa-. There is evidence for 1st person *wa- in virtually every Siouan language, so its existence is indisputable. But it misbehaves in many of the languages: It loses its w- in DH, CH and WI as John mentions above, replacing w with h, which may simply be epenthetic, in WI. It is regularly b- instead of w- in Ofo, a language which lost initial w's regularly. Why? There is a possibility that the one or more of the other wa- prefixes was, in fact, long, /wa:-/ rather than just /wa-/. That might explain why syncope regularly affects the pronominal but not the other(s). So might relative chronology of the morphology; pronominals have been on verbs forever but other wa-'s are derivational and they come and go. But vowel length wouldn't explain why the labial "misbehaves" so often. It could have to do with the phonology involved in replacement of the older, dental Proto-Siouan-Catawban 1st person marker, d-~n- with the innovated Proto-Siouan *wa-. If you think about it, such replacements don't just get substituted overnight. Speakers didn't just get up one morning and say "hey, enough of those antiquated dental 1st persons, let's replace it with something cool, like wa-!" Presumably the old pronominals became morphologically opaque (Catawba shows them fusing with verb roots in a variety of confusing paradigms). Comparing Siouan and Catawban, we see that what Siouan did was apparently form new 1st persons by prefixing *wa- (from whatever source) to the *third* person form of the verb, totally dropping the old, fused 1st person forms. Two things could have happened: (a) some of the new wa- prefixes could have been added to the older 1st persons in d- or n-, yielding as yet unexplored morphophonemic changes that give us the peculiar 1st person forms we get in Siouan, or, I think more likely, (b) the 3rd person always served as the analogical model for new 1st persons with wa-. And if Blair is right and the earlier 3rd person marker was not "zero" but *h(i)-, then we have an h- that would have interacted with wa- in various ways. One could always appeal to the fact that the pronominals are often closer to the accent than other wa-'s, which often are in the outer, derivational layer, but I personally think that the Proto-Siouan *wa- '1st person' must have had some interaction with older 1st or 3rd person prefixes. > On the other hand, a potential problem, we have lots of cases where we > want *pr clusters to come from *wV + r. The *wV here is presumably one > of Bob's classifiers, though, rather than *wa INDEF. The 'animate' classifier (if it was a classifier) was *wi-. Why not think of wa- as the inanimate one? It shouldn't matter whether w- goes back to *wi- or *wa- from the point of view of sound change. They should both work the same. Some languages (Ofo, at least) have different reflexes of secondary *wr and *pr clusters. As I recall 'flat' and some of its derivatives had *p. Bob From munro at ucla.edu Wed Apr 7 01:29:31 1999 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:29:31 -0700 Subject: assiniboine Message-ID: Hello, all -- May I ask you nice people if anyone knows of any lexical work that has been done on Assiniboine? Are any of you currently working on this language? In addition to my current field methods class on Lakhota, which is lots of fun, I am meeting this quarter with two students to go through some Assiniboine lessons prepared for a course offered in a college near Fort Peck. (Perhaps some of you know about these.) One of these students is a semi-speaker, and it is very interesting to be exposed to the differences between Assiniboine and Lakhota, particularly in the area (so far; it's early yet) of stress. This student tells me that people in her family really want to see a dictionary of Assiniboine prepared, and so I wondered if anything has been done on this. (I have Levin's book, but have not worked through it carefully yet.) Thank you for any help you can provide. Pam Munro From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Wed Apr 7 06:05:01 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:05:01 +0200 Subject: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Most of our "funny W's" (e.g. in 'snow') come historically from a > secondary sequence of w-w. So in 'snow' the wa- prefix with the wa root > gives w-wa > Wa. John may be right that *w-? also gives W-, which would > be Dakota b ~ m (the latter before nasal vowels). It's surprising, given > the 'snow' word in other languages, that Dakota 'snow' isn't [ba]. It's > just [wa], isn't it? yes. David From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Wed Apr 7 14:00:49 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:00:49 -0600 Subject: 1st person wa- vs. other wa-'s in Siouan. Message-ID: Koontz > > It's *thiwu, ... Rankin > I'd say *rhi_?u. I think Bob realized I meant a first person by the w here, and the *th and *rh are to some extent notational variants, but just in case it's not clear to others, I do agree with his *rhi_?u (or maybe *_rhi=_?u). Because the "X-stem" notation is probably somewhat obscure to some folks, this implies a paradigm something like: PS Da (old) 1st person * wa-rhi=w-?u wa-hi-b-u 2nd person * ya-rhi=y-?u ya-hi-l-u 3rd person * rhi= ?u hi- yu Inc. person *waNk=rhi= ?u uN-hi- yu(=pi) I'm not sure I have the inclusive here in the form Bob prefers, and I think the ? may be a bit of an epenthetic ghost myself. It should perhaps have deleted or leaped to the end of the stem in the 1st and 2nd persons. The leading regular inflection in Dakotan may be a reintrodution following a period in which the leading inflection had been lost. The modern pattern is an invariant hiyu, inflected regularly. One big caveat: it's not clear that this particular pattern of compounding was used in PS. The PS form is really just a statement about the inflection patterns of *rhi and *?u, plus the comment that the Dakotan form hiyu derives from a compound of *rhi and *?u. JEK From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Fri Apr 9 17:42:04 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:42:04 -0500 Subject: Catawba 'go' & 'come' Message-ID: Blair Rudes wrote: > I am more skeptical about ha:ra being a > compound of hu:?- and da:?-, since a change of /u:/ to /a(:)/ would be > unprecedented; There is occasional confusion between a and u in Speck's transcription; hence the possibility that written hara might represent hura, but I think the confusion only occurs when the vowels are short and all indications are that this syllable has a long vowel. So I agree that it is very unlikely that ha:ra contains hu:'. > similarly, I am not convinced that mahu:ci contains kuci, > since a /h/, /k/ alternation would be unusual; to me, mahu:ci looks more like > a compound of ma- cislocative' + hu:?- arrive, come' plus an element -ci-, > just as kuci looks like ku:- leave' plus the element -ci-.) Could be. I don't know what -ci- might be, but it would join a lot of syllables I'm similarly unsure about in the same location. Root extentions? -wa- in ku:wa is another, fairly frequent one. > duk- back, backwards' (Siebert, notes): dukh'u:re: ( = stress) he comes > back, returns'. Catawba verbs of motion compound with a variety of adverbial > preverbs indicating direction/location, some of which behave like prefixes > and some like proclitics. Others include haap- 'up, towards the top', huk- 'below, down', ha:p- with da:'- seems to provide the missing progressive form for verbs of ascending that I listed previously. Absent from that list is any parallel set of verbs referring to descending. huk- with da:'- forms the progressive 'to be descending', but how does Catawba say 'to leave (descending)' and 'to arrive (descending)'? Perhaps ha:ra is one of the descending verbs, but the examples aren't convincing. The other may be ha:tkut which refers once to going down a hill and once to the sun setting. > The verb hau- is intriguing for it bears an uncanny resemblence to the > widespread particle hao?, h'au? (Seneca and Tuscarora forms, respectively) > which variously means o.k., already, hello, come on in, welcome in languages > throughout the east and into the plains. It might be a predication of that > particle. Or could hau and ha:ra both contain an obsolete ha(:)-, before da:'- in the latter verb and before (h)u:' in the former? Obviously this speculation needs the meaning of ha:ra to be firmed up. hau appears a few times written as haw@ (@ = schwa) so its phonemic form might be more like ha:wi, making my proposal of its origin untenable and Blair's less likely. It seems to form an exotic 3pl by reduplication: ha'au. Whatever the exact details of the history of these verbs, the Catawba system of verbs of locomotion appears to me to be rather similar to the present Siouan one. But the two seem to have arrived at the same place from different starting points. Using Dakota examples for Siouan, the primitive verb roots seem to be: Dakota Catawba ya/e 'to be going' da:' 'to be going' u 'to be coming' hu:' 'to be coming' i 'to arrive going' hau originally just 'to arrive' ? hi 'to arrive coming' --- none --- --- none --- ku:' originally just 'to leave' ? And it's possible that Catawba hau isn't primitive either. Doesn't this all suggest that the present similarity might be due to recent contact more than to remote common origin? Paul From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Fri Apr 9 23:45:25 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:45:25 -0600 Subject: How! (was Re: Catawba 'go' & 'come') In-Reply-To: <01J9TVNETXZM96VKU9@BrandonU.CA> Message-ID: > BARudes: > > The verb hau- is intriguing for it bears an uncanny resemblence to the > > widespread particle hao?, h'au? (Seneca and Tuscarora forms, respectively) > > which variously means o.k., already, hello, come on in, welcome in languages > > throughout the east and into the plains. It might be a predication of that > > particle. I've always thought this was an interesting form. Because it is so widespread (though I have no idea precisely how widespread), I've tended to suspect that it might be pre-Contact. Greetings in h-back vowel are certainly fairly common in Europe, too, perhaps without inheritance, though I've not seen anything on the subject. However, hau certainly also looks like an English loan, i.e., from "How (do you do)?" I imagine it might be possible to document the progress of the term, it it is a loan, though I don't know of any relevant comments, and it might be difficult to get past misconceptions on the part of the recordists. By the way, add Hopi to the list of languages with hau. From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Sat Apr 10 05:05:07 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 00:05:07 -0500 Subject: How! Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > I've always thought this was an interesting form. Because it is so > widespread (though I have no idea precisely how widespread), I've tended > to suspect that it might be pre-Contact. Greetings in h-back vowel are > certainly fairly common in Europe, too, perhaps without inheritance, > though I've not seen anything on the subject. However, hau certainly also > looks like an English loan, i.e., from "How (do you do)?" I imagine it > might be possible to document the progress of the term, it it is a loan, > though I don't know of any relevant comments, and it might be difficult to > get past misconceptions on the part of the recordists. By the way, add > Hopi to the list of languages with hau. Just to complicate things, a widespread Cree greeting is ta:nsi and a widespread Ojibwe one is a:ni:n. Both of these are literally 'how?' and are assumed by native speakers to be short for 'How are you?', 'How are things going?' or the like. So did the popular Indian English greeting "how!" arise as a translation of these Cree and Ojibwe words, possibly to be passed on thereafter from English to Siouan, Iroquoian and Algonquian languages (+ Hopi) as hau, etc., or was hau borrowed from one of those languages into English as "how" which was then translated into Cree and Ojibwe? Note that other Cree and Ojibwe greetings are borrowed, Cree wa:ciyi from English 'what cheer?' and Ojibwe po:s^o: from French bon jour. Paul From BARudes at aol.com Sat Apr 10 14:49:17 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 10:49:17 EDT Subject: Catawba 'go' & 'come' Message-ID: With reference to a descending series of motion verbs in Catawba, Siebert (railway repair schedule notes) gives hukh'u:re: 'he comes down', so apparently huk- was used to form a descending series parallel to ha:p-. For 'leave, go away, depart' there is another prefixed verb given by Siebert in his field notebook, c^apad'u:c^ire: 'I go away, leave', c^apay'u:c^ire: 'you go away, leave', c^apah'u:c^ire: 'he goes away, leaves, departs'. The verb here is -u:c^i- plus a preverb c^apa-. Just to reiterate that the underlying form of the verb 'arrive, come' is -u:?-, not hu:?-, and since I did not cite the relevant data in my previous note, the pertinent citations in Siebert's 1945 classification article on p.102 are: "hu:?- 'to arrive, come'; inflected verb, c^ y h, h w i-r)" which translates as: c^u:?- 'I arrive, come', yu:?- 'you (sg.) arrive, come', hu:?- 'he, she, it arrives, comes'; hu:?- 'we arrive, come', wu:?- 'you (pl.) arrive, come', iru:?- 'they arrive, come'. The third plural allows prefixes between the /i/ and the /r/, as in (Siebert 1945, footnote 22) imar'u:?ire: 'they bring hither' (ma- 'cislocative'). There is no marker of 3rd plural in Catawba that is /r/ alone. The /r/ appears to be an epenthetic consonant between contiguous vowels. I say "appears to be" because, in other cases in Catawba, when there are contiguous vowels in Catawba, either one vowel is deleted or there is contraction. If this is the same epenthesis of /r/ that occurs in Plains Siouan languges, it is archaic in Catawba, which might explain why it has been lexicalized as a discontinuous marker of third person plural. In any event, before a truly /h/-initial verb that takes prefixed subject markers in Catawba, one would expect the third person plural to be marked either by /i-/ alone or, more usually, by hi- (in analogy with the third person singular). In summary, the "primative" motion verbs in Catawba appear to be underlying /-ra:?-/ 'to go', /-u:?-/ 'to arrive, come', and /- ku:?-/ 'to leave (?)'. (I would second Paul's suggestion that hau- is probably not "primative", whatever its origin [the possibility of a prefix /ha(:)-/ does need looking into].) From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 10 14:54:41 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 09:54:41 -0500 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Someone, I think at CU, once told me that Allan Taylor had made a study of "hau". I don't know if he wrote it up or not, but it might be worth one of you guys in Boulder asking him about. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Sat Apr 10 14:55:09 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 10:55:09 EDT Subject: How! (was Re: Catawba 'go' & 'come') Message-ID: The fact that the word = hau is recorded for Huron by French Jesuits (it appears, for example, in the Rev. Pierre Potier's manuscripts which are, for the most part, copies of the manuscripts of Chaumanot, who recorded the Huron language in the mid-seventeenth century) long before the Huron had substantial contact with English speakers makes it unlikely that the word is borrowed from English . Also, the range of meaning in Iroquoian languages (o.k., all-right, sure, welcome, come on in) would be hard to derive from the meaning/usage of in English. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 10 18:08:38 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:08:38 -0600 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Someone, I think at CU, once told me that Allan Taylor had made a study of > "hau". I don't know if he wrote it up or not, but it might be worth one > of you guys in Boulder asking him about. I gather that Allan has views on the subject from observations similar to Blair's, but has not worked them up. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 10 18:17:00 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:17:00 -0600 Subject: How! (was Re: Catawba 'go' & 'come') In-Reply-To: <399138b7.2440c04d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > The fact that the word = hau is recorded for Huron by French Jesuits > (it appears, for example, in the Rev. Pierre Potier's manuscripts which are, > for the most part, copies of the manuscripts of Chaumanot, who recorded the > Huron language in the mid-seventeenth century) long before the Huron had > substantial contact with English speakers makes it unlikely that the word is > borrowed from English . This is the sort of attribution I was hoping for, actually: evidence from French or Spanish speakers dealing with groups that hadn't had English contact (or, at least, not extensive English contact). Unfortunately, it may be difficult to extend this evidence to other groups, but it definitely helps to have it. > Also, the range of meaning in Iroquoian > languages (o.k., all-right, sure, welcome, come on in) would be hard to > derive from the meaning/usage of in English. Actually, this is comparable to the use of Ahau ~ hau in Omaha-Ponca. I'd say something like 'hello (male to male); right, agreement, approval, appreciation; listen'. In a few examples in Dorsey it seems to mark a heading in a presentation. Dorsey translates it as a paragraph marker. Things have been somewhat complicated by the replacement of the former male declarative ha and vocative ha particles with hau during a period (mostly) subsequent to Dorsey. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 10 18:36:43 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:36:43 -0600 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: <01J9UJI3EEUQ96VKUI@BrandonU.CA> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA wrote: > Just to complicate things, a widespread Cree greeting is ta:nsi and a > widespread Ojibwe one is a:ni:n. Both of these are literally 'how?' and are > assumed by native speakers to be short for 'How are you?', 'How are things > going?' or the like. So did the popular Indian English greeting "how!" arise > as a translation of these Cree and Ojibwe words, possibly to be passed on > thereafter from English to Siouan, Iroquoian and Algonquian languages (+ Hopi) > as hau, etc., or was hau borrowed from one of those languages into English as > "how" which was then translated into Cree and Ojibwe? Note that other Cree and > Ojibwe greetings are borrowed, Cree wa:ciyi from English 'what cheer?' and > Ojibwe po:s^o: from French bon jour. I wonder whether some sort of question word, especially a manner question word, is not typical in greetings? This is certainly true in Europe, along with h-words (hail, hals, hola, hey, etc.). Of course, in English, there's some overlap in the two categories, thanks to the evolution of PIE *kw there! Two greeting formulae in Omaha-Ponca, said to be women's forms, but also apparently used between the sexes, are EaN' niN=a? 'how you-are Q' and Ea'thaN niN=a? what's-wrong you-are Q. It's easy to interpret the first of these as English influence, but I'd want to know more about the general pattern of greeting questions across the world before being very positive of this. Unfortunately, I don't know, off the top of my head, of any reference on the subject of greeting formulae. It's hard to believe, however, that the subject can have been entirely overlooked. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 10 18:41:10 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:41:10 -0600 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: <01J9UJI3EEUQ96VKUI@BrandonU.CA> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA wrote: > Note that other Cree and Ojibwe greetings are borrowed, Cree wa:ciyi from > English 'what cheer?' and Ojibwe po:s^o: from French bon jour. The Long Expedition recorded an Omaha exclamation rendered "zut oda" said to be used in admiring a "fine trinket." I've always wondered if this wasn't "Zut, alors!" I've been warned to check the age of that exclamation in French. From BARudes at aol.com Sat Apr 10 18:55:02 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:55:02 EDT Subject: How! Message-ID: Among the Northern Iroquoian languages, Tuscarora, Seneca and Cayuga use a question for greetings that translates roughly as "are you still well (at peace)?". The Catawb greet (ta~c^i) contains a question word, as well. However, other Northern Iroquoian languages (Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Wyandot) simply use a particle with no real translation other than "hi". From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sat Apr 10 19:38:16 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:38:16 EDT Subject: Active/Stative Verbs in Crow Message-ID: As a change of pace from 'hau' and 'hiyu', something more on stative verbs: Crow has a small set of verbs that can be inflected with either active or stative person prefixes. Most of these have the dak/daC 'by force' instrumental prefix. The following are the ones that I have come across in my data, with the glosses for active (A) and stative (S) uses: dasshipi' (A) 'go beyond, pass'; (S) 'cave in, sink, collapse' daxchi' (A) 'tie up, imprison' (S) 'choke on food, gag' datchi'pi (A) 'carve, chip away, pare, whittle'; (S) da'tchipi 'pinched' daxshia'shishii (A) 'break into pieces, smash'; (S) daxshishi 'broken' (active form is reduplicated) du'sshua (A) 'bend'; (S) dasshua' 'bent' (active form has the 'by hand' prefix) Karen Wallace mentions in her dissertation that xachi'i 'move' can occur with either active or stative prefixes. The dak- prefix also occurs in a number of stative stems that have no active counterparts. I have about 25 of these in my data; the following is a sampling: dakka'hpi 'blown away, blown by the wind' dakkawi' 'wide apart' dakku'chi 'swing, wave' dappachi' 'wide' dappia'xi 'light in weight' dappi'chi 'soaked' dappo'oshi 'inflated, blown up' dappo'oxi 'blistered' (this pair looks like consonantal ablaut) daschushi' 'smoothed down, flat' datcheepi 'penetrate, go inside the body' datchichi' 'winded, exhausted, played out' Randy From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 10 19:42:48 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:42:48 -0500 Subject: Stem 'to come' (was Re: Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [Rood]: > I don't understand how the analogy would work. [Rudes]: > extent it is relevant, the corresponding stem for 'arrive, come' in > Catawba is -uu?-, not -huu?- as sometimes listed elsewhere (e.g., > Siebert 1945, which contains a number of underanalyzed forms). The > conjugation is: c^uu?- 'I come', yuu?- 'you come', huu?- 'he comes' > (where h- is the 3rd singular marker), etc. [Rankin]: > That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that 'come' is a > verb for which the sound correspondences are irregular. Several > languages treat it as {hu:}, but Dakotan (perhaps others) has {?u}. And > there are also interesting correspondences between syllable-initial and > syllable-final glottalization across Siouan. If the Catawban 3rd person > can definitively be shown to have been h- and Siebert proved wrong on > this, we would have a good analogical model to explain the Siouan > reflexes. I guess what I meant here was that, at present, we can't account for why some languages have reflexes of a verb *hu while others, like Dakota, seem to have reflexes of *?u or just *u. Or they may have a mix. It seemed to me that either the *h- was there in the proto form or it wasn't. If it was a 3rd person allomorph in Proto-Siouan-Catawban, as Blair's data suggest, then it's the 3rd person that is providing the model in the languages/persons where h- occurs. In verb paradigms, if analogical extension occurs, it is usually the 3rd person form that provides the model adopted in other persons, e.g., English, where 3rd person -s is generalized for some speakers "I sees, you sees, we sees," etc. Bob From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sat Apr 10 19:46:45 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:46:45 EDT Subject: How! Message-ID: The most common Crow greeting is sho'ota 'how is it, how goes it' which contains the Crow equivalent of a wh-word. An older greeting (still heard occasionally) is kahe'e. Anyone seen anything like this? Randy From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Apr 10 20:05:28 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:05:28 -0500 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The most common Crow greeting is sho'ota 'how is it, how goes it' which > contains the Crow equivalent of a wh-word. An older greeting (still > heard occasionally) is kahe'e. Anyone seen anything like this? Nope. Quapaw has "hawe':", apparently a women's speech form of "(a)hau". {he(:?)} by itself is one of the archaic Siouan verbs of being. It's reflexes are locative in Dhegiha languages, where it is found only in compounds with positionals that form continuative auxiliaries and is conjugated only in the 2nd person, and then only if a V precedes. The 2nd person actor allomorph with "H-stems" is $- (=s^). tha~-he 'be, standing' 2sg ya-tha~-$-e yi~-he 'be, moving' 2sg ya-yi~-$-e ni~k-he 'be, sitting' 2sg $-ni~k-he z^a~k-he 'be, lying' 2gs ya-z^a~k-he I don't know if this verb is part of the Crow or Quapaw greetings or not. bob From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sun Apr 11 01:27:34 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 21:27:34 EDT Subject: Crow Motion Verbs Message-ID: The discussion on motion verbs started me thinking about kuu' 'return, come back', the only vertitive motion verb in Crow. It has a rather strange paradigm, even by Crow standards: bakku' ba'akkuu dala'akku dala'akkuu kuu' da'akkuu kk is phonetically kh, so the 3sg form is really not different from the forms with kk. So we rewrite the paradigm: bakhu' ba'akhuu dala'akhu dala'akhuu khuu' da'akhuu Now if we subtract khu(u), we come up with something very close to the paradigms for other motion verbs in Crow, minus the plural marker u: baa' ba'a(u) dala'a dala'a(u) -- da'a(u) The following are the paradigms for hi'i 'arrive', de'e 'go', and hu'u 'come': baa' bi'io baale'e ba'au boo' bu'uo dala'a dali'io dale'e dala'au dalo'o dalu'uo hi'i di'io de'e da'au hu'u du'uo The paradigm with kuu' subtracted looks like the singular of hi'i combined with the plural of de'e. About the short a in the 1sg form: Crow disfavors a long unaccented vowel in the initial syllable followed by a cluster, i.e. *CVVCCV'. That's just too heavy a beginning! So that vowel could have been shortened to give it a more acceptable syllable structure/accentual pattern. There are still some details to be worked out, but I am suggesting that kuu' is actually a compound motion verb composed of forms of the 'arrive' stem (Crow and Hidatsa have merged the two PSi 'arrive' stems) plus vertitive kuu'. This fits the patterns noted in Taylor's article: 'arrive' stem plus 'motion prior to arrival' stem. Randy I have no idea what happened to the missing stem in the 3rd person of kuu', except to suggest that it was lost after the compound nature of this verb was no longer transparent. While there is no trace of double inflection in these forms, I note that at least some of the Lakhota compound motion verbs are not doubly inflected. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 11 04:18:38 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 22:18:38 -0600 Subject: Crow Motion Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > There are still some details to be worked out, but I am suggesting that kuu' > is actually a compound motion verb composed of forms of the 'arrive' stem > (Crow and Hidatsa have merged the two PSi 'arrive' stems) plus vertitive > kuu'. This fits the patterns noted in Taylor's article: 'arrive' stem plus > 'motion prior to arrival' stem. I've always found the Crow-Hidatsa motion verbs fascinating. It sure looks like analogy run amuck. It's interesting to think that some of it may have come from verb compounding, because that would yet another indication that Crow-Hidatsa had once been more like a Mississippi Valley language, but one potential problem with that in this case is that only the (k)kuu part is clearly vertitive, whereas in the Dakotan examples, if one stem is vertitive, so is the other. Of course, this is the only vertitive stem in Crow, and Dhegiha suggests that MV actually has quite a bit of variety in verb compounding patterns. What do you think about the d's in the plural stems of the h-initials, Randy? From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Sun Apr 11 11:41:25 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:41:25 -0500 Subject: How! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > The most common Crow greeting is sho'ota 'how is it, how goes it' which > contains the Crow equivalent of a wh-word. An older greeting (still heard > occasionally) is kahe'e. Anyone seen anything like this? > > Randy > I'm told by the male Ponca elder that I work with that men say "ahau!" as a greeting and that the women don't say anything! (The two female Ponca elders that I work with confirm this.) He says that, if I want to, I can say "hawe'" but that that's really Osage, the male counterpart being "huwe'," and he sometimes greets me with this as I come in the door. (Some Kaw women that I was talking with said that they say "hawe'" also, but, of course, that could also be borrowed from Osage, irrespective of the fact that there are no fluent Kaw speakers.) The Poncas don't seem to be big on greetings. I'm told that often a visitor will just be greeted with "dhathi'a" 'Did you (sg.) arrive?' or "dhathii'a" 'Did you (pl.) arrive?' By the way, I'll try to comment on the Catawba stuff whenever I have a chance to go back to reread my thesis and get in a "Catawba mindset." I would love to see Siebert's fieldnotes. I always intended to make a trip to meet him, but, unfortunately, he passed away before I had the opportunity. There's a lot that needs to be done and that could be done with analyzing the morphology, so I'm glad to see that it's under discussion. Kathy From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 11 20:23:58 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:23:58 -0600 Subject: How In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE wrote: > I'm told by the male Ponca elder that I work with that men say "ahau!" as > a greeting and that the women don't say anything! (The two female Ponca > elders that I work with confirm this.) ... > ... The Poncas don't seem to be big on > greetings. I'm told that often a visitor will just be greeted with > "dhathi'a" 'Did you (sg.) arrive?' or "dhathii'a" 'Did you (pl.) arrive?' This is mirrored by information on saying goodbye in Omaha. I was told that men can just leave, perhaps saying "Agdhe hau!" 'I'm going home' (using whatever motion verb is appropriate, presumably). I asked what women would say and the folks I was consulting looked taken aback and then ventured that they wouldn't say anything. On the other hand, some lessons I've seen gave the two greetings I listed earlier. These might be on the analogy of English usage, calqued or otherwise made up to supply English-imposed categories, but I had the impression that they had at least some currency outside the lessons, so that the categories seem to exist outside the context of the lessons. To some extent differing descriptions of practice might be due to differing contexts, e.g., formal vs. casual, but, unfortunately, I have insufficient exposure to Omaha culture to be sure whether this is the case, which is one reason I'm hoping we'll hear more from Kathy, with her greater experience in such things. And you other students of Omaha-Ponca should feel free to jump in, too! :-) From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Apr 11 22:53:40 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:53:40 -0500 Subject: How In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > ... The Poncas don't seem to be big on greetings. I'm told that often a > visitor will just be greeted with "dhathi'a" 'Did you (sg.) arrive?' or > "dhathii'a" 'Did you (pl.) arrive?' The Kaws have similar expressions that Mrs. Rowe used. There is an older tradition for asking how a person is doing, for men at least, among both the Kaws and the Osages. It is much more elaborate. I won't go through the whole thing here, but it involves the terms "da~he'" (Kaw) and "ta~he'" (Osage) followed by a classificatory verb ('sitting, standing, lying, moving') in the 2nd person. So, for example, in Kaw you might say "da~he yayi~$e" 'how are you doing?' (literally 'how are you moving?'). Same for sitting, etc. And with analogous expressions in Osage. There's a long list. None of the Kaws or Osages I've talked to about it identify "da~he" as anything special, but if you look it up in La Flesche's 1932 Osage Dictionary (under "donhe" with raised "n"), you find that the concept was a somewhat complicated social one involving social status, personal honor, etc. The interesting part is that this could suggest that the Kaws and Osages were a part of some more complex and stratified social order at an earlier time (there's been much speculation among anthropologists about possible "Mississippian" affiliations of Dhegiha tribes). On the other hand, there may be Omaha/Ponca analogs of da~he that I don't know about. The form of the word if it exists should be [da~he'] or [do~he'], where ' represents accent. Bob From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sun Apr 11 23:48:23 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:48:23 EDT Subject: Jim McCawley Message-ID: I received a sad message this morning from Salikoko Mufwene, chair of the linguistics dept. at Chicago: "The police called me around 11:00 PM to report that they had found Jim McCawley lying on the ground at Ellis Ave. about 58th St. around 9:00 PM. He had apparently suffered a heart attack. They tried to revive him but the efforts were unsuccessful. He passed away." Randy From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 12 05:48:46 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:48:46 -0600 Subject: Enjoyment Verbs Message-ID: I think Bob pointed out, maybe only to me, that Caroline Quintero's Osage Grammar (UMI 9737573) has a section on doubly stative verbs (p. 158). This mentions the verbs i'_braN 'to have/get enough; be sated with', _o'xta 'to cherish'. The relevant examples are wawe'braN=pe 'we're tired of them', with two wa- prefixes (one 'them' and one 'us'), and aN'dhioxta 'you love me'. With the latter, interestingly, the 'I-you' form uses the transitive portmanteau wi, cf. wi'oxta 'I love you'. However, I've noticed this evening that she also has a section on Verbs of Enjoyment' (p. 268), listing kidhaliN 'to like, love to do something', kihoN'oN 'to really love to do something, to be pleased', and ki'zo 'to have fun doing something'. These are inflected as experiencer verbs, in that the (dative) patient is the one that enjoys, while the thing enjoyed appears as a noun. Caroline specifies that this noun cannot take the animate subject articles akxa and apa and considers that it cannot therefore be a subject. Her example z^ani'e dhaache' aN'dhaliN candy to eat I enjoy it I enjoy eating candy is very similar to Omaha niN'niN giu'daN= att(a)s^aN tobacco she enjoys it very She likes smoking too much, she enjoys smoking too much From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Apr 12 05:53:27 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:53:27 -0600 Subject: Jim McCawley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It's very sad to hear that we've lost Jim McCawley. On the CU list Maher Awad pointed out that it's all the more poignant Jim didn't make it to another May. I'd like to point out the McCawley memorial verb, which is found in Dhegiha and Winnebago-Chiwere, where the verbs 'to kill' are all derivatives of the form 'to cause to die'. It has not yet been definitively established that this was done to amuse Jim. From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Mon Apr 12 09:37:56 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:37:56 +0200 Subject: How In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Two comments. First, greetings don't seem to be important to many of the people I've talked to. In Wichita you can say either acs tisa:khir7i 'it's a good day' or 'e*:si:rasi:ci*is', literally 'how are you' -- but both are considered kind of awkward. Violet tells me her preferred greeting in Lakhota is "wahi" 'I have arrived'. If the other person sees you first, that person can say instead "yahi", 'you have arrived'. That seems to match some of the things some of the others of you have been saying (and of course takes us back to the motion verb discussion by another route....) David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Apr 12 15:39:09 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:39:09 -0500 Subject: Enjoyment Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I've noticed this evening that [Carolyn Quintero] has a section on Verbs > of Enjoyment' (p. 268), listing kidhaliN 'to like, love to do > something', kihoN'oN 'to really love to do something, to be pleased', > and ki'zo 'to have fun doing something'. These are inflected as > experiencer verbs, in that the (dative) patient is the one that enjoys, > while the thing enjoyed appears as a noun. Caroline specifies that this > noun cannot take the animate subject articles akxa and apa and considers > that it cannot therefore be a subject. The observations about subject (agent?) markers is interesting. We need to check more of these, for example, the body parts used with -nie 'to hurt, ache' (Dakotan yaza~). Are the body parts subjects? Can they be agents? Is there a difference in Dhegiha or other Siouan lgs? Carolyn's dhali~ has a Kaw cognate, yali~, which alone has the clear meaning 'good'. So her examples could mean "X is good for/to me." But that would imply that X is indeed a subject. This fascinating discrepancy between morphology, syntax and semantics (the not-uncommon problem of what to do with inanimate agents -- if that is what they are) badly needs to be explored. Omaha and Ponca may be the only Dhegiha languages in which it's any longer possible. Bob From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Mon Apr 12 19:48:05 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:48:05 -0500 Subject: How Message-ID: > Two comments. First, greetings don't seem to be important to many > of the people I've talked to. In Wichita you can say either acs > tisa:khir7i 'it's a good day' or 'e*:si:rasi:ci*is', literally 'how are > you' -- but both are considered kind of awkward. > Violet tells me her preferred greeting in Lakhota is "wahi" 'I > have arrived'. If the other person sees you first, that person can say > instead "yahi", 'you have arrived'. That seems to match some of the > things some of the others of you have been saying (and of course takes us > back to the motion verb discussion by another route....) > David A Winnebago informant years ago was at a loss to suggest any greetings beyond comments on the weather, and Mesquakie (= Fox) informants couldn't think of anything at all except "Where are you going?" which they said was obsolete as a greeting. But the Mesquakie language was still in daily use in their community at that time, so I could observe what actually happened. Remarks about the weather were regularly the first words spoken when Mesquakie speakers encountered one another outside their homes. On approaching a native-style house, whether wigwam or teepee, it seems to me that people make a point of conversing loudly enough that those inside will be made aware of someone coming. Sound passes easily through the walls of such dwellings. The people in the house then usually shout out something to those approaching; whether it's "Come on in!" or "Wait a minute!" or "Who's there?" or a joking reference to the visitors depends on the situation. No greetings are really needed here nor is there a place for them. A widespread Central Algonquian remark on departure is the word for 'already'. It may be followed by an independent 1st person pronoun. It is more an announcement that one is leaving than a goodbye, though some seem to feel that it's required at the end of a visit. The Dakota equivalent would be "wana", "wana miye", or "wana uNkiyepi", but I have never heard these words used in the same way in Dakota. People tell me "wana wahde-kte" 'I'll go home now' or "wana uNhdap-te" 'we'll go home now' could be so used but I haven't heard those either out in the real world. The usual response to the 'already' of departure is the local expression for 'all right', which could even be the word "hau" that started this discussion. Paul From jggoodtracks at juno.com Tue Apr 13 00:49:31 1999 From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:49:31 -0500 Subject: How Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:37:56 +0200 (MET DST) David Rood writes: > > Two comments. First, greetings don't seem to be important to >many >of the people I've talked to. In Wichita you can say either acs >tisa:khir7i 'it's a good day' or 'e*:si:rasi:ci*is', literally 'how >are >you' -- but both are considered kind of awkward. > Violet tells me her preferred greeting in Lakhota is "wahi" >'I have arrived'. If the other person sees you first, that person can >say instead "yahi", 'you have arrived'. That seems to match some of the >things some of the others of you have been saying (and of course takes >us back to the motion verb discussion by another route....) > David > >David S. Rood >Professor of LInguistics >Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft >Universitaet zu Koeln >D-50923 Koeln >email: rood at uni-koeln.de >email: rood at colorado.edu > > For whatever it's worth, I've heard the same "raji(wi)/ you've come (pl)" among the older generation Ioway-Otoes. Jimm From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Tue Apr 13 09:28:18 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:28:18 +0200 Subject: How In-Reply-To: <01J9Y6Y4JEYA90S7AM@BrandonU.CA> Message-ID: Thanks, Paul, for some very nice insights. David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Tue Apr 13 14:33:16 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:33:16 +0200 Subject: How In-Reply-To: <19990412.195608.-438757.3.jggoodtracks@juno.com> Message-ID: I was just looking up something else and came across these examples in Kimball's Koasati Grammar, p. 222. The sentence "we are here", he says is said by people arriving at someone's house. Sounds familiar, and a propos of Paul Voorhis's remarks, the context is one where joking is invited, since the morphophonemics makes this sentence homophonous with one that means "it is dead". Naturally, the response (without further attention to greetings, apparently) is "What's dead?" David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From mosind at yahoo.com Wed Apr 28 15:03:19 1999 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:03:19 -0700 Subject: (In)dependent body parts in Dakotan? Message-ID: Dear Siouanists: As is known, there are two sets of affixes for inalienable possession in nouns in Dakotan, one for relatives (mi-... 'my', ni-... 'your', uNki-... 'our', 0-...-ku 'his/her'), another for body parts (ma-/mi-... 'my', ni-... 'your', uN(k)-... 'our', 0-... 'his/her'). The criteria of the choice between ma- and mi- 1p. sg. prefixes for body parts are obscure. D.Rood & A.Taylor (Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan Language, 1996) point for Oglala speech: "...ma- is used for concrete visible possessions, mi- of intangibles: manag^i kiN ' my shadow', minag^i kiN 'my spirit'. Speakers from other Lakhota speaking groups differ as to their use of ma- and mi-". However, if we look through the "Elementary Bilingual Dictionary. English-Lakhota, Lakhota-English" (1976), we'll find the forms mihublo 'my shin' and milez^e 'my urine' as "intangibles", both mi- and ma- forms for c^haNte 'heart', nape 'hand', nasula 'brain', thag^e 'saliva' and ma- variant for many internal organs as "concrete visible possessions". So the opposition "visible vs. intangible" does not seem to work for all the cases. To sum up Riggs (1852, Dakota), Boas&Deloria (1941), Buechel (1939, 1970), and Rood&Taylor (1976) (all - Lakhota) we can subdivide the "mi-" words into 3 categories: 1. Any of the "ma-" body parts that "is personified or addressed" (B&D, p.129), e.g.: miuNze, lena awaNmic^iyaka yo! 'my buttocks! watch these for me!'; 2. Body parts "which exibit independent actions" (Riggs, p.11), "are conceived as particularly subject to willpower" (B&D, p.128) (labeled as ma-/mi- words by R&T, ma- words in Buechel's Grammar, mi-words in his Dictionary): i 'mouth', is^ta 'eye', nuN'g^e 'ear', nape 'my hand' (ma- Buechel), si (L.)/siha (D.) 'foot', c^he 'penis' (only B&D), t(h)ezi 'stomach' (only Riggs); 3. "Incorporeal constituents" (Buechel, p.101) which I would call metaphysical parts of man: a) "intangibles" (only 'soul' and 'heart' in R&T): nag^i 'soul', thaNc^haN 'body', c^hexpi 'flesh, the physical body as opposed to the spiritual', c^haNte 'heart' (ma-/mi- R&T); b) social/behavioral features: ite 'facial expression' (as opposed to maite 'my face'), itognake 'countenance', c^haz^e 'name', ox?aN 'actions, deeds', oie 'word(s)', ho 'voice', owe 'footprints'; b) excreta (haven't found examples in Riggs and B&D!): le'z^e 'urine', thag^e 'salive', phaxli 'nasal mucus'; What is the common features of these words? The oppositions controllable-uncontrollable, passive-active (ma- prefix for "passive" lungs and kidneys coincides with the stative 1sg affix!), even inanimate-animate perhaps work for groups 1-2 but are inapplicable to #3, esp. to excreta. Maybe independency, alienation , or changeability are the tests for 3b-c? I've been "making" excreta, deeds, words, and footprints all the time, they change, disappear, sort of alienate but never to the extent that I could say that they are not mine. We could arrange the prefixes relative to the speaker: ma- 'wholly mine'; mi- '(originally) mine but temporarily/progressively alienating, never possessed by anybody else'; ni- 'your', etc. To strengthen the idea of genuine belonging of footprints and excreta to a man I?ll post two citations: Levy-Bruhl L. (The Soul of the Primitive, 1966, 115): ?First of all the primitive?s idea of individuality comprises, in addition to his own body, all that grows upon it, all that comes from it, its secretions and its excretions.. The hair and secretions, etc., of the individual are his very self, just as his feet or his hands, his heart of his head, are. They ?belong? to him in the fullest sense of the word. Henceforce I shall speak of them as his ?appertenances?. Powers W.K. (Sacred Language, 1986, 47): ?..song is consciously or unconsciously conceived to be an extension of the human body rather than smth external to it?. (Although olowaN ?song? seems not to prefix mi-, it is inalienably possessed in Hitatsa (Matthews, Hidatsa Syntax, 1966). The weakest point in the criterion of independency is perhaps the soul and the body, though, at least in Christian anthropology, these are regarded as the least controlled components of modern human beings :-) So I take liberty to apply to you with this small questionnaire: 1. Is this dichotomy for 1p sg. prefixes for body part possession peculiar to Dakotan or some other Siouan languages follow this trait? (As a can judge by Matthews' "Hidatsa Syntax", Hidatsa has common wii- (my), rii- (your) 0- (his) paradigm for both ?kinship terms and certain articles of the clothing, song, dance, arrow?). 2. What morpheme underly the mi- form? Is it S1 ma- + -I- element present in Ithawa 'belong to, own', Itha- prefix for alienably possessed nouns, Iye 'to be the one', and is^ , adversary/emphatic personal pron.? If so, why I- is deleted in 3p sg in Dakotan? Why Dakota Accent Rule is applied AFTER the deletion, not before it (yielding the forms, stressed on the first syllable, mi?-, ni?-)? Is ithaNc^haN 'chief' a frozen i- form of thaNc^haN 'body'? 3. Are/were there inalienably possessed "essentially personal things such as tools, clothing, and pets" (R&T, 1996: "formerly, at least")? I found only quirky paradigms for 'bow' and 'arrow' in Riggs, 1852 (no trace in B, B&D, R&T): itazipa, 'bow' mit(h)inazipe, 'my bow' nit(h)inazipe, 'your bow' t(h)i'nazipe, 'his bow' (Teton thiN'tazipa, B&D) waNhiNkp(h)e, 'arrow' mit(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'my arrow' nit(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'your arrow' t(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'his arrow' (B&D: thiN?tazipa) Looks like ?arrow? once had i-/mi- pattern, superposed by itha- turning it into alienable property. Thank you for your attention! Connie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Wed Apr 28 16:29:50 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:29:50 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Here's something I got from Dan Jurafsky at the U of Colorado. > From: Ronald Sprouse > Subject: interlinearizing texts > Cc: johanna at uclink.berkeley.edu > > Fellow linguists, > > If you collect and interlinearize linguistic texts and might be > interested in doing that through a web browser (this is especially > useful if you are collaborating with a group), read on. > > As part of the Ingush project (P.I. Johanna Nichols) I have > written software for creating interlinear texts. It covers > most of the same basic functions as IT/Shoebox from SIL, including > semi-automatic glossing of texts. Unlike IT/Shoebox, however, it > is designed for group collaboration (e.g. field methods class > or your favorite language project). Once a group has set up the > interlinearizer on a central server (like socrates), all members > of the group can work on texts through any forms-capable web browser, > so you can collaborate from continents away, if you want. > Every gloss entered by any member of the group automatically becomes > part of the central dictionary used by all for automatic glossing. > Powerful search capabilities for dictionary lookup are also provided. > > As I see no benefit in hoarding this software, I am offering it > for use to anyone who wants it. I do this with the hope that... > > 1. you will find it useful. > 2. you will be inspired to make it better -- by returning to me > feedback, suggested improvements, bug reports, or even some > fixes/code/improved documentation of your own. > 3. you'll think of a good name -- my brain is stuck on > 'the interlinearizer', and I don't really like that. > > You can try it out at: > > http://socrates.berkeley.edu:7012/interlin.html > (Login as user 'guest', with password 'guest'.) > > Once there, click on '[HELP]' for assistance in navigating the > interface and a more detailed description of features. (A few > features aren't yet documented.) Feel free to create and/or edit > as many files as you want. You won't harm any of the Ingush project > files. > > Contact me if you are interested in using the interlinearizer > in your own research, and I'll provide more details. > > ronald > > > -------------------------- > Ronald Sprouse > Dept. of Linguistics > UC Berkeley > ronald at uclink.berkeley.edu > > From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Wed Apr 28 17:25:49 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:25:49 -0500 Subject: (In)dependent body parts in Dakotan? In-Reply-To: <19990428150319.8120.rocketmail@web125.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: This is a nice coincidence. I have an M.A. student, Dan Kelty, who is defending a thesis entitled "The Inalienability Opposition in the Siouan Languages" tomorrow afternoon. He discusses these phenomena in Dakotan and more. I noticed a couple of years ago that a number of Siouan languages split their inalienably possessed nouns in the 1st sing. into a group with a reflex of ma- and a group with a reflex of mi- (Crow ba-/bi-, Mandan ma-/mi-, etc.). The interesting thing is that there does NOT seem to be any semantic congruity from language to language in the groups of nouns that take one over the other prefix. And if there were a semantic split in the 1st person, why not in the 2nd person? So I think the alleged semantic division in Dakotan into body parts over which you can exercise will power, substantive vs. ephemeral, etc., etc. is the result largely of (a) accident and (b) later on folk taxonomy. People perceived an (inexact) match between prefixes and semantic classes and as a result, furthered the taxonomy by shuffling body parts from one class to the other, or, sometimes, creating doublets (shadow/spirit) The development of the two prefixes in the 1st person may be due to a number of factors originally. In Crow and some other languages, for example, it appears to be partly phonological. If the older prefix was mi-, the /i/ was lost if the noun began with /a/, so bi- > ba- (or vice versa if a noun begins with /i-/). Randy's grammar has lots of examples. As for the original, proto-Siouan prefix, there is room for speculation both ways. The vowel may have been i- in all three persons, and ma- may have developed on analogy with wa- '1sg actor'. Or the prefix may have been ma- with the i of the 3rd person replacing the /a/ via phonotactic rules. I once made the assumption that the prefixes were, roughly, mi-, yi-, i-. But I'm no longer so sure, thanks to Kelty's digging. Bob