Archaic A1 p- in Dakotan.

[Koontz John E]

> 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