From shanwest at uvic.ca Tue Dec 7 22:39:37 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:39:37 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Hi, I'm a grad student working on Lakhota (and Assiniboine) at the University of Victoria in BC (not a lot of speakers of it out here), and I'm curious about something. Maybe someone can help. owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' First, could this Lakhota sentence be ambiguous with respect to 'yesterday'? Can it also read "he told me yesterday that John bought a tub"? In this sentence 'he' and 'John' can refer to the same person, a Binding Condition C violation if everything before the final verb is a single embedded constituent. Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read 'John yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani would also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? And can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? I'm more inclined to believe that Binding Condition C doesn't hold in this language, but I have to be able to give some evidence for this. So, can anyone help? I know I'm asking at the busiest time of the year for some people. My apologies for that. Also, if this isn't the appropriate forum for this kind of question, please let me know. Thanks in advance, Shannon West Wer fremde Sprachen nicht spricht, kennt seine eigene nicht. (Goethe) He who speaks no foreign language does not know his own. Kiu ne scipovas fremdan lingvon, tiu ne konas sian propran. shanwest at uvic.ca University of Victoria Victoria, BC From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Dec 8 21:59:38 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:59:38 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <016201bf4103$f6008600$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: DEar Shannon, I am a long way from having native competence about complex sentences like these, but I'll tell you what I think, and hope that a speaker or someone with access to a speaker can give you more details or correct my impressions. I am very interested in what you find out, too. Where did this sentence come from in the first place? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > Hi, > I'm a grad student working on Lakhota (and Assiniboine) at the University of > Victoria in BC (not a lot of speakers of it out here), and I'm curious about > something. Maybe someone can help. > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > My first translation of this out of context would have been "a tub told me that John bought it yesterday", but that's semantically odd enough to be improbable. For your translation, I would have expected "John owayuz^az^a waN hihaNni ophethuN ki omakiyake, and that word order is, as far as I know, indeed ambiguous -- John can be subject of either verb or of both. But with "John" in the middle of the sentence, I don't think it's ambiguous -- the unit marked with "ki" is self-contained. In other words, the SOV order is rigid and sentence units are self-contained. The first NP in a sentence with two verbs (so it's the first NP in both sentences)can be the subject of either one, but once you're "inside" a sentence, the NP doesn't construe with a verb outside it except by anaphora. > First, could this Lakhota sentence be ambiguous with respect to 'yesterday'? > Can it also read "he told me yesterday that John bought a tub"? > I don't think so; to modify "tell", the hihaNni would have to come before that verb, i.e. after the "ki": "tub a John bought ki yesterday he-told-me. > In this sentence 'he' and 'John' can refer to the same person, a Binding > Condition C violation if everything before the final verb is a single > embedded constituent. I think that's exactly right. I prefer to think in terms of the word order: if "John" occurs early in the sentence, it can be the antecedent of a later pronoun, just as it could be if it were in a separate sentence. ("John bought a tub yesterday; he told me that") I think the problem is with the notion of "embedded constituent". Linearity is more important than subordination. Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read 'John > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani would > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? And > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? I have composed this answer in a non-linear fashion, so some of what I say in the next paragraph is redundant, even though it was written first; please bear with my mental gymnastics. At the risk of betraying my ignorance of GB theory, I would suggest that you're working backwards: verb last languages do have left-to-right interpretation rules even if they don't fit neatly into the trees for verb-early languages. If you start with John at the beginning of the sentence, it can be the subject of either verb, i.e. the "ki" clause can be embedded between the subject and "tell me" because the "ki" clause is the object of "tell". I don't think it's extracted from the "tell" sentence; I think it starts out in the embedded sentence and is represented by a pronoun in subsequent mentions, as I suggested above. > > I'm more inclined to believe that Binding Condition C doesn't hold in this > language, but I have to be able to give some evidence for this. > I'm not sure what this means. > So, can anyone help? I know I'm asking at the busiest time of the year for > some people. My apologies for that. Also, if this isn't the appropriate > forum for this kind of question, please let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > > Shannon West > > Wer fremde Sprachen nicht spricht, kennt seine eigene nicht. (Goethe) > He who speaks no foreign language does not know his own. > Kiu ne scipovas fremdan lingvon, tiu ne konas sian propran. > > shanwest at uvic.ca > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC > From rlundy at huntel.net Thu Dec 9 04:19:53 1999 From: rlundy at huntel.net (Richard C. Lundy) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 22:19:53 -0600 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Shannon, et.al.; I am a Native Studies instructor at Nebraska Indian Community College with graduate training in psychology as well as in culural anthropology. The courses I teach include Dakota Language, although my own dialect is Lakota. Specifically, my family is from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and I have lived and worked in Rapid City, therefore interacting with many speakers from other Lakota Rez communities. Besides all that resume' stuff, I was looking at you bathtub sentence. To me, it reads, " He/she told me that John bought a bathtub in the morning or this morning." (although the this would have to be understood by the context of dialog) In my learning of Lakota, yesterday is htalehan. If I understand your concerns re: John and his role, the word order that you present means to me that John was the buyer and not the teller. Otherwise, it would read, "Owayuzanzan wan hihanni opetun John omakiyake (lo). Or move his name to the beginning of the sentence. I'm not a linguist so please excuse my layman's orthography. I hope this helps a little. Good luck. Richard Lundy rlundy at huntel.net Shannon West wrote: > Hi, > I'm a grad student working on Lakhota (and Assiniboine) at the University of > Victoria in BC (not a lot of speakers of it out here), and I'm curious about > something. Maybe someone can help. > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > > First, could this Lakhota sentence be ambiguous with respect to 'yesterday'? > Can it also read "he told me yesterday that John bought a tub"? > > In this sentence 'he' and 'John' can refer to the same person, a Binding > Condition C violation if everything before the final verb is a single > embedded constituent. Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read 'John > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani would > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? And > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? > > I'm more inclined to believe that Binding Condition C doesn't hold in this > language, but I have to be able to give some evidence for this. > > So, can anyone help? I know I'm asking at the busiest time of the year for > some people. My apologies for that. Also, if this isn't the appropriate > forum for this kind of question, please let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > > Shannon West > > Wer fremde Sprachen nicht spricht, kennt seine eigene nicht. (Goethe) > He who speaks no foreign language does not know his own. > Kiu ne scipovas fremdan lingvon, tiu ne konas sian propran. > > shanwest at uvic.ca > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Dec 9 05:12:59 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:12:59 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Hi, thank you! ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard C. Lundy To: Sent: December 8, 1999 8:19 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > Shannon, et.al.; > > I am a Native Studies instructor at Nebraska Indian Community College with > graduate training in psychology as well as in culural anthropology. The courses > I teach include Dakota Language, although my own dialect is Lakota. > Specifically, my family is from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and I have lived > and worked in Rapid City, therefore interacting with many speakers from other > Lakota Rez communities. Besides all that resume' stuff, I was looking at you > bathtub sentence. To me, it reads, " He/she told me that John bought a bathtub > in the morning or this morning." (although the this would have to be understood > by the context of dialog) In my learning of Lakota, yesterday is htalehan. Yes, it should have read 'this morning'. My mistake. Could the sentence read "He/she told me this morning that John bought a bathtub?" > If I understand your concerns re: John and his role, the word order that you > present means to me that John was the buyer and not the teller. Otherwise, it > would read, "Owayuzanzan wan hihanni opetun John omakiyake (lo). Or move his > name to the beginning of the sentence. I'm not a linguist so please excuse my > layman's orthography. I hope this helps a little. > Good luck. It helps a lot. Thank you. You say that John is the buyer and not the teller. But could John be both the buyer and the teller in the original sentence? i.e. "He (John) told me that he bought a tub". How about in the sentence you give above? Could it read something like "John told me that he (John) bought a tub this morning"? I really appreciate your help. Shannon West University of Victoria shanwest at uvic.ca From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Dec 9 20:57:25 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:57:25 -0700 Subject: Inflected Numerals Message-ID: I've been rather busy with a move (just within town in Louisville). I'd like to welcome all the various new subscribers and encourage them to submit their comments and queries. In fact, I have a question of my own! A recent query on Linguist regarding implicational universals in inflection of general nominals vs. numerals reminded me that I had had trouble finding examples of personal inflection of numerals in the Omaha-Ponca texts, even though third person forms exist there. Are there Siouan languages in which numerals can take personal inflection? With so many students of Dhegiha on the list, I guess I can actually ask, too, whether Omaha-Ponca is one of them. The question on Linguist took it for granted, I think, that numerals are a kind of nominal, based on the Indo-European model. If numerals are actually verbs instead in a given language, it's not so interesting that they might be inflected even if other nominals are not. However, it did seem an interesting question to me, whether Siouan numerals are verbal enough to permit them being inflected in the first, second, or inclusive persons. From munro at ucla.edu Thu Dec 9 21:44:49 1999 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:44:49 -0800 Subject: Inflected Numerals Message-ID: Lakhota numbers can certainly be inflected like verbs, as well as taking other inflection that makes them look verbal, to me, at least. This is not particularly uncommon in North America among typologically similar languages -- such as in the Yuman and Muskogean families, which share many typological traits with Siouan -- in my experience. But it certainly is something that many linguists find absolutely astounding. My former colleague and dear friend Bill Bright used to comment to me that he couldn't believe that some languages had number verbs. Pam Munro From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Dec 9 22:28:34 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:28:34 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Shannon West Cc: Sent: December 8, 1999 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > DEar Shannon, > I am a long way from having native competence about complex > sentences like these, but I'll tell you what I think, and hope that a > speaker or someone with access to a speaker can give you more details or > correct my impressions. I am very interested in what you find out, too. > Where did this sentence come from in the first place? > Thank you. Williamson 1984 pg 214 > On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > > > Hi, > > I'm a grad student working on Lakhota (and Assiniboine) at the University of > > Victoria in BC (not a lot of speakers of it out here), and I'm curious about > > something. Maybe someone can help. > > > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > > > My first translation of this out of context would have been "a tub told me > that John bought it yesterday", but that's semantically odd enough to be > improbable. For your translation, I would have expected "John owayuz^az^a > waN hihaNni ophethuN ki omakiyake, and that word order is, as far as I > know, indeed ambiguous -- John can be subject of either verb or of both. That is what I would have expected in Assiniboine as well. The word order in Assiniboine seems to be more rigidly SOV than Lakhota's. For example: s^kos^kobena waNzi hoks^iNna z^e yuta can only be 'A banana ate the boy', and saying it will get a funny look and a laugh from the consultant. > But with "John" in the middle of the sentence, I don't think it's > ambiguous -- the unit marked with "ki" is self-contained. In other words, > the SOV order is rigid and sentence units are self-contained. The > first NP in a sentence with two verbs (so it's the first NP in both > sentences)can be the subject of either one, but once you're "inside" a > sentence, the NP doesn't construe with a verb outside it except by > anaphora. Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is outside of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me. If I understand you correctly, this would be better represented as John [a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me. This is why I asked about extraction. If hihaNi and owayuz^az^a were moved to the front of this sentence, it would yield the original sentence. But that would mean that the original sentence would have to also have the same reading with perhaps a different topic / focus distinction. > > First, could this Lakhota sentence be ambiguous with respect to 'yesterday'? > > Can it also read "he told me yesterday that John bought a tub"? > > > I don't think so; to modify "tell", the hihaNni would have to come > before that verb, i.e. after the "ki": "tub a John bought ki yesterday > he-told-me. Great! This is what I'm looking for! If hihaNni had moved, it should have scope over 'tell' as well. I think. > > In this sentence 'he' and 'John' can refer to the same person, a Binding > > Condition C violation if everything before the final verb is a single > > embedded constituent. > I think that's exactly right. I prefer to think in terms of the > word order: if "John" occurs early in the sentence, it can be the > antecedent of a later pronoun, just as it could be if it were in a > separate sentence. ("John bought a tub yesterday; he told me that") I > think the problem is with the notion of "embedded constituent". Linearity > is more important than subordination. Hmm. I'll have to think that one through for a while. > Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read 'John > > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani would > > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? And > > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? > > I have composed this answer in a non-linear fashion, so some of > what I say in the next paragraph is redundant, even though it was written > first; please bear with my mental gymnastics. > At the risk of betraying my ignorance of GB theory, I would > suggest that you're working backwards: verb last languages do have > left-to-right interpretation rules even if they don't fit neatly into the > trees for verb-early languages. If you start with John at the beginning > of the sentence, it can be the subject of either verb, i.e. the "ki" > clause can be embedded between the subject and "tell me" because the "ki" > clause is the object of "tell". I don't think it's extracted from the > "tell" sentence; I think it starts out in the embedded sentence and is > represented by a pronoun in subsequent mentions, as I suggested above. Okay, I think this is what I was saying above. But if in [ [owayuz^az^a waN hihani John ophethu ki] omakiyake] the ki clause is a CP and John is the subject of the verb ophethu and also the 3rd person in omakiyake, then Binding Condition C is violated -- the pronoun refers to an NP it c-commands. I know you said that linear order is more important that subordination, but I still don't see a way around that. > > > > I'm more inclined to believe that Binding Condition C doesn't hold in this > > language, but I have to be able to give some evidence for this. > > > I'm not sure what this means. Well, the way I see it, this binding condition is a theoretical construct, not a law. If the data shows that it Lakhota can have these violations in grammatical sentences, and there's evidence against the movement of two elements out of clauses, it makes more sense to say that the condition doesn't hold for the Lakhota language, rather than trying to manipulate the data to make it fit. I.e. in Lakhota, constructions that should be ungrammatical, aren't. But in order to say that, I have to be able to justify it. Shannon West University of Victoria shanwest at uvic.ca From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Dec 10 16:15:15 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: Inflected Numerals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Lakhota the numberals inflect just like stative verbs: uNyamni pi 'there are three of us' nitona pi he? 'How many of you are there? Hena zaptaN 'There are five of them (inanimate)' David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Koontz John E wrote: > I've been rather busy with a move (just within town in Louisville). > I'd like to welcome all the various new subscribers and encourage them to > submit their comments and queries. > > In fact, I have a question of my own! A recent query on Linguist > regarding implicational universals in inflection of general nominals vs. > numerals reminded me that I had had trouble finding examples of personal > inflection of numerals in the Omaha-Ponca texts, even though third person > forms exist there. Are there Siouan languages in which numerals can take > personal inflection? With so many students of Dhegiha on the list, I > guess I can actually ask, too, whether Omaha-Ponca is one of them. > > The question on Linguist took it for granted, I think, that numerals are a > kind of nominal, based on the Indo-European model. If numerals are > actually verbs instead in a given language, it's not so interesting that > they might be inflected even if other nominals are not. However, it did > seem an interesting question to me, whether Siouan numerals are verbal > enough to permit them being inflected in the first, second, or inclusive > persons. > > > From BARudes at aol.com Fri Dec 10 16:48:09 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:48:09 EST Subject: Inflected Numerals Message-ID: In Catawba numerals may be predicated through the addition of the independent modal suffix /-re:/, e.g., n'aNpari 'two', n'aNparire: 'there are two'; this alone is not suprising since almost any root in Catawba can be predicated by adding the independent modal. Whether the predicated numeral can be inflected for person is another question. From examples such as hiN?r'a?hire: |hiN?+ra?+hi+re:| "this+with+third person singular subject+independent modal" 'and the together, with this one' (Speck 1934, p. 12) I would assume that it is possible to add personal inflections to a construction like n'aNparire: to produce, for example, *n'aNpari?a:re: 'we are two, the two of us', but I have never seen such a form in the data I have examined. On a side note, higher numerals in the Northern Iroquoian languages are clearly verbal in origin and even the lower numerals exhibit some verbal behavior. For example, they can occur with the progressive aspect suffix which otherwise occurs only with verbs, e.g., Tuscarora n'e:kti: 'two', nekti:h'a:?nye? 'two-by-two' (compare: r'eN:tih 'he makes it', reNtih'a:?nye? 'he is going along making it'). However, numerals in the Northern Iroquoian languages cannot occur with personal inflections. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Dec 10 17:25:12 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:25:12 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <001d01bf4294$bb0f5340$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ROOD DAVID S > To: Shannon West > Cc: > Sent: December 8, 1999 1:59 PM > Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > > > > DEar Shannon, > > I am a long way from having native competence about complex > > sentences like these, but I'll tell you what I think, and hope that a > > speaker or someone with access to a speaker can give you more details or > > correct my impressions. I am very interested in what you find out, too. > > Where did this sentence come from in the first place? > > > > Thank you. Williamson 1984 pg 214 > OK. Please be a little cautious about the data in Williamson. She is a very good linguist, and well trained, but she worked with speakers in Los Angeles who were apparently sometimes easy to cajole into accepting things that aren't generally acceptable to other speakers, and she sometimes bases rather grand generalizations on marginally acceptable data. > > > > > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > > > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > > > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > > > > > My first translation of this out of context would have been "a tub told me > > that John bought it yesterday", but that's semantically odd enough to be > > improbable. For your translation, I would have expected "John owayuz^az^a > > waN hihaNni ophethuN ki omakiyake, and that word order is, as far as I > > know, indeed ambiguous -- John can be subject of either verb or of both. > > That is what I would have expected in Assiniboine as well. The word order > in Assiniboine seems to be more rigidly SOV than Lakhota's. For example: > > s^kos^kobena waNzi hoks^iNna z^e yuta > > can only be 'A banana ate the boy', and saying it will get a funny look and > a laugh from the consultant. > I would be a little surprised if enough context wouldn't make this version work in Assiniboine, too: topic position is immediately pre-verbal, so in a context where the boy is continuing information and the banana is new (e.g. "it was a banana that the boy ate") this word order would be predicted to sound ok. And I think that's the case with your bathtub sentence, too -- "John" has to be a continuing topic for that word order to work. > > > But with "John" in the middle of the sentence, I don't think it's > > ambiguous -- the unit marked with "ki" is self-contained. In other words, > > the SOV order is rigid and sentence units are self-contained. The > > first NP in a sentence with two verbs (so it's the first NP in both > > sentences)can be the subject of either one, but once you're "inside" a > > sentence, the NP doesn't construe with a verb outside it except by > > anaphora. > > Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is outside > of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this morning > he bought] he-told-me. Not exactly. They're both possible. In the sequence NP NP V V, you can get either [[NP NP V] V] or [NP [NP V] V], assuming that the first NP is a possible subject for either verb. If I understand you correctly, this would be better > represented as John [a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me. This is why > I asked about extraction. If hihaNi and owayuz^az^a were moved to the front > of this sentence, it would yield the original sentence. But that would mean > that the original sentence would have to also have the same reading with > perhaps a different topic / focus distinction. > > > > Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > > > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read > 'John > > > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani > would > > > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? > And > > > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? I have trouble with the notion of "extraction" in this kind of grammatical theory, because as I've been trying to say in my muddled way, I don't think there's any "movement' involved. Given NP NP V V, the first NP can be the subject of either verb. If it's the subject of the first verb, then it can be referred back to pronominally by the second, but if it's the subject of the second verb only, then it's not a constituent of the embedded sentence. So we can get the following without movement: John [ (he) bathtub bought] said [John bathtub bought] (he) said But if the "bathtub" clause undergoes inversion, then the ambiguity disappears and we have only [bathtub John bought] he said, where "he" is not John. But I am not sure about this, and of course that's the crucial information you need to answer your original question. Perhaps someone out there will provide that data for us both. David From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Sat Dec 11 16:36:17 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:36:17 -0500 Subject: Inflected Numerals Message-ID: > In Catawba numerals may be predicated through the addition of the independent > modal suffix /-re:/, e.g., n'aNpari 'two', n'aNparire: 'there are two'; this > alone is not suprising since almost any root in Catawba can be predicated by > adding the independent modal. Whether the predicated numeral can be > inflected for person is another question. From examples such as > hiN?r'a?hire: |hiN?+ra?+hi+re:| "this+with+third person singular > subject+independent modal" 'and the together, with this one' (Speck 1934, p. > 12) I would assume that it is possible to add > personal inflections to a construction like n'aNparire: to produce, for > example, *n'aNpari?a:re: 'we are two, the two of us', but I have never seen > such a form in the data I have examined. First, I'll confirm Blair Rudes' observation. Throughout Frank Speck's Catawba texts the numerals occur frequently with /-re:/ as well as with other modal suffixes, but no example with any personal affix is found, whether by rule or accident. > On a side note, higher numerals in the Northern Iroquoian languages are > clearly verbal in origin and even the lower numerals exhibit some verbal > behavior. For example, they can occur with the progressive aspect suffix > which otherwise occurs only with verbs, e.g., Tuscarora n'e:kti: 'two', > nekti:h'a:?nye? 'two-by-two' (compare: r'eN:tih 'he makes it', reNtih'a:?nye? > 'he is going along making it'). However, numerals in the Northern Iroquoian > languages cannot occur with personal inflections. And I'll append a side note too. In the central Algonquian languages the form of a numeral used in counting, such as Kickapoo niiswi 'two', is more like an adverb than anything else, but numerals also all have verbal forms like niisiaki 'they (animate) are two, there are two of them' or niisenooni 'they (inanimate) are two'. The only truly nominal forms of a numeral would be participles based on these verbs, such as niisiciki 'they (animate) who are two, the two of them', but such forms are not especially frequent. A sentence like 'Two men arrived' would most naturally be expressed by niisiaki ineniaki pyeaaciki, literally 'The men who arrived were two' for when quantities and actions refer to a noun, Kickapoo prefers that the quantity be predicated and the action modify the noun, just the opposite of English language habits. Other personal inflections are heard with numeral verbs all the time, and sentences like kekee$ipwa. seeski neniisipena. 'How many of you are there? There are just two of us' are common. Cf. keniimipwa? aakwi, nenakamopena. 'Did you dance? No, we sang'. Paul From shanwest at uvic.ca Sun Dec 12 20:19:04 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:19:04 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Sent: December 10, 1999 9:25 AM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: ROOD DAVID S > > To: Shannon West > > Cc: > > Sent: December 8, 1999 1:59 PM > > Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > > > > > > > DEar Shannon, > > > I am a long way from having native competence about complex > > > sentences like these, but I'll tell you what I think, and hope that a > > > speaker or someone with access to a speaker can give you more details or > > > correct my impressions. I am very interested in what you find out, too. > > > Where did this sentence come from in the first place? > > > > > > > Thank you. Williamson 1984 pg 214 > > > OK. Please be a little cautious about the data in Williamson. > She is a very good linguist, and well trained, but she worked with > speakers in Los Angeles who were apparently sometimes easy to cajole into > accepting things that aren't generally acceptable to other speakers, and > she sometimes bases rather grand generalizations on marginally acceptable > data. Oh dear. This is not good. Thanks for the warning. > > > > > > > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > > > > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > > > > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > > > > > > > My first translation of this out of context would have been "a tub told me > > > that John bought it yesterday", but that's semantically odd enough to be > > > improbable. For your translation, I would have expected "John owayuz^az^a > > > waN hihaNni ophethuN ki omakiyake, and that word order is, as far as I > > > know, indeed ambiguous -- John can be subject of either verb or of both. > > > > That is what I would have expected in Assiniboine as well. The word order > > in Assiniboine seems to be more rigidly SOV than Lakhota's. For example: > > > > s^kos^kobena waNzi hoks^iNna z^e yuta > > > > can only be 'A banana ate the boy', and saying it will get a funny look and > > a laugh from the consultant. > > > > I would be a little surprised if enough context wouldn't make this > version work in Assiniboine, too: topic position is immediately > pre-verbal, so in a context where the boy is continuing information and > the banana is new (e.g. "it was a banana that the boy ate") this word > order would be predicted to sound ok. And I think that's the case with > your bathtub sentence, too -- "John" has to be a continuing topic for that > word order to work. Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. > > > But with "John" in the middle of the sentence, I don't think it's > > > ambiguous -- the unit marked with "ki" is self-contained. In other words, > > > the SOV order is rigid and sentence units are self-contained. The > > > first NP in a sentence with two verbs (so it's the first NP in both > > > sentences)can be the subject of either one, but once you're "inside" a > > > sentence, the NP doesn't construe with a verb outside it except by > > > anaphora. > > > > Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is outside > > of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this morning > > he bought] he-told-me. > > Not exactly. They're both possible. In the sequence NP NP V V, > you can get either [[NP NP V] V] or [NP [NP V] V], assuming that the > first NP is a possible subject for either verb. Okay. So in [John a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me, John and he are not the same person. Forgive my dense head on this, pronominal co-reference is not my cup of tea. > If I understand you correctly, this would be better > > represented as John [a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me. This is why > > I asked about extraction. If hihaNi and owayuz^az^a were moved to the front > > of this sentence, it would yield the original sentence. But that would mean > > that the original sentence would have to also have the same reading with > > perhaps a different topic / focus distinction. > > > > > > > Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > > > > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read > > 'John > > > > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani > > would > > > > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? > > And > > > > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? > > I have trouble with the notion of "extraction" in this kind of > grammatical theory, because as I've been trying to say in my muddled way, > I don't think there's any "movement' involved. Given NP NP V V, the first > NP can be the subject of either verb. If it's the subject of the first > verb, then it can be referred back to pronominally by the second, but if > it's the subject of the second verb only, then it's not a constituent of > the embedded sentence. So we can get the following without movement: > John [ (he) bathtub bought] said > [John bathtub bought] (he) said > > But if the "bathtub" clause undergoes inversion, then the > ambiguity disappears and we have only [bathtub John bought] he said, where > "he" is not John. But I am not sure about this, and of course that's the > crucial information you need to answer your original question. Perhaps > someone out there will provide that data for us both. And yes, thanks to Mr. Lundy I have the answer. Co-reference cannot occur between 'he' and 'John' in that word order. I think I may be able to write that section of the paper now. Thanks so much for all the help. Shannon From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Dec 12 22:44:01 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:44:01 -0600 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <001701bf44de$22de84a0$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: > Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in > Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. I'm not certain if this would contain anything you could use, but you might want to look at Richard Lungstrum's Ph.D. dissertation for Penn. I don't have the exact title at hand, but you could probably search University Microfilms' site by name. It was defended within the last 4 or 5 years. (Does this make sense to you David? You're much more conversant with this subject than I am.) Bob From shanwest at uvic.ca Sun Dec 12 23:26:05 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:26:05 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: I have that one. It's called "Switch-reference and the Structure of Lakhota Narrative Discourse". 1995. (UMI number 9543116) I've only glanced at it. I'll have to give it a more thorough look. Thanks. Shannon ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Rankin To: Sent: December 12, 1999 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > > > Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in > > Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. > > I'm not certain if this would contain anything you could use, but you > might want to look at Richard Lungstrum's Ph.D. dissertation for Penn. I > don't have the exact title at hand, but you could probably search > University Microfilms' site by name. It was defended within the last 4 or > 5 years. (Does this make sense to you David? You're much more > conversant with this subject than I am.) > > Bob > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Dec 13 16:30:30 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:30:30 -0700 Subject: Omaha-Ponca Numerals Message-ID: I had recalled doing this and was pondering where I might have stashed it, when Bob Rankin solved the problem! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:12:46 -0700 From: "Robert L. Rankin" To: john.koontz at colorado.edu Subject: Numbers (fwd) About a year and a half ago John Koontz and I were corresponding about this possibility of using numerals as inflected verbs. John forwarded this to Dhegiha scholars at that time. These are all from James Owen Dorsey's "the C/egiha language", CNAE IV, 1890 as far as I know. In most instances it looks as though Omaha-Ponca uses the verb dhiN 'be' with numerals, unlike Dakotan (see David Rood's recent post) which can use pronominal prefixes with the numerals themselves. It looks as though you can use post-verbal mode/aspect clitics with numerals directly, but not the pronominal prefixes. So they're "sort of" verbs -- predicates at the very least. It would be useful for Dhegiha field linguists to try for directly conjugated numerals however. Sentences like twins or triplets might utter: "there are two of me" or "I am two", "there are 2 of you", etc. might elicit interesting responses. (Avoid the word for twins of course, 'cause it's all you'll get back if you mention it.). How about other quantifiers? "We are many -- there's a bunch of us." Thanks to John for the following, which some of you have seen before. Bob ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:17:02 -0600 From: John E. Koontz Subject: Numbers (fwd) I thought it might be nice to send something to the Dhegiha List deliberately for a change. This is a list of examples of numbers as "verbs" that I put together for Bob Rankin. >Subject: Numbers (fwd) > Looks like it's 'to be' and articles in the first and second, and 0 in the third. first plural 90:436.17 ANgu' gdhe'ba(N) dha'bdhiN=xc^i aN'dhiN. We were just 30 (people). 90:434.3 Tti' gdhe'ba(N)=aNdhiN'. We had ten tents. second plural 90::722.4 wanaN's^e nudaN'haNga du'ba=naNkha'=s^e oh ye four police captains! 91:99.9 NiN'kkas^iNga naNba' niN' e'=iN=the Perhaps you are two people. third plural 90:166.18 NiN'kkagahi iz^aN'ge=akha naN'ba=akh=ama. They were the two daughters of the chief. The chief had two daughgters. 90:315.2 Iz^iN'ge=akha naNba'=z^i=the. He had two sons. 90:609.2 GaN'=kki, iz^iN'ge=akha du'ba=i=the And then, he had four sons. 90:152.7 E'gidhe wa?u'=akha du'ba=akh=ama Finally, there were four women. 90:219.1 Ukki'kkiz^i duba'=bi=ama There were four brethren. Or, better, close relatives, maybe inlaws. I think that might be Morgan's definition. I assume it means mutually related, because of the reciprocal. 90::438.1/2 GaN'=kki, S^aaN' tti'=i du'ba=i=the And then, there were four tents of Dakotas. 90:396.2 Ppe'dhaNba'=bi=ama. They say there were 7. 90:152.13 Ppedha'bdhiN=bi=ama. They say there were eight. 90:88.7 GaN'=bi=ama, a'z^i=dhaNdhaN z^u'=t?aN=i=the=kki, tti' a'z^i=dhaNdhaN dhimaN'gdha=i=the, he'ga=s^te=waNz^i gdhe'ba(N) hi' wittaN'ga naN'ba=bi=ama. So, they say, when groups of different ones matured, when groups of different lodges were erected, there were a great many (not a few soever), two thousand, they say. JEK From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Mon Dec 13 20:24:19 1999 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:24:19 -0600 Subject: arapaho? name inquiry Message-ID: 13 December 1999 Hello Folks: I'm forwarding on an inquiry from a friend in California doing some research on the Arapaho. While ours is a primarily Siouanist bunch, I figured someone might have some clues to this possibly Algonquian name. The name in question is WASHEE, a Ft Reno fellow associated with some ledger drawings, sometimes identified as Arapaho, sometimes Cheyenne. Washee may have been known as "Elk." I only have the 1983 Salzmann "Dictionary of Contemporary Arapaho Usage" at hand for my reference. It offers the following: hiwo'xu Elk, singular (hi)wo'xu:hu: Elk, plural note; ( ' ) represents the stress marker on the preceding vowel... not the glottal stop. It is conceivable that ELK has become the (anglicized?) WASHEE? Any assistance would be appreciated. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Department of Anthropology University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 Office 402-472-3455 Dept. 402-472-2411 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Mon Dec 13 20:22:01 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:22:01 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <005501bf44f8$43b24d00$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: Shannon, there is probably some relevant remark in there somewhere, but such is not the goal of any of his discussions, so it will take close and carefuly reading to find it. There is a little about focus toward the end of the Lakhota sketch that Allan Taylor and I wrote for the Smithsonian Handbook vol. 17, which I assume you can find. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned this is a subject wide open for further work. Another place to look first, however, would be in Van Valin's recent Syntax book in the Cambrdige series. Many of his illustrations are from Lakhota, and since he's very much interested in separating syntax, which for him is the mechanical side of sentence construction including morpheme order and grammatical morphologly, from what he terms "semantics", which is everything having to do with meaning including thematic relations, etc., I would be surprised if he hasn't discussed the issues. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > I have that one. It's called "Switch-reference and the Structure of Lakhota > Narrative Discourse". 1995. (UMI number 9543116) I've only glanced at it. > I'll have to give it a more thorough look. > > Thanks. > > Shannon > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert L. Rankin > To: > Sent: December 12, 1999 2:44 PM > Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > > > > > > > Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in > > > Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. > > > > I'm not certain if this would contain anything you could use, but you > > might want to look at Richard Lungstrum's Ph.D. dissertation for Penn. I > > don't have the exact title at hand, but you could probably search > > University Microfilms' site by name. It was defended within the last 4 or > > 5 years. (Does this make sense to you David? You're much more > > conversant with this subject than I am.) > > > > Bob > > > > > From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Dec 13 20:40:46 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:40:46 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Yes, I have the sketch. It has been extremely helpful! I'm waiting for the Van Valin book, as the library here has just acquired it and is a little slow getting things into circulation. Thanks. And you've given me _another_ great idea for research. Shannon ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Sent: December 13, 1999 12:22 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > Shannon, there is probably some relevant remark in there somewhere, but > such is not the goal of any of his discussions, so it will take close and > carefuly reading to find it. There is a little about focus toward the end > of the Lakhota sketch that Allan Taylor and I wrote for the Smithsonian > Handbook vol. 17, which I assume you can find. Otherwise > as far as I'm concerned this is a subject wide open for further work. > Another place to look first, however, would be in Van Valin's recent > Syntax book in the Cambrdige series. Many of his illustrations are from > Lakhota, and since he's very much interested in separating syntax, which > for him is the mechanical side of sentence construction including morpheme > order and grammatical morphologly, from what he terms "semantics", which > is everything having to do with meaning including thematic relations, > etc., I would be surprised if he hasn't discussed the issues. > David > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Mon Dec 13 21:15:19 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:15:19 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <001701bf44de$22de84a0$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: Shannon, one more point where things are not quite as simple as we might wish: > > > Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is > outside > > > of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this > morning > > > he bought] he-told-me. > > > > Not exactly. They're both possible. In the sequence NP NP V V, > > you can get either [[NP NP V] V] or [NP [NP V] V], assuming that the > > first NP is a possible subject for either verb. > > Okay. So in [John a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me, John and he are > not the same person. Forgive my dense head on this, pronominal co-reference > is not my cup of tea. I don't think your conclusion here is right. It is exactly this word order from which we can get the "he" of "he told me" to be an anaphor with John as the anteceent. It's not "bound" in the GB sense, any more than is the "he" in the English "sentence" I gave once before: John bought a bathtub this morning; he told me that. > > > > I have trouble with the notion of "extraction" in this kind of > > grammatical theory, because as I've been trying to say in my muddled way, > > I don't think there's any "movement' involved. Given NP NP V V, the first > > NP can be the subject of either verb. If it's the subject of the first > > verb, then it can be referred back to pronominally by the second, but if > > it's the subject of the second verb only, then it's not a constituent of > > the embedded sentence. So we can get the following without movement: > > John [ (he) bathtub bought] said > > [John bathtub bought] (he) said What I didn't make clear, I guess, is that I think (again, better verify with speakers if possible) that the "he" in parentheses in those paraphrases can be either John or someone else in both sentences, either separately or at the same time. In other words, without inversion, there are three readings to this sentence: John said John bought a bathtub this morning. John said X bought a bathtub this morning. X said John bought a bathtub this morning. But the one you started with, where "John" is inside the complement clause, can only be a "transformation" of the third reading, and the "transformation" is not the extraction of "bought" and/or "this morning" from the embedded sentence, but the "inversion" of the focus transformation which has put "John" in preverbal position inside its clause. I don't know how you do inversion in GB "downward" -- maybe you don't. I have to re-learn the relationships between spec and comp and head every time I read a paper in this model, it's all so unintuitive for me. Hope this doesn't spoil what you thought you had figured out. Best, David From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Dec 13 22:02:32 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:02:32 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Sent: December 13, 1999 1:15 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > Shannon, one more point where things are not quite as simple as we might > wish: > > > > Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is > > outside > > > > of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this > > morning > > > > he bought] he-told-me. > > > > > > Not exactly. They're both possible. In the sequence NP NP V V, > > > you can get either [[NP NP V] V] or [NP [NP V] V], assuming that the > > > first NP is a possible subject for either verb. > > > > Okay. So in [John a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me, John and he are > > not the same person. Forgive my dense head on this, pronominal co-reference > > is not my cup of tea. > > > I don't think your conclusion here is right. It is exactly this > word order from which we can get the "he" of "he told me" to be an > anaphor with John as the anteceent. It's not "bound" in the GB sense, any > more than is the "he" in the English "sentence" I gave once before: John > bought a bathtub this morning; he told me that. Right, I understand that the word order can yield this reading, but that there are three different readings that can arise. I meant to show that the structure of the sentence above yields the reading I gave, but that there are other structures for the other readings. > > > I have trouble with the notion of "extraction" in this kind of > > > grammatical theory, because as I've been trying to say in my muddled way, > > > I don't think there's any "movement' involved. Given NP NP V V, the first > > > NP can be the subject of either verb. If it's the subject of the first > > > verb, then it can be referred back to pronominally by the second, but if > > > it's the subject of the second verb only, then it's not a constituent of > > > the embedded sentence. So we can get the following without movement: > > > John [ (he) bathtub bought] said > > > [John bathtub bought] (he) said > > What I didn't make clear, I guess, is that I think (again, better > verify with speakers if possible) that the "he" in parentheses in those > paraphrases can be either John or someone else in both sentences, either > separately or at the same time. In other words, without inversion, there > are three readings to this sentence: > John said John bought a bathtub this morning. > John said X bought a bathtub this morning. > X said John bought a bathtub this morning. > > But the one you started with, where "John" is inside the > complement clause, can only be a "transformation" of the third reading, > and the "transformation" is not the extraction of "bought" and/or "this > morning" from the embedded sentence, but the "inversion" of the focus > transformation which has put "John" in preverbal position inside its > clause. I don't know how you do inversion in GB "downward" -- maybe you > don't. I have to re-learn the relationships between spec and comp and > head every time I read a paper in this model, it's all so unintuitive for > me. Downward movement is difficult. It's actively disallowed by some, and used carefully by others. I try to avoid it for the simple reason that I don't want to have to justify it in every paper I write. I think an upward movement will still work in this, without having to extract anything from the CP, and still accounting for Topic being immediately preverbal. To be honest, I don't love GB, but I'm temporarily stuck with it. > Hope this doesn't spoil what you thought you had figured out. *smile* No, I don't think so. I think we just weren't understanding what the other was saying. It's hard to explain when I can't draw a tree to illustrate what I mean. Thanks. Shannon From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Tue Dec 14 01:38:22 1999 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John P. Boyle) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:38:22 -0600 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in >> Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. > >I'm not certain if this would contain anything you could use, but you >might want to look at Richard Lungstrum's Ph.D. dissertation for Penn. I >don't have the exact title at hand, but you could probably search >University Microfilms' site by name. It was defended within the last 4 or >5 years. (Does this make sense to you David? You're much more >conversant with this subject than I am.) > >Bob The title is "Switch-Reference and the Structure of Lakhota Narrative Discourse" by Richard Lungstrum. 1995 - University of Pennsylvania. I just finished reading this disertation and I'm not sure if it would be of much help in this case. John From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 14 05:20:44 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:20:44 -0700 Subject: arapaho? name inquiry (fwd) Message-ID: I've taken the liberty of posting here a reply to Mark's query from Allan Taylor. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:25:27 -0700 From: "Allan R. Taylor" To: Koontz John E Subject: Re: arapaho? name inquiry (fwd) John: Thanks for the forwarded message. The name is more likely Gros Ventre than Arapaho. The G.V. word for elk is ?iwasii?, with high pitch on the middle vowel (can't write it with the software which I have). It is very possible that washee is an anglicised form of the G.V. word. It is not a likely anglecization of the arapaho word. Possibly it is Cheyenne, we'll have to wait for Lehman on that one. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Dec 14 16:15:36 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:15:36 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <008901bf45b5$c35fdd20$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: Dear Shannon, Thanks for your last clarification and good luck with the paper. I would be very much interested in reading it if you care to share it. I have a lot of respect for the kinds of things that GB can do -- I think that finding "uniform" mechanics for a variety of grammatical phenomena is probably on the way to finding a model for how the brain works. But the details are nevertheless overwhelming, and there are many times when phenomena seem to be forced into an inapporpriate version of the model. So I'm glad people like you are working with the model AND interesting languages and structures -- that's the way science advances. Best wishes, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From Rgraczyk at aol.com Tue Dec 14 17:28:14 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:28:14 EST Subject: arapaho? name inquiry (fwd) Message-ID: According to my Cheyenne dictionary, the Cheyenne word for elk is mo?e'he (with the question mark representing a glottal stop). Randy From shanwest at uvic.ca Tue Dec 14 19:13:38 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:13:38 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Thank you. I find GB to be quite overwhelming at times, but I try not to forget that it is only a theory, and only one way of looking at the data. . At some point I'd like to get into a theory that doesn't permit movement, just to see how that works. HPSG is one theory I'd like to get to know better. I'd be happy to share this paper, with the warning that it is a work in progress. I'm not entirely happy with it right now, but deadlines are deadlines, so it will be handed in and presented on Thursday despite any concerns I might have. Shannon ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Sent: December 14, 1999 8:15 AM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > Dear Shannon, > Thanks for your last clarification and good luck with the paper. > I would be very much interested in reading it if you care to share it. I > have a lot of respect for the kinds of things that GB can do -- I think > that finding "uniform" mechanics for a variety of grammatical phenomena is > probably on the way to finding a model for how the brain works. But the > details are nevertheless overwhelming, and there are many times when > phenomena seem to be forced into an inapporpriate version of the model. > So I'm glad people like you are working with the model AND interesting > languages and structures -- that's the way science advances. > Best wishes, > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 14 19:52:04 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:52:04 -0700 Subject: arapaho? name inquiry (fwd) In-Reply-To: <0.4caf013f.2587d82e@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > According to my Cheyenne dictionary, the Cheyenne word for elk is mo?e'he > (with the question mark representing a glottal stop). Looking further in the draft file I see I should have given the following: \c mo'[ehe \e *elk \co for some speakers this word is sg., pl., & obv.; for others m~o'e is sg.; possible pl. for some speakers mo'[eheo'o pl. The '[ is the glottal stop, or perhaps high pitch, glottal stop. The mysterious ~ is middle pitch. I think ' is high pitch. From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Tue Dec 14 20:41:47 1999 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:41:47 -0600 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Hear, hear! I'm very glad to see someone doing this kind of work; valuable both for understanding structure of Siouan languages AND for development of linguistic theory. And I also would love to see the paper when you're ready to circulate it. Thanks for bringing up all these fascinating questions; I've been enjoying the discussion! Catherine Rudin Humanities Division Wayne State College Wayne, NE 68787 crudin at wscgate.wsc.edu ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Dear Shannon, Thanks for your last clarification and good luck with the paper. I would be very much interested in reading it if you care to share it. I have a lot of respect for the kinds of things that GB can do -- I think that finding "uniform" mechanics for a variety of grammatical phenomena is probably on the way to finding a model for how the brain works. But the details are nevertheless overwhelming, and there are many times when phenomena seem to be forced into an inapporpriate version of the model. So I'm glad people like you are working with the model AND interesting languages and structures -- that's the way science advances. Best wishes, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From BARudes at aol.com Tue Dec 14 23:16:47 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:16:47 EST Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: I second Catherine's "hear, hear" and would also like to receive a copy of the paper, as it may inform my ongoing work on Catawba. Blair A. Rudes Department of English UNC Charlotte 9201 University City Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 Let me know how to reimburse you for reproduction. Blair From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Dec 15 07:06:21 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:06:21 -0700 Subject: Lungstrum Message-ID: Several mentions of Richard Lungstrum's dissertation have reminded me that I seem to have lost contact with him. We were phsically neighbors not so long ago! Does anyone have an email or mail address for him? JEK From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Wed Dec 15 14:47:16 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:47:16 -0600 Subject: Lungstrum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: He has allegedly moved back to Lawrence, KS and bought a house -- this according to my chairman. I have not seen or heard from him here, but I've been out of circulation with the hip business. That's all I know at present. > Several mentions of Richard Lungstrum's dissertation have reminded me > that I seem to have lost contact with him. We were phsically > neighbors not so long ago! Does anyone have an email or mail address > for him? From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Wed Dec 15 21:05:24 1999 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:05:24 -0600 Subject: arapaho name inquiry2 Message-ID: 15 December 1999 Thanks to all who have responded to my inquiry about a possible Arapaho personal name WASHEE. I have forwarded all responses on to the person who posed the question. I'll keep you posted on any developments. Aloha- mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Department of Anthropology University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 Office 402-472-3455 Dept. 402-472-2411 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Thu Dec 16 09:35:26 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:35:26 -0600 Subject: LSA In-Reply-To: <000A63B7.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: Count me in! Kathy Shea On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Catherine Rudin wrote: > Good idea! A Siouanists dinner would be great, and just about any > kind of food is ok with me... I'll try to remember to brush up on my > deictics, Carolyn! Catherine > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Dec 17 17:20:10 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:20:10 -0700 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 In-Reply-To: <008901bf45b5$c35fdd20$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: Hi everyone, The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes in Anadarko, Oklahoma have tentatively agreed to host our meeting in 2000. I am suggesting Fri and Sat June 9-10 as dates, but there are no special constraints on those days. Personally, I would like to keep it from getting much later into the summer, but those of you with different schedules are welcome to offer countersuggestions if you wish. Anadarko is a town of about 6,000 about 60 miles SW of Oklahoma City. It is a tourist attraction in the summer because of its abundance of Native American places and events, some more commercial than others, of course. Tribes living nearby include Wichita, Caddo, Pawnee, Iowa-Oto, Kansa, Quapaw, Ponca, and Osage (I hope I haven't left anyone out), in addition to representatives of other families (Comanche, Kiowa, Apache, Delaware, Southern Cheyenne, and probably more). I would like to have paper proposals by around the first of May, but we can establish those details later. Right now I would just like as much feedback as possible on the date. Thanks. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From 75041.314 at compuserve.com Fri Dec 17 19:22:20 1999 From: 75041.314 at compuserve.com (Richard T. Carter) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:22:20 -0500 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 Message-ID: David, This looks like a fine date to me. Regards, Dick Carter From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sat Dec 18 04:09:09 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 23:09:09 EST Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 Message-ID: June 9-10 will work fine for me. Randy Graczyk From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Sat Dec 18 14:32:59 1999 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:32:59 -0600 Subject: siouan/caddoan conference dates Message-ID: Hello All: The June 9-10 dates sound fine. Maybe with some luck I can finally attend one of these shindigs... Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Department of Anthropology University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 Office 402-472-3455 Dept. 402-472-2411 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Dec 18 15:30:43 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:30:43 -0600 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes in Anadarko, Oklahoma have > tentatively agreed to host our meeting in 2000. I am suggesting Fri > and Sat June 9-10 Sounds great. It's high time we met with one of the Caddoan-speaking groups. I wish I could be there; this will be the first one I've missed. Bob From cqcq at compuserve.com Sat Dec 18 19:01:54 1999 From: cqcq at compuserve.com (Carolyn) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 14:01:54 -0500 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 Message-ID: No problem with the dates, and I'm glad it'll be in Oklahoma! Any later in the summer would be fairly miserable in Anadarko. Carolyn Quintero From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Tue Dec 21 08:08:16 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:08:16 -0600 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The dates and place sound great to me! Kathy Shea From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Dec 22 11:22:22 1999 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:22:22 +0000 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 Message-ID: David Dates and place definitely ok by me. look forward to it bruce -- Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From Ogalala2 at aol.com Thu Dec 23 19:37:42 1999 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 14:37:42 EST Subject: Siouan/Caddoan Conference Message-ID: June 9 & 10 in Anandarko fits my schedule. I plan on being there and presenting a paper. Ted Grimm, Wichita, KS From shanwest at uvic.ca Tue Dec 7 22:39:37 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:39:37 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Hi, I'm a grad student working on Lakhota (and Assiniboine) at the University of Victoria in BC (not a lot of speakers of it out here), and I'm curious about something. Maybe someone can help. owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' First, could this Lakhota sentence be ambiguous with respect to 'yesterday'? Can it also read "he told me yesterday that John bought a tub"? In this sentence 'he' and 'John' can refer to the same person, a Binding Condition C violation if everything before the final verb is a single embedded constituent. Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read 'John yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani would also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? And can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? I'm more inclined to believe that Binding Condition C doesn't hold in this language, but I have to be able to give some evidence for this. So, can anyone help? I know I'm asking at the busiest time of the year for some people. My apologies for that. Also, if this isn't the appropriate forum for this kind of question, please let me know. Thanks in advance, Shannon West Wer fremde Sprachen nicht spricht, kennt seine eigene nicht. (Goethe) He who speaks no foreign language does not know his own. Kiu ne scipovas fremdan lingvon, tiu ne konas sian propran. shanwest at uvic.ca University of Victoria Victoria, BC From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Dec 8 21:59:38 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:59:38 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <016201bf4103$f6008600$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: DEar Shannon, I am a long way from having native competence about complex sentences like these, but I'll tell you what I think, and hope that a speaker or someone with access to a speaker can give you more details or correct my impressions. I am very interested in what you find out, too. Where did this sentence come from in the first place? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > Hi, > I'm a grad student working on Lakhota (and Assiniboine) at the University of > Victoria in BC (not a lot of speakers of it out here), and I'm curious about > something. Maybe someone can help. > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > My first translation of this out of context would have been "a tub told me that John bought it yesterday", but that's semantically odd enough to be improbable. For your translation, I would have expected "John owayuz^az^a waN hihaNni ophethuN ki omakiyake, and that word order is, as far as I know, indeed ambiguous -- John can be subject of either verb or of both. But with "John" in the middle of the sentence, I don't think it's ambiguous -- the unit marked with "ki" is self-contained. In other words, the SOV order is rigid and sentence units are self-contained. The first NP in a sentence with two verbs (so it's the first NP in both sentences)can be the subject of either one, but once you're "inside" a sentence, the NP doesn't construe with a verb outside it except by anaphora. > First, could this Lakhota sentence be ambiguous with respect to 'yesterday'? > Can it also read "he told me yesterday that John bought a tub"? > I don't think so; to modify "tell", the hihaNni would have to come before that verb, i.e. after the "ki": "tub a John bought ki yesterday he-told-me. > In this sentence 'he' and 'John' can refer to the same person, a Binding > Condition C violation if everything before the final verb is a single > embedded constituent. I think that's exactly right. I prefer to think in terms of the word order: if "John" occurs early in the sentence, it can be the antecedent of a later pronoun, just as it could be if it were in a separate sentence. ("John bought a tub yesterday; he told me that") I think the problem is with the notion of "embedded constituent". Linearity is more important than subordination. Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read 'John > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani would > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? And > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? I have composed this answer in a non-linear fashion, so some of what I say in the next paragraph is redundant, even though it was written first; please bear with my mental gymnastics. At the risk of betraying my ignorance of GB theory, I would suggest that you're working backwards: verb last languages do have left-to-right interpretation rules even if they don't fit neatly into the trees for verb-early languages. If you start with John at the beginning of the sentence, it can be the subject of either verb, i.e. the "ki" clause can be embedded between the subject and "tell me" because the "ki" clause is the object of "tell". I don't think it's extracted from the "tell" sentence; I think it starts out in the embedded sentence and is represented by a pronoun in subsequent mentions, as I suggested above. > > I'm more inclined to believe that Binding Condition C doesn't hold in this > language, but I have to be able to give some evidence for this. > I'm not sure what this means. > So, can anyone help? I know I'm asking at the busiest time of the year for > some people. My apologies for that. Also, if this isn't the appropriate > forum for this kind of question, please let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > > Shannon West > > Wer fremde Sprachen nicht spricht, kennt seine eigene nicht. (Goethe) > He who speaks no foreign language does not know his own. > Kiu ne scipovas fremdan lingvon, tiu ne konas sian propran. > > shanwest at uvic.ca > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC > From rlundy at huntel.net Thu Dec 9 04:19:53 1999 From: rlundy at huntel.net (Richard C. Lundy) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 22:19:53 -0600 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Shannon, et.al.; I am a Native Studies instructor at Nebraska Indian Community College with graduate training in psychology as well as in culural anthropology. The courses I teach include Dakota Language, although my own dialect is Lakota. Specifically, my family is from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and I have lived and worked in Rapid City, therefore interacting with many speakers from other Lakota Rez communities. Besides all that resume' stuff, I was looking at you bathtub sentence. To me, it reads, " He/she told me that John bought a bathtub in the morning or this morning." (although the this would have to be understood by the context of dialog) In my learning of Lakota, yesterday is htalehan. If I understand your concerns re: John and his role, the word order that you present means to me that John was the buyer and not the teller. Otherwise, it would read, "Owayuzanzan wan hihanni opetun John omakiyake (lo). Or move his name to the beginning of the sentence. I'm not a linguist so please excuse my layman's orthography. I hope this helps a little. Good luck. Richard Lundy rlundy at huntel.net Shannon West wrote: > Hi, > I'm a grad student working on Lakhota (and Assiniboine) at the University of > Victoria in BC (not a lot of speakers of it out here), and I'm curious about > something. Maybe someone can help. > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > > First, could this Lakhota sentence be ambiguous with respect to 'yesterday'? > Can it also read "he told me yesterday that John bought a tub"? > > In this sentence 'he' and 'John' can refer to the same person, a Binding > Condition C violation if everything before the final verb is a single > embedded constituent. Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read 'John > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani would > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? And > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? > > I'm more inclined to believe that Binding Condition C doesn't hold in this > language, but I have to be able to give some evidence for this. > > So, can anyone help? I know I'm asking at the busiest time of the year for > some people. My apologies for that. Also, if this isn't the appropriate > forum for this kind of question, please let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > > Shannon West > > Wer fremde Sprachen nicht spricht, kennt seine eigene nicht. (Goethe) > He who speaks no foreign language does not know his own. > Kiu ne scipovas fremdan lingvon, tiu ne konas sian propran. > > shanwest at uvic.ca > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Dec 9 05:12:59 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:12:59 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Hi, thank you! ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard C. Lundy To: Sent: December 8, 1999 8:19 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > Shannon, et.al.; > > I am a Native Studies instructor at Nebraska Indian Community College with > graduate training in psychology as well as in culural anthropology. The courses > I teach include Dakota Language, although my own dialect is Lakota. > Specifically, my family is from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and I have lived > and worked in Rapid City, therefore interacting with many speakers from other > Lakota Rez communities. Besides all that resume' stuff, I was looking at you > bathtub sentence. To me, it reads, " He/she told me that John bought a bathtub > in the morning or this morning." (although the this would have to be understood > by the context of dialog) In my learning of Lakota, yesterday is htalehan. Yes, it should have read 'this morning'. My mistake. Could the sentence read "He/she told me this morning that John bought a bathtub?" > If I understand your concerns re: John and his role, the word order that you > present means to me that John was the buyer and not the teller. Otherwise, it > would read, "Owayuzanzan wan hihanni opetun John omakiyake (lo). Or move his > name to the beginning of the sentence. I'm not a linguist so please excuse my > layman's orthography. I hope this helps a little. > Good luck. It helps a lot. Thank you. You say that John is the buyer and not the teller. But could John be both the buyer and the teller in the original sentence? i.e. "He (John) told me that he bought a tub". How about in the sentence you give above? Could it read something like "John told me that he (John) bought a tub this morning"? I really appreciate your help. Shannon West University of Victoria shanwest at uvic.ca From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Dec 9 20:57:25 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:57:25 -0700 Subject: Inflected Numerals Message-ID: I've been rather busy with a move (just within town in Louisville). I'd like to welcome all the various new subscribers and encourage them to submit their comments and queries. In fact, I have a question of my own! A recent query on Linguist regarding implicational universals in inflection of general nominals vs. numerals reminded me that I had had trouble finding examples of personal inflection of numerals in the Omaha-Ponca texts, even though third person forms exist there. Are there Siouan languages in which numerals can take personal inflection? With so many students of Dhegiha on the list, I guess I can actually ask, too, whether Omaha-Ponca is one of them. The question on Linguist took it for granted, I think, that numerals are a kind of nominal, based on the Indo-European model. If numerals are actually verbs instead in a given language, it's not so interesting that they might be inflected even if other nominals are not. However, it did seem an interesting question to me, whether Siouan numerals are verbal enough to permit them being inflected in the first, second, or inclusive persons. From munro at ucla.edu Thu Dec 9 21:44:49 1999 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:44:49 -0800 Subject: Inflected Numerals Message-ID: Lakhota numbers can certainly be inflected like verbs, as well as taking other inflection that makes them look verbal, to me, at least. This is not particularly uncommon in North America among typologically similar languages -- such as in the Yuman and Muskogean families, which share many typological traits with Siouan -- in my experience. But it certainly is something that many linguists find absolutely astounding. My former colleague and dear friend Bill Bright used to comment to me that he couldn't believe that some languages had number verbs. Pam Munro From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Dec 9 22:28:34 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:28:34 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Shannon West Cc: Sent: December 8, 1999 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > DEar Shannon, > I am a long way from having native competence about complex > sentences like these, but I'll tell you what I think, and hope that a > speaker or someone with access to a speaker can give you more details or > correct my impressions. I am very interested in what you find out, too. > Where did this sentence come from in the first place? > Thank you. Williamson 1984 pg 214 > On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > > > Hi, > > I'm a grad student working on Lakhota (and Assiniboine) at the University of > > Victoria in BC (not a lot of speakers of it out here), and I'm curious about > > something. Maybe someone can help. > > > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > > > My first translation of this out of context would have been "a tub told me > that John bought it yesterday", but that's semantically odd enough to be > improbable. For your translation, I would have expected "John owayuz^az^a > waN hihaNni ophethuN ki omakiyake, and that word order is, as far as I > know, indeed ambiguous -- John can be subject of either verb or of both. That is what I would have expected in Assiniboine as well. The word order in Assiniboine seems to be more rigidly SOV than Lakhota's. For example: s^kos^kobena waNzi hoks^iNna z^e yuta can only be 'A banana ate the boy', and saying it will get a funny look and a laugh from the consultant. > But with "John" in the middle of the sentence, I don't think it's > ambiguous -- the unit marked with "ki" is self-contained. In other words, > the SOV order is rigid and sentence units are self-contained. The > first NP in a sentence with two verbs (so it's the first NP in both > sentences)can be the subject of either one, but once you're "inside" a > sentence, the NP doesn't construe with a verb outside it except by > anaphora. Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is outside of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me. If I understand you correctly, this would be better represented as John [a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me. This is why I asked about extraction. If hihaNi and owayuz^az^a were moved to the front of this sentence, it would yield the original sentence. But that would mean that the original sentence would have to also have the same reading with perhaps a different topic / focus distinction. > > First, could this Lakhota sentence be ambiguous with respect to 'yesterday'? > > Can it also read "he told me yesterday that John bought a tub"? > > > I don't think so; to modify "tell", the hihaNni would have to come > before that verb, i.e. after the "ki": "tub a John bought ki yesterday > he-told-me. Great! This is what I'm looking for! If hihaNni had moved, it should have scope over 'tell' as well. I think. > > In this sentence 'he' and 'John' can refer to the same person, a Binding > > Condition C violation if everything before the final verb is a single > > embedded constituent. > I think that's exactly right. I prefer to think in terms of the > word order: if "John" occurs early in the sentence, it can be the > antecedent of a later pronoun, just as it could be if it were in a > separate sentence. ("John bought a tub yesterday; he told me that") I > think the problem is with the notion of "embedded constituent". Linearity > is more important than subordination. Hmm. I'll have to think that one through for a while. > Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read 'John > > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani would > > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? And > > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? > > I have composed this answer in a non-linear fashion, so some of > what I say in the next paragraph is redundant, even though it was written > first; please bear with my mental gymnastics. > At the risk of betraying my ignorance of GB theory, I would > suggest that you're working backwards: verb last languages do have > left-to-right interpretation rules even if they don't fit neatly into the > trees for verb-early languages. If you start with John at the beginning > of the sentence, it can be the subject of either verb, i.e. the "ki" > clause can be embedded between the subject and "tell me" because the "ki" > clause is the object of "tell". I don't think it's extracted from the > "tell" sentence; I think it starts out in the embedded sentence and is > represented by a pronoun in subsequent mentions, as I suggested above. Okay, I think this is what I was saying above. But if in [ [owayuz^az^a waN hihani John ophethu ki] omakiyake] the ki clause is a CP and John is the subject of the verb ophethu and also the 3rd person in omakiyake, then Binding Condition C is violated -- the pronoun refers to an NP it c-commands. I know you said that linear order is more important that subordination, but I still don't see a way around that. > > > > I'm more inclined to believe that Binding Condition C doesn't hold in this > > language, but I have to be able to give some evidence for this. > > > I'm not sure what this means. Well, the way I see it, this binding condition is a theoretical construct, not a law. If the data shows that it Lakhota can have these violations in grammatical sentences, and there's evidence against the movement of two elements out of clauses, it makes more sense to say that the condition doesn't hold for the Lakhota language, rather than trying to manipulate the data to make it fit. I.e. in Lakhota, constructions that should be ungrammatical, aren't. But in order to say that, I have to be able to justify it. Shannon West University of Victoria shanwest at uvic.ca From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Dec 10 16:15:15 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: Inflected Numerals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Lakhota the numberals inflect just like stative verbs: uNyamni pi 'there are three of us' nitona pi he? 'How many of you are there? Hena zaptaN 'There are five of them (inanimate)' David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Koontz John E wrote: > I've been rather busy with a move (just within town in Louisville). > I'd like to welcome all the various new subscribers and encourage them to > submit their comments and queries. > > In fact, I have a question of my own! A recent query on Linguist > regarding implicational universals in inflection of general nominals vs. > numerals reminded me that I had had trouble finding examples of personal > inflection of numerals in the Omaha-Ponca texts, even though third person > forms exist there. Are there Siouan languages in which numerals can take > personal inflection? With so many students of Dhegiha on the list, I > guess I can actually ask, too, whether Omaha-Ponca is one of them. > > The question on Linguist took it for granted, I think, that numerals are a > kind of nominal, based on the Indo-European model. If numerals are > actually verbs instead in a given language, it's not so interesting that > they might be inflected even if other nominals are not. However, it did > seem an interesting question to me, whether Siouan numerals are verbal > enough to permit them being inflected in the first, second, or inclusive > persons. > > > From BARudes at aol.com Fri Dec 10 16:48:09 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:48:09 EST Subject: Inflected Numerals Message-ID: In Catawba numerals may be predicated through the addition of the independent modal suffix /-re:/, e.g., n'aNpari 'two', n'aNparire: 'there are two'; this alone is not suprising since almost any root in Catawba can be predicated by adding the independent modal. Whether the predicated numeral can be inflected for person is another question. From examples such as hiN?r'a?hire: |hiN?+ra?+hi+re:| "this+with+third person singular subject+independent modal" 'and the together, with this one' (Speck 1934, p. 12) I would assume that it is possible to add personal inflections to a construction like n'aNparire: to produce, for example, *n'aNpari?a:re: 'we are two, the two of us', but I have never seen such a form in the data I have examined. On a side note, higher numerals in the Northern Iroquoian languages are clearly verbal in origin and even the lower numerals exhibit some verbal behavior. For example, they can occur with the progressive aspect suffix which otherwise occurs only with verbs, e.g., Tuscarora n'e:kti: 'two', nekti:h'a:?nye? 'two-by-two' (compare: r'eN:tih 'he makes it', reNtih'a:?nye? 'he is going along making it'). However, numerals in the Northern Iroquoian languages cannot occur with personal inflections. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Dec 10 17:25:12 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:25:12 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <001d01bf4294$bb0f5340$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ROOD DAVID S > To: Shannon West > Cc: > Sent: December 8, 1999 1:59 PM > Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > > > > DEar Shannon, > > I am a long way from having native competence about complex > > sentences like these, but I'll tell you what I think, and hope that a > > speaker or someone with access to a speaker can give you more details or > > correct my impressions. I am very interested in what you find out, too. > > Where did this sentence come from in the first place? > > > > Thank you. Williamson 1984 pg 214 > OK. Please be a little cautious about the data in Williamson. She is a very good linguist, and well trained, but she worked with speakers in Los Angeles who were apparently sometimes easy to cajole into accepting things that aren't generally acceptable to other speakers, and she sometimes bases rather grand generalizations on marginally acceptable data. > > > > > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > > > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > > > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > > > > > My first translation of this out of context would have been "a tub told me > > that John bought it yesterday", but that's semantically odd enough to be > > improbable. For your translation, I would have expected "John owayuz^az^a > > waN hihaNni ophethuN ki omakiyake, and that word order is, as far as I > > know, indeed ambiguous -- John can be subject of either verb or of both. > > That is what I would have expected in Assiniboine as well. The word order > in Assiniboine seems to be more rigidly SOV than Lakhota's. For example: > > s^kos^kobena waNzi hoks^iNna z^e yuta > > can only be 'A banana ate the boy', and saying it will get a funny look and > a laugh from the consultant. > I would be a little surprised if enough context wouldn't make this version work in Assiniboine, too: topic position is immediately pre-verbal, so in a context where the boy is continuing information and the banana is new (e.g. "it was a banana that the boy ate") this word order would be predicted to sound ok. And I think that's the case with your bathtub sentence, too -- "John" has to be a continuing topic for that word order to work. > > > But with "John" in the middle of the sentence, I don't think it's > > ambiguous -- the unit marked with "ki" is self-contained. In other words, > > the SOV order is rigid and sentence units are self-contained. The > > first NP in a sentence with two verbs (so it's the first NP in both > > sentences)can be the subject of either one, but once you're "inside" a > > sentence, the NP doesn't construe with a verb outside it except by > > anaphora. > > Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is outside > of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this morning > he bought] he-told-me. Not exactly. They're both possible. In the sequence NP NP V V, you can get either [[NP NP V] V] or [NP [NP V] V], assuming that the first NP is a possible subject for either verb. If I understand you correctly, this would be better > represented as John [a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me. This is why > I asked about extraction. If hihaNi and owayuz^az^a were moved to the front > of this sentence, it would yield the original sentence. But that would mean > that the original sentence would have to also have the same reading with > perhaps a different topic / focus distinction. > > > > Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > > > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read > 'John > > > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani > would > > > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? > And > > > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? I have trouble with the notion of "extraction" in this kind of grammatical theory, because as I've been trying to say in my muddled way, I don't think there's any "movement' involved. Given NP NP V V, the first NP can be the subject of either verb. If it's the subject of the first verb, then it can be referred back to pronominally by the second, but if it's the subject of the second verb only, then it's not a constituent of the embedded sentence. So we can get the following without movement: John [ (he) bathtub bought] said [John bathtub bought] (he) said But if the "bathtub" clause undergoes inversion, then the ambiguity disappears and we have only [bathtub John bought] he said, where "he" is not John. But I am not sure about this, and of course that's the crucial information you need to answer your original question. Perhaps someone out there will provide that data for us both. David From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Sat Dec 11 16:36:17 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:36:17 -0500 Subject: Inflected Numerals Message-ID: > In Catawba numerals may be predicated through the addition of the independent > modal suffix /-re:/, e.g., n'aNpari 'two', n'aNparire: 'there are two'; this > alone is not suprising since almost any root in Catawba can be predicated by > adding the independent modal. Whether the predicated numeral can be > inflected for person is another question. From examples such as > hiN?r'a?hire: |hiN?+ra?+hi+re:| "this+with+third person singular > subject+independent modal" 'and the together, with this one' (Speck 1934, p. > 12) I would assume that it is possible to add > personal inflections to a construction like n'aNparire: to produce, for > example, *n'aNpari?a:re: 'we are two, the two of us', but I have never seen > such a form in the data I have examined. First, I'll confirm Blair Rudes' observation. Throughout Frank Speck's Catawba texts the numerals occur frequently with /-re:/ as well as with other modal suffixes, but no example with any personal affix is found, whether by rule or accident. > On a side note, higher numerals in the Northern Iroquoian languages are > clearly verbal in origin and even the lower numerals exhibit some verbal > behavior. For example, they can occur with the progressive aspect suffix > which otherwise occurs only with verbs, e.g., Tuscarora n'e:kti: 'two', > nekti:h'a:?nye? 'two-by-two' (compare: r'eN:tih 'he makes it', reNtih'a:?nye? > 'he is going along making it'). However, numerals in the Northern Iroquoian > languages cannot occur with personal inflections. And I'll append a side note too. In the central Algonquian languages the form of a numeral used in counting, such as Kickapoo niiswi 'two', is more like an adverb than anything else, but numerals also all have verbal forms like niisiaki 'they (animate) are two, there are two of them' or niisenooni 'they (inanimate) are two'. The only truly nominal forms of a numeral would be participles based on these verbs, such as niisiciki 'they (animate) who are two, the two of them', but such forms are not especially frequent. A sentence like 'Two men arrived' would most naturally be expressed by niisiaki ineniaki pyeaaciki, literally 'The men who arrived were two' for when quantities and actions refer to a noun, Kickapoo prefers that the quantity be predicated and the action modify the noun, just the opposite of English language habits. Other personal inflections are heard with numeral verbs all the time, and sentences like kekee$ipwa. seeski neniisipena. 'How many of you are there? There are just two of us' are common. Cf. keniimipwa? aakwi, nenakamopena. 'Did you dance? No, we sang'. Paul From shanwest at uvic.ca Sun Dec 12 20:19:04 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:19:04 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Sent: December 10, 1999 9:25 AM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: ROOD DAVID S > > To: Shannon West > > Cc: > > Sent: December 8, 1999 1:59 PM > > Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > > > > > > > DEar Shannon, > > > I am a long way from having native competence about complex > > > sentences like these, but I'll tell you what I think, and hope that a > > > speaker or someone with access to a speaker can give you more details or > > > correct my impressions. I am very interested in what you find out, too. > > > Where did this sentence come from in the first place? > > > > > > > Thank you. Williamson 1984 pg 214 > > > OK. Please be a little cautious about the data in Williamson. > She is a very good linguist, and well trained, but she worked with > speakers in Los Angeles who were apparently sometimes easy to cajole into > accepting things that aren't generally acceptable to other speakers, and > she sometimes bases rather grand generalizations on marginally acceptable > data. Oh dear. This is not good. Thanks for the warning. > > > > > > > > owayuz^az^a wan hihani John ophethu ki omakiyake > > > > tub a yesterday John buy COMP he.told-me > > > > 'He told me that John bought a tub yesterday' > > > > > > > My first translation of this out of context would have been "a tub told me > > > that John bought it yesterday", but that's semantically odd enough to be > > > improbable. For your translation, I would have expected "John owayuz^az^a > > > waN hihaNni ophethuN ki omakiyake, and that word order is, as far as I > > > know, indeed ambiguous -- John can be subject of either verb or of both. > > > > That is what I would have expected in Assiniboine as well. The word order > > in Assiniboine seems to be more rigidly SOV than Lakhota's. For example: > > > > s^kos^kobena waNzi hoks^iNna z^e yuta > > > > can only be 'A banana ate the boy', and saying it will get a funny look and > > a laugh from the consultant. > > > > I would be a little surprised if enough context wouldn't make this > version work in Assiniboine, too: topic position is immediately > pre-verbal, so in a context where the boy is continuing information and > the banana is new (e.g. "it was a banana that the boy ate") this word > order would be predicted to sound ok. And I think that's the case with > your bathtub sentence, too -- "John" has to be a continuing topic for that > word order to work. Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. > > > But with "John" in the middle of the sentence, I don't think it's > > > ambiguous -- the unit marked with "ki" is self-contained. In other words, > > > the SOV order is rigid and sentence units are self-contained. The > > > first NP in a sentence with two verbs (so it's the first NP in both > > > sentences)can be the subject of either one, but once you're "inside" a > > > sentence, the NP doesn't construe with a verb outside it except by > > > anaphora. > > > > Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is outside > > of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this morning > > he bought] he-told-me. > > Not exactly. They're both possible. In the sequence NP NP V V, > you can get either [[NP NP V] V] or [NP [NP V] V], assuming that the > first NP is a possible subject for either verb. Okay. So in [John a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me, John and he are not the same person. Forgive my dense head on this, pronominal co-reference is not my cup of tea. > If I understand you correctly, this would be better > > represented as John [a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me. This is why > > I asked about extraction. If hihaNi and owayuz^az^a were moved to the front > > of this sentence, it would yield the original sentence. But that would mean > > that the original sentence would have to also have the same reading with > > perhaps a different topic / focus distinction. > > > > > > > Is it possible that 'John' is the subject of > > > > 'omakiyake' that was extracted out of the clause? i.e. it would read > > 'John > > > > yesterday he told me that he bought a tub'. And if could be, hihani > > would > > > > also have to move. The question then is _why_ do these elements move? > > And > > > > can 2 elements be extracted out of a complement clause in Lakhota? > > I have trouble with the notion of "extraction" in this kind of > grammatical theory, because as I've been trying to say in my muddled way, > I don't think there's any "movement' involved. Given NP NP V V, the first > NP can be the subject of either verb. If it's the subject of the first > verb, then it can be referred back to pronominally by the second, but if > it's the subject of the second verb only, then it's not a constituent of > the embedded sentence. So we can get the following without movement: > John [ (he) bathtub bought] said > [John bathtub bought] (he) said > > But if the "bathtub" clause undergoes inversion, then the > ambiguity disappears and we have only [bathtub John bought] he said, where > "he" is not John. But I am not sure about this, and of course that's the > crucial information you need to answer your original question. Perhaps > someone out there will provide that data for us both. And yes, thanks to Mr. Lundy I have the answer. Co-reference cannot occur between 'he' and 'John' in that word order. I think I may be able to write that section of the paper now. Thanks so much for all the help. Shannon From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Dec 12 22:44:01 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:44:01 -0600 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <001701bf44de$22de84a0$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: > Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in > Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. I'm not certain if this would contain anything you could use, but you might want to look at Richard Lungstrum's Ph.D. dissertation for Penn. I don't have the exact title at hand, but you could probably search University Microfilms' site by name. It was defended within the last 4 or 5 years. (Does this make sense to you David? You're much more conversant with this subject than I am.) Bob From shanwest at uvic.ca Sun Dec 12 23:26:05 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:26:05 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: I have that one. It's called "Switch-reference and the Structure of Lakhota Narrative Discourse". 1995. (UMI number 9543116) I've only glanced at it. I'll have to give it a more thorough look. Thanks. Shannon ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Rankin To: Sent: December 12, 1999 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > > > Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in > > Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. > > I'm not certain if this would contain anything you could use, but you > might want to look at Richard Lungstrum's Ph.D. dissertation for Penn. I > don't have the exact title at hand, but you could probably search > University Microfilms' site by name. It was defended within the last 4 or > 5 years. (Does this make sense to you David? You're much more > conversant with this subject than I am.) > > Bob > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Dec 13 16:30:30 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:30:30 -0700 Subject: Omaha-Ponca Numerals Message-ID: I had recalled doing this and was pondering where I might have stashed it, when Bob Rankin solved the problem! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:12:46 -0700 From: "Robert L. Rankin" To: john.koontz at colorado.edu Subject: Numbers (fwd) About a year and a half ago John Koontz and I were corresponding about this possibility of using numerals as inflected verbs. John forwarded this to Dhegiha scholars at that time. These are all from James Owen Dorsey's "the C/egiha language", CNAE IV, 1890 as far as I know. In most instances it looks as though Omaha-Ponca uses the verb dhiN 'be' with numerals, unlike Dakotan (see David Rood's recent post) which can use pronominal prefixes with the numerals themselves. It looks as though you can use post-verbal mode/aspect clitics with numerals directly, but not the pronominal prefixes. So they're "sort of" verbs -- predicates at the very least. It would be useful for Dhegiha field linguists to try for directly conjugated numerals however. Sentences like twins or triplets might utter: "there are two of me" or "I am two", "there are 2 of you", etc. might elicit interesting responses. (Avoid the word for twins of course, 'cause it's all you'll get back if you mention it.). How about other quantifiers? "We are many -- there's a bunch of us." Thanks to John for the following, which some of you have seen before. Bob ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:17:02 -0600 From: John E. Koontz Subject: Numbers (fwd) I thought it might be nice to send something to the Dhegiha List deliberately for a change. This is a list of examples of numbers as "verbs" that I put together for Bob Rankin. >Subject: Numbers (fwd) > Looks like it's 'to be' and articles in the first and second, and 0 in the third. first plural 90:436.17 ANgu' gdhe'ba(N) dha'bdhiN=xc^i aN'dhiN. We were just 30 (people). 90:434.3 Tti' gdhe'ba(N)=aNdhiN'. We had ten tents. second plural 90::722.4 wanaN's^e nudaN'haNga du'ba=naNkha'=s^e oh ye four police captains! 91:99.9 NiN'kkas^iNga naNba' niN' e'=iN=the Perhaps you are two people. third plural 90:166.18 NiN'kkagahi iz^aN'ge=akha naN'ba=akh=ama. They were the two daughters of the chief. The chief had two daughgters. 90:315.2 Iz^iN'ge=akha naNba'=z^i=the. He had two sons. 90:609.2 GaN'=kki, iz^iN'ge=akha du'ba=i=the And then, he had four sons. 90:152.7 E'gidhe wa?u'=akha du'ba=akh=ama Finally, there were four women. 90:219.1 Ukki'kkiz^i duba'=bi=ama There were four brethren. Or, better, close relatives, maybe inlaws. I think that might be Morgan's definition. I assume it means mutually related, because of the reciprocal. 90::438.1/2 GaN'=kki, S^aaN' tti'=i du'ba=i=the And then, there were four tents of Dakotas. 90:396.2 Ppe'dhaNba'=bi=ama. They say there were 7. 90:152.13 Ppedha'bdhiN=bi=ama. They say there were eight. 90:88.7 GaN'=bi=ama, a'z^i=dhaNdhaN z^u'=t?aN=i=the=kki, tti' a'z^i=dhaNdhaN dhimaN'gdha=i=the, he'ga=s^te=waNz^i gdhe'ba(N) hi' wittaN'ga naN'ba=bi=ama. So, they say, when groups of different ones matured, when groups of different lodges were erected, there were a great many (not a few soever), two thousand, they say. JEK From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Mon Dec 13 20:24:19 1999 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:24:19 -0600 Subject: arapaho? name inquiry Message-ID: 13 December 1999 Hello Folks: I'm forwarding on an inquiry from a friend in California doing some research on the Arapaho. While ours is a primarily Siouanist bunch, I figured someone might have some clues to this possibly Algonquian name. The name in question is WASHEE, a Ft Reno fellow associated with some ledger drawings, sometimes identified as Arapaho, sometimes Cheyenne. Washee may have been known as "Elk." I only have the 1983 Salzmann "Dictionary of Contemporary Arapaho Usage" at hand for my reference. It offers the following: hiwo'xu Elk, singular (hi)wo'xu:hu: Elk, plural note; ( ' ) represents the stress marker on the preceding vowel... not the glottal stop. It is conceivable that ELK has become the (anglicized?) WASHEE? Any assistance would be appreciated. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Department of Anthropology University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 Office 402-472-3455 Dept. 402-472-2411 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Mon Dec 13 20:22:01 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:22:01 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <005501bf44f8$43b24d00$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: Shannon, there is probably some relevant remark in there somewhere, but such is not the goal of any of his discussions, so it will take close and carefuly reading to find it. There is a little about focus toward the end of the Lakhota sketch that Allan Taylor and I wrote for the Smithsonian Handbook vol. 17, which I assume you can find. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned this is a subject wide open for further work. Another place to look first, however, would be in Van Valin's recent Syntax book in the Cambrdige series. Many of his illustrations are from Lakhota, and since he's very much interested in separating syntax, which for him is the mechanical side of sentence construction including morpheme order and grammatical morphologly, from what he terms "semantics", which is everything having to do with meaning including thematic relations, etc., I would be surprised if he hasn't discussed the issues. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Shannon West wrote: > I have that one. It's called "Switch-reference and the Structure of Lakhota > Narrative Discourse". 1995. (UMI number 9543116) I've only glanced at it. > I'll have to give it a more thorough look. > > Thanks. > > Shannon > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert L. Rankin > To: > Sent: December 12, 1999 2:44 PM > Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > > > > > > > Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in > > > Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. > > > > I'm not certain if this would contain anything you could use, but you > > might want to look at Richard Lungstrum's Ph.D. dissertation for Penn. I > > don't have the exact title at hand, but you could probably search > > University Microfilms' site by name. It was defended within the last 4 or > > 5 years. (Does this make sense to you David? You're much more > > conversant with this subject than I am.) > > > > Bob > > > > > From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Dec 13 20:40:46 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:40:46 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Yes, I have the sketch. It has been extremely helpful! I'm waiting for the Van Valin book, as the library here has just acquired it and is a little slow getting things into circulation. Thanks. And you've given me _another_ great idea for research. Shannon ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Sent: December 13, 1999 12:22 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > Shannon, there is probably some relevant remark in there somewhere, but > such is not the goal of any of his discussions, so it will take close and > carefuly reading to find it. There is a little about focus toward the end > of the Lakhota sketch that Allan Taylor and I wrote for the Smithsonian > Handbook vol. 17, which I assume you can find. Otherwise > as far as I'm concerned this is a subject wide open for further work. > Another place to look first, however, would be in Van Valin's recent > Syntax book in the Cambrdige series. Many of his illustrations are from > Lakhota, and since he's very much interested in separating syntax, which > for him is the mechanical side of sentence construction including morpheme > order and grammatical morphologly, from what he terms "semantics", which > is everything having to do with meaning including thematic relations, > etc., I would be surprised if he hasn't discussed the issues. > David > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Mon Dec 13 21:15:19 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:15:19 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <001701bf44de$22de84a0$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: Shannon, one more point where things are not quite as simple as we might wish: > > > Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is > outside > > > of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this > morning > > > he bought] he-told-me. > > > > Not exactly. They're both possible. In the sequence NP NP V V, > > you can get either [[NP NP V] V] or [NP [NP V] V], assuming that the > > first NP is a possible subject for either verb. > > Okay. So in [John a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me, John and he are > not the same person. Forgive my dense head on this, pronominal co-reference > is not my cup of tea. I don't think your conclusion here is right. It is exactly this word order from which we can get the "he" of "he told me" to be an anaphor with John as the anteceent. It's not "bound" in the GB sense, any more than is the "he" in the English "sentence" I gave once before: John bought a bathtub this morning; he told me that. > > > > I have trouble with the notion of "extraction" in this kind of > > grammatical theory, because as I've been trying to say in my muddled way, > > I don't think there's any "movement' involved. Given NP NP V V, the first > > NP can be the subject of either verb. If it's the subject of the first > > verb, then it can be referred back to pronominally by the second, but if > > it's the subject of the second verb only, then it's not a constituent of > > the embedded sentence. So we can get the following without movement: > > John [ (he) bathtub bought] said > > [John bathtub bought] (he) said What I didn't make clear, I guess, is that I think (again, better verify with speakers if possible) that the "he" in parentheses in those paraphrases can be either John or someone else in both sentences, either separately or at the same time. In other words, without inversion, there are three readings to this sentence: John said John bought a bathtub this morning. John said X bought a bathtub this morning. X said John bought a bathtub this morning. But the one you started with, where "John" is inside the complement clause, can only be a "transformation" of the third reading, and the "transformation" is not the extraction of "bought" and/or "this morning" from the embedded sentence, but the "inversion" of the focus transformation which has put "John" in preverbal position inside its clause. I don't know how you do inversion in GB "downward" -- maybe you don't. I have to re-learn the relationships between spec and comp and head every time I read a paper in this model, it's all so unintuitive for me. Hope this doesn't spoil what you thought you had figured out. Best, David From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Dec 13 22:02:32 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:02:32 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Sent: December 13, 1999 1:15 PM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > Shannon, one more point where things are not quite as simple as we might > wish: > > > > Ahh, so if the NP subject is at the beginning of the sentence it is > > outside > > > > of the embedded clause. I.e. this is not correct: [John a tub this > > morning > > > > he bought] he-told-me. > > > > > > Not exactly. They're both possible. In the sequence NP NP V V, > > > you can get either [[NP NP V] V] or [NP [NP V] V], assuming that the > > > first NP is a possible subject for either verb. > > > > Okay. So in [John a tub this morning he bought] he-told-me, John and he are > > not the same person. Forgive my dense head on this, pronominal co-reference > > is not my cup of tea. > > > I don't think your conclusion here is right. It is exactly this > word order from which we can get the "he" of "he told me" to be an > anaphor with John as the anteceent. It's not "bound" in the GB sense, any > more than is the "he" in the English "sentence" I gave once before: John > bought a bathtub this morning; he told me that. Right, I understand that the word order can yield this reading, but that there are three different readings that can arise. I meant to show that the structure of the sentence above yields the reading I gave, but that there are other structures for the other readings. > > > I have trouble with the notion of "extraction" in this kind of > > > grammatical theory, because as I've been trying to say in my muddled way, > > > I don't think there's any "movement' involved. Given NP NP V V, the first > > > NP can be the subject of either verb. If it's the subject of the first > > > verb, then it can be referred back to pronominally by the second, but if > > > it's the subject of the second verb only, then it's not a constituent of > > > the embedded sentence. So we can get the following without movement: > > > John [ (he) bathtub bought] said > > > [John bathtub bought] (he) said > > What I didn't make clear, I guess, is that I think (again, better > verify with speakers if possible) that the "he" in parentheses in those > paraphrases can be either John or someone else in both sentences, either > separately or at the same time. In other words, without inversion, there > are three readings to this sentence: > John said John bought a bathtub this morning. > John said X bought a bathtub this morning. > X said John bought a bathtub this morning. > > But the one you started with, where "John" is inside the > complement clause, can only be a "transformation" of the third reading, > and the "transformation" is not the extraction of "bought" and/or "this > morning" from the embedded sentence, but the "inversion" of the focus > transformation which has put "John" in preverbal position inside its > clause. I don't know how you do inversion in GB "downward" -- maybe you > don't. I have to re-learn the relationships between spec and comp and > head every time I read a paper in this model, it's all so unintuitive for > me. Downward movement is difficult. It's actively disallowed by some, and used carefully by others. I try to avoid it for the simple reason that I don't want to have to justify it in every paper I write. I think an upward movement will still work in this, without having to extract anything from the CP, and still accounting for Topic being immediately preverbal. To be honest, I don't love GB, but I'm temporarily stuck with it. > Hope this doesn't spoil what you thought you had figured out. *smile* No, I don't think so. I think we just weren't understanding what the other was saying. It's hard to explain when I can't draw a tree to illustrate what I mean. Thanks. Shannon From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Tue Dec 14 01:38:22 1999 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John P. Boyle) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:38:22 -0600 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> Interesting. Can you point me to some articles on topic/focus in >> Siouan? Lakhota, in particular. > >I'm not certain if this would contain anything you could use, but you >might want to look at Richard Lungstrum's Ph.D. dissertation for Penn. I >don't have the exact title at hand, but you could probably search >University Microfilms' site by name. It was defended within the last 4 or >5 years. (Does this make sense to you David? You're much more >conversant with this subject than I am.) > >Bob The title is "Switch-Reference and the Structure of Lakhota Narrative Discourse" by Richard Lungstrum. 1995 - University of Pennsylvania. I just finished reading this disertation and I'm not sure if it would be of much help in this case. John From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 14 05:20:44 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:20:44 -0700 Subject: arapaho? name inquiry (fwd) Message-ID: I've taken the liberty of posting here a reply to Mark's query from Allan Taylor. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:25:27 -0700 From: "Allan R. Taylor" To: Koontz John E Subject: Re: arapaho? name inquiry (fwd) John: Thanks for the forwarded message. The name is more likely Gros Ventre than Arapaho. The G.V. word for elk is ?iwasii?, with high pitch on the middle vowel (can't write it with the software which I have). It is very possible that washee is an anglicised form of the G.V. word. It is not a likely anglecization of the arapaho word. Possibly it is Cheyenne, we'll have to wait for Lehman on that one. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Dec 14 16:15:36 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:15:36 -0700 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota In-Reply-To: <008901bf45b5$c35fdd20$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: Dear Shannon, Thanks for your last clarification and good luck with the paper. I would be very much interested in reading it if you care to share it. I have a lot of respect for the kinds of things that GB can do -- I think that finding "uniform" mechanics for a variety of grammatical phenomena is probably on the way to finding a model for how the brain works. But the details are nevertheless overwhelming, and there are many times when phenomena seem to be forced into an inapporpriate version of the model. So I'm glad people like you are working with the model AND interesting languages and structures -- that's the way science advances. Best wishes, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From Rgraczyk at aol.com Tue Dec 14 17:28:14 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:28:14 EST Subject: arapaho? name inquiry (fwd) Message-ID: According to my Cheyenne dictionary, the Cheyenne word for elk is mo?e'he (with the question mark representing a glottal stop). Randy From shanwest at uvic.ca Tue Dec 14 19:13:38 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:13:38 -0800 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Thank you. I find GB to be quite overwhelming at times, but I try not to forget that it is only a theory, and only one way of looking at the data. . At some point I'd like to get into a theory that doesn't permit movement, just to see how that works. HPSG is one theory I'd like to get to know better. I'd be happy to share this paper, with the warning that it is a work in progress. I'm not entirely happy with it right now, but deadlines are deadlines, so it will be handed in and presented on Thursday despite any concerns I might have. Shannon ----- Original Message ----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: Sent: December 14, 1999 8:15 AM Subject: Re: Adverbs in Lakhota > Dear Shannon, > Thanks for your last clarification and good luck with the paper. > I would be very much interested in reading it if you care to share it. I > have a lot of respect for the kinds of things that GB can do -- I think > that finding "uniform" mechanics for a variety of grammatical phenomena is > probably on the way to finding a model for how the brain works. But the > details are nevertheless overwhelming, and there are many times when > phenomena seem to be forced into an inapporpriate version of the model. > So I'm glad people like you are working with the model AND interesting > languages and structures -- that's the way science advances. > Best wishes, > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 14 19:52:04 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:52:04 -0700 Subject: arapaho? name inquiry (fwd) In-Reply-To: <0.4caf013f.2587d82e@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > According to my Cheyenne dictionary, the Cheyenne word for elk is mo?e'he > (with the question mark representing a glottal stop). Looking further in the draft file I see I should have given the following: \c mo'[ehe \e *elk \co for some speakers this word is sg., pl., & obv.; for others m~o'e is sg.; possible pl. for some speakers mo'[eheo'o pl. The '[ is the glottal stop, or perhaps high pitch, glottal stop. The mysterious ~ is middle pitch. I think ' is high pitch. From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Tue Dec 14 20:41:47 1999 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:41:47 -0600 Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: Hear, hear! I'm very glad to see someone doing this kind of work; valuable both for understanding structure of Siouan languages AND for development of linguistic theory. And I also would love to see the paper when you're ready to circulate it. Thanks for bringing up all these fascinating questions; I've been enjoying the discussion! Catherine Rudin Humanities Division Wayne State College Wayne, NE 68787 crudin at wscgate.wsc.edu ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Dear Shannon, Thanks for your last clarification and good luck with the paper. I would be very much interested in reading it if you care to share it. I have a lot of respect for the kinds of things that GB can do -- I think that finding "uniform" mechanics for a variety of grammatical phenomena is probably on the way to finding a model for how the brain works. But the details are nevertheless overwhelming, and there are many times when phenomena seem to be forced into an inapporpriate version of the model. So I'm glad people like you are working with the model AND interesting languages and structures -- that's the way science advances. Best wishes, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From BARudes at aol.com Tue Dec 14 23:16:47 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:16:47 EST Subject: Adverbs in Lakhota Message-ID: I second Catherine's "hear, hear" and would also like to receive a copy of the paper, as it may inform my ongoing work on Catawba. Blair A. Rudes Department of English UNC Charlotte 9201 University City Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 Let me know how to reimburse you for reproduction. Blair From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Dec 15 07:06:21 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:06:21 -0700 Subject: Lungstrum Message-ID: Several mentions of Richard Lungstrum's dissertation have reminded me that I seem to have lost contact with him. We were phsically neighbors not so long ago! Does anyone have an email or mail address for him? JEK From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Wed Dec 15 14:47:16 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:47:16 -0600 Subject: Lungstrum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: He has allegedly moved back to Lawrence, KS and bought a house -- this according to my chairman. I have not seen or heard from him here, but I've been out of circulation with the hip business. That's all I know at present. > Several mentions of Richard Lungstrum's dissertation have reminded me > that I seem to have lost contact with him. We were phsically > neighbors not so long ago! Does anyone have an email or mail address > for him? From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Wed Dec 15 21:05:24 1999 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:05:24 -0600 Subject: arapaho name inquiry2 Message-ID: 15 December 1999 Thanks to all who have responded to my inquiry about a possible Arapaho personal name WASHEE. I have forwarded all responses on to the person who posed the question. I'll keep you posted on any developments. Aloha- mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Department of Anthropology University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 Office 402-472-3455 Dept. 402-472-2411 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Thu Dec 16 09:35:26 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:35:26 -0600 Subject: LSA In-Reply-To: <000A63B7.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: Count me in! Kathy Shea On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Catherine Rudin wrote: > Good idea! A Siouanists dinner would be great, and just about any > kind of food is ok with me... I'll try to remember to brush up on my > deictics, Carolyn! Catherine > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Dec 17 17:20:10 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:20:10 -0700 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 In-Reply-To: <008901bf45b5$c35fdd20$6436688e@FSH.UVic.CA> Message-ID: Hi everyone, The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes in Anadarko, Oklahoma have tentatively agreed to host our meeting in 2000. I am suggesting Fri and Sat June 9-10 as dates, but there are no special constraints on those days. Personally, I would like to keep it from getting much later into the summer, but those of you with different schedules are welcome to offer countersuggestions if you wish. Anadarko is a town of about 6,000 about 60 miles SW of Oklahoma City. It is a tourist attraction in the summer because of its abundance of Native American places and events, some more commercial than others, of course. Tribes living nearby include Wichita, Caddo, Pawnee, Iowa-Oto, Kansa, Quapaw, Ponca, and Osage (I hope I haven't left anyone out), in addition to representatives of other families (Comanche, Kiowa, Apache, Delaware, Southern Cheyenne, and probably more). I would like to have paper proposals by around the first of May, but we can establish those details later. Right now I would just like as much feedback as possible on the date. Thanks. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From 75041.314 at compuserve.com Fri Dec 17 19:22:20 1999 From: 75041.314 at compuserve.com (Richard T. Carter) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:22:20 -0500 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 Message-ID: David, This looks like a fine date to me. Regards, Dick Carter From Rgraczyk at aol.com Sat Dec 18 04:09:09 1999 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 23:09:09 EST Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 Message-ID: June 9-10 will work fine for me. Randy Graczyk From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Sat Dec 18 14:32:59 1999 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:32:59 -0600 Subject: siouan/caddoan conference dates Message-ID: Hello All: The June 9-10 dates sound fine. Maybe with some luck I can finally attend one of these shindigs... Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Department of Anthropology University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 Office 402-472-3455 Dept. 402-472-2411 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Dec 18 15:30:43 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:30:43 -0600 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes in Anadarko, Oklahoma have > tentatively agreed to host our meeting in 2000. I am suggesting Fri > and Sat June 9-10 Sounds great. It's high time we met with one of the Caddoan-speaking groups. I wish I could be there; this will be the first one I've missed. Bob From cqcq at compuserve.com Sat Dec 18 19:01:54 1999 From: cqcq at compuserve.com (Carolyn) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 14:01:54 -0500 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 Message-ID: No problem with the dates, and I'm glad it'll be in Oklahoma! Any later in the summer would be fairly miserable in Anadarko. Carolyn Quintero From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Tue Dec 21 08:08:16 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:08:16 -0600 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The dates and place sound great to me! Kathy Shea From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Dec 22 11:22:22 1999 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:22:22 +0000 Subject: Siouan/Caddoan conference 2000 Message-ID: David Dates and place definitely ok by me. look forward to it bruce -- Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From Ogalala2 at aol.com Thu Dec 23 19:37:42 1999 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 14:37:42 EST Subject: Siouan/Caddoan Conference Message-ID: June 9 & 10 in Anandarko fits my schedule. I plan on being there and presenting a paper. Ted Grimm, Wichita, KS