From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Feb 7 16:18:18 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:18:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: Siouan case alignment. Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: I'm writing an article for the Handbook of Comparative and Historical Linguistics being edited by Bryan Joseph and Rich Janda for Blackwell publishers (you may be familiar with Blackwell's analogous handbook for phonology). I decided that the hackneyed old Indo-European examples like mater/mother, pater/father, canis/hound, etc. needed a rest. The editors liked the idea of my using Siouan examples. I have reached the point where I'd like to talk about problems in reconstructing Siouan case alignment, and I'd like to elicit discussion and examples from you for the languages you know best. My writing won't involve any kind of comprehensive reconstruction of Siouan grammar; it's limited to case alignment in simple verbs and will be sort of a "sample" of what one may encounter in trying to reconstruct this kind of morphological distinction. As most of you know, Siouan languages have two sets of "subject" pronouns, one for active verbs (both transitive and intransitive) like 'to see, to eat, to go' and another for stative verbs like 'to be tall, to be fat, to be blue', etc. The latter set of pronouns corresponds to the set also used for transitive objects. This generally seems to be true for all Siouan languages. That is, Siouan languages can be characterized as "active languages" or "active-stative languages." My particular problem involves reconstructing the Proto-Siouan borderline between these two categories of verbs -- the clearly active and the clearly stative (or adjectival). In several languages there are cases of SEMANTICALLY ACTIVE VERBS THAT USE (OR MAY USE) THE STATIVE SUBJECT PRONOUN SET. It is this set that I'd like to ask you about. 1. Are there such verbs in the Siouan language(s) you've studied? 2. If so, what are they? 3. Can you provide examples? These would need to be in the 2nd, 3rd or inclusive (1st dual/pl.) persons, since 3rd person forms do not have prefixes that reveal case alignment. All help will be gratefully acknowledged. 4. There may also be semantically stative verbs that use active morphology. I'm also interested in any of these you have. They might include 'be sitting, be standing, by lying, be around, to stay/dwell'. Additional notes that may be helpful to you: In many active/stative languages actions over which the speaker lacks "control" may require stative morphology. So verbs like 'sneeze, hiccup, belch, fart, pant, vomit' are sometimes stative morphologically. In Kansa and Quapaw these verbs all seem to be active morphologically, but certain other verbs can be stative. 'Die' can be either. 'Fall' is another good one to look at. Miner's Winnebago lexicon lists 'fall over', 'fall down' and 'keep falling down in weakness while running in fear' as requiring the stative pronoun set. I'd like to keep this simple, so I'm not interested in "derived" verbs that are stative in their basic form but active when an instrumental prefix is used with them (this is a regular pattern in Siouan). These questions of "agency" and "control" were the subject of a nice paper by Marianne Mithun in 1991: "Active Agentive Case Marking and its Motivations", _Language_ 67:510-546. I hope my explanation is clear to everyone on the list and that some of you will be able to help me with some comments and a little data. Thank you, Bob Rankin From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Feb 7 20:05:30 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:05:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: Hi, In case anyone is interested, I just noticed something interesting about the Winnebago forms I mentioned earlier. They were verbs of 'falling' that took stative pronominal prefix sets. Two of the three of them (at least) are lexicalized causatives. This would certainly explain the patient pronouns -- historically, they were objects, not subjects. So if you get interested in this little problem (as hope you will), causatives are an obvious thing to watch out for. (I already mentioned the instrumental prefixes that have this function when used with stative roots.) For the historical linguists among us though, the Winnebago case is interesting because the causative that is frozen to the verb root 'fall' is *not* the productive causative in the language today. Thus, there really has been morphosyntactic change in Winnebago (and probably Chiwere too), and these verbs are now real stative verbs. Examples from Ken Miner's dictionary: (~ = nasal V or palatal n) (hi~- is the 1sg patient pronoun.) ka~a~n~e 'fall over' (from *ka~a~ + re) hi~-ka~n~e 'I fell over' hi~-ka~ yaate 'I'm falling over' siibre 'fall down, be fallen down' (from siip + re) hi~-sibre 'I fall down' siipagishewe 'keep falling down in weakness when running in fear' siipa~-i~-gishewe 'I keep falling, etc.' The Proto-Siouan causative was *hi_re, where person marking is inserted before the -re, and where the /r/ of -re is, in fact, epenthetic (to break up vowel clusters among prefixes). The causative should be looked upon as an AUX postposed to the main verb. (Dakotan -ya, Osage -dhe, Quapaw, -de, Kansa -ye, Omaha/Ponca -dhe.) In Chiwere and Winnebago, as opposed to the rest of Mississippi Valley Siouan, the productive causative is hi-, and the -re has been lost. EXCEPT that it is retained in numerous lexicalized cases as a kind of bleached out root extension. The -re is no longer conjugated in these instances; only the productive causative, hi-, is conjugated in CH and WI. In the verb 'to keep falling down in weakness when running in fear' it is possible that the -we portion is an allomorph of -re, but I cannot prove that since I don't know enough WI morphology/phonology. These are nice examples of how remodeling of the Chiwere-Winnebago causative has caused a shift in surface case alignment, since the patient pronouns are retained as functional subjects even though the old causative suffix has been reinterpreted as part of the verb stem. Bob From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Mon Feb 8 07:21:38 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:21:38 +0100 (MET) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: Bob -- BE careful of this one; 'fall' is a standard meaning for stative verbs in all the languages that have this active/stative pattern, so there is certainly semantic pressure to retain the form as stative even if it's etymologically otherwise. You might also be intersted in an observation in Geoff Kimball's grammar of Koasati about the stative verbs there. He maintains he can prove that the inflections are genuine objects of impersonal verbs because the negation paradigm requires third person subject negatives. See pp. 249ff. I don't have time to follow up on this now, but one should then check the other criteria in Koasati for subject status: do nouns take the nom or acc case when subjects of statives, and how does switch reference work? David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Feb 8 15:15:35 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:15:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, David Rood wrote: > BE careful of this one; 'fall' is a standard meaning for stative verbs > in all the languages that have this active/stative pattern, so there is > certainly semantic pressure to retain the form as stative even if it's > etymologically otherwise. My question is whether it will be possible to identify any present or former causative morphology on the verb. Randy identifies this verb as stative in Crow (passhi), but I see no causative morphology there. But what do I know about Crow. Likewise Biloxi. > You might also be intersted in an observation in Geoff Kimball's grammar > of Koasati about the stative verbs there. He maintains he can prove > that the inflections are genuine objects of impersonal verbs because the > negation paradigm requires third person subject negatives. The problem there is that in Muskogean there is no 3rd person agent/subject morphology to appeal to historically. We don't really know where his negative "subject markers" come from since they don't also occur with affirmative clauses. He may be right, but it's also possible that he's following in the rutted footsteps of all the western linguists who have tried to prove that ergative (and here stative) constructions are really nothing but "passives." > ... one should then check the other criteria in Koasati for subject > status: do nouns take the nom or acc case when subjects of statives, and > how does switch reference work? This opens up another Muskogean can of worms, but I'm convinced (as was Heather Hardy at one time) that the famous -t and -n suffixes are 'proximate' and 'obviative' respectively, not 'subject' and 'object' with a homophonous set of switch reference markers. Proximate/obviative ties together the two "kinds" of -t and -n nicely while also explaining certain Choctaw sentences that have had to be analyzed as having "two subjects" as in "that man has two dogs" where the Choctaw is "that man-T two dogs-T for.him-sit." Unfortunately, if I'm right it renders the test hors de combat. But I digress. I'll really be interested to see how it works out across Siouan, and of course I'll share any results with the list. Biloxi seems to have a couple of interesting cases if I've understood them correctly. Thanks for the comments on Dakotan! Bob From goodtracks at juno.com Mon Feb 8 15:07:34 1999 From: goodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:07:34 -0600 Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: Bob: 1. NOTE: that I have shortened my EM address, that is to say, I removed the "jg". It now reads "goodtracks at juno.com". It is a new acct, adjusted to accomodate attachments, photos, and I presume special characters, ANSI etc. 2. In regard to your question on Siouan causative (IOM="-hi"), it seems that you have the IOM data in hand. However, should there be something specific in regard to a particular term, I will try to share my understandings of it. But again, I imagine that much of the IOM material, you can draw from the Lexicon. 3. I'm going this weekend to the symposium on IO beadwork in Tulsa at the downtown Ramada Inn. First time I've heard of anyone calling a gathering of this sort, especially, as it relates to IOM floral applique beadwork style. Several Ioways from this area plan to attend, and I will ride along with them. Of course, like linguistics, I anticpate the majority of individuals will be non-IOM/ -Natives, who will most likely be the ones to maintain the art. So, I will be always interested in applications or follow up/ outcome for the future. Till later, JimmGT From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Feb 15 07:48:19 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:48:19 -0700 (MST) Subject: Siouan case alignment. Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > clearly stative (or adjectival). In several languages there are cases of > SEMANTICALLY ACTIVE VERBS THAT USE (OR MAY USE) THE STATIVE SUBJECT > PRONOUN SET. It is this set that I'd like to ask you about. > > 1. Are there such verbs in the Siouan language(s) you've studied? Yes. Though my data, obviously, isn't going to add much to what Bob already knows about Dhegiha, since it's Omaha-Ponca. > 2. If so, what are they? > 3. Can you provide examples? These would need to be in the 2nd, 3rd or > inclusive (1st dual/pl.) persons, since 3rd person forms do not have > prefixes that reveal case alignment. All help will be gratefully > acknowledged. * dhiNge' 'to lack' aNdhiN'ge, dhidhiN'ge, wadhiN'ge The verb agrees with the one who lacks the thing, not with the thing lacked. Agreement is stative. JOD1890:107.12 maNze=s^te aNdhiN'ge he iron any I lack it DECf * gi'udaN 'to be pleased by, be pleasant for' iN'udaN, dhi'udaN, (?) iN'gudaN The verb agrees with the one who experiences the pleasure, not with the source of the pleasure. Agreement is dative/stative. Omaha Fieldwork niN'niN giu'daN= attas^aN tobacco is pleasurable for her very 'She likes to smoke too much' JOD1890:247.9 dhi'udaN=tta=the it shall be good for you! (of the thrusting of a hot iron into a water monster's injury) * gi't?e 'for one's to die' iNt?e', dhit?e', we't?e I am unsure how to count this one. I don't have any examples on the order of 'you have died for us', so it appears to pattern like the others, in that the verb agrees with the person who experiences the loss, not the one lost. However, t?e is normally active, and noticed that in one of the examples the person lost takes a subject artilce (ama). Agreement is dative/stative, active agreement with the one lost may be possible. Note that it is perfectly possible to say 'my brother died' and not mark possession only in the kinterm. That seems to be the normal pattern with inalienably possessed kin. JOD1890:347.10-11 s^iN'ga=z^iNga aNt?aN=i e= de, we't?a=i child we had him that=TOPIC, he has died to us (ours has died) Though we had a child, he has died. May be aNthaN=i? JOD1890:495.8-9 niNkka=s^iNga=ama iNt?e' ha people have died to me DECm Some of my friends have died. * uxpa'dhe 'to fall; to be lost' uwa'xpadhe, udha'xpadhe, aNwan'xpadhe There seems to be no reason why this cannot be used actively in the sense of 'to fall (from a height)', but I have only third person examples in the texts. Note, however, this example of 'to be lost': JOD1891:120.4 uxpa'dhe idha'kkuhe ha it gets lost I fear for it DECm Now note: * uixpadhe 'to lose something; something to be lost for one' iNwiN'xpadhe, ?udhi'xpadhe, ?uwagixpadhe (I'm lacking the questioned forms, and there is some variation in u-i- < u-gi- paradigms.) The one who loses the thing is agreed with, the thing lost is not. Agreement is dative/stative. JOD1890:647.2 s^aN'ge iNwiN'xpadhe=de naNba' we'bahaN horse I lost it TOPIC two he knew them He recognized two horses that I had lost. > 4. There may also be semantically stative verbs that use active > morphology. I'm also interested in any of these you have. They might > include 'be sitting, be standing, by lying, be around, to stay/dwell'. All these, in standard Dhegiha form. In OP t?e' 'to die' is always active, as far as I know, except in the na=t?'e 'to die by heat' derivation. But na= derivations are always stative. > Additional notes that may be helpful to you: In many active/stative > languages actions over which the speaker lacks "control" may require > stative morphology. So verbs like 'sneeze, hiccup, belch, fart, pant, > vomit' are sometimes stative morphologically. In Kansa and Quapaw these > verbs all seem to be active morphologically, but certain other verbs can > be stative. 'Die' can be either. 'Fall' is another good one to look at. > Miner's Winnebago lexicon lists 'fall over', 'fall down' and 'keep falling > down in weakness while running in fear' as requiring the stative pronoun > set. As far as I know the 'sneeze', etc., set are all active. I don't have inflectional information on many of them. I've mentioned 'fall' and 'die' above. There is another verb 'to fall', also, active: xiadha. I have no inflectional information on this, but in Osage (fide LaFlesche) it inflects axibdha, dhaxis^na, xiadha, aNxidha=i. Now, since this is obviously the Omaha pattern of dh-stem in the second of the two co-verbs, I suspect it reflects Omaha. I'm not sure what to make of the -a- in the third person only. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Feb 15 08:42:36 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:42:36 -0700 (MST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Examples from Ken Miner's dictionary: (~ = nasal V or palatal n) (hi~- is > the 1sg patient pronoun.) > > ka~a~n~e 'fall over' (from *ka~a~ + re) > hi~-ka~n~e 'I fell over' > hi~-ka~ yaate 'I'm falling over' I'm interested in this auxiliary. It looks like hi...re, doubly inflected, in that hi + (h)a => yaa, normally, and te is the first person of re. It seems to have a progressive reading. It also appears to be mutually exclusive with the -re affix that appears in the simple form. The root kaNaN also appears in Marino, p. 285, as "hokaN" 'falling, death'. This definitely suggests that the -re is separable. > siibre 'fall down, be fallen down' (from siip + re) > hi~-sibre 'I fall down' This reminds me of OP/Os a-xi=bdha, except that there the b is the first person marker with the second co-verb, and this b appears to be constant. I wonder if this form can also have a progressive something like hi~-siip yaate I guess I'll have to keep wondering ... > siipagishewe 'keep falling down in weakness when running in fear' > siipa~-i~-gishewe 'I keep falling, etc.' I wonder if this can be etymologized in terms of siipa 'toe', and an s^-grade of gisewe 'to calm down, stop trembling'. Something like 'to have weakened toes'? ----- I should admit, that, unlike Bob, I'm inclined to see the -re suffixes in Winnebago as part of the Winnebago version of the 'suddenly' or punctual/inceptive auxiliaries that I've mentioned a while ago on this list. I am, however, far from sure that I understand this aspect of Winnebago, so that I have to admit that a comparison with the Dakotan and Dhegiha forms of the causative doesn't seem impossible either. What interests me about these forms in that light is the process of fronting of the pronouns that seems to have occurred. This would make the first case I know of in which fronting or extraction of pronominals has affected patient pronominals, and that's pretty interesting in itself. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 16 04:58:26 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:58:26 -0700 (MST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > > I should admit, that, unlike Bob, I'm inclined to see the -re suffixes > > in Winnebago as part of the Winnebago version of the 'suddenly' or > > punctual/inceptive auxiliaries that I've mentioned a while ago on this > > list. > > The -re John's referring to here is the one that is etymologically a > grammaticalized particle from *re: 'to go'. It, along with some other > motion verbs can appear post-verbally with aspectual meaning. John is the > expert on these and has a paper on them in Omaha. We do something similar > in English when we say "Sam went and ate the whole pizza." where Sam > hasn't moved an inch. 'Went' is just a 'punctative' or 'sudden action' > marker here. Nice English analog, Bob! A good point to make on the suddenly forms is that they are comprised of several parts, none of which mean 'suddenly'. In fact, I think that 'suddenly' is not a very good name for these items. It arises from a common translation used in Dorsey's texts. They also are rendered various 'begin', 'start', and 'repeatedly'. The components are the a subset of the usual Dhegiha/Chiwere positional stems and motion stems, sometimes causativized (when the sense of the main verb is transitive). The noncausativized forms can have the positional reduplicated. The formula is something like this: motion-stem + positional-stem motion-stem + reduplicated(positional-stem) motion-stem + positional-stem + causative The motion-stem or positional-stem can be omitted, and either or both can take the vertitive/orientative *k-prefix. These two stems, if included, are in concord with some aspect of the action or result of the action. The personal inflection of the causative concurs with the agent of a transitive main verb. While the motion-stem and positional-stem do match the action in some way, I'd have to admit that I'd probably do better figuring out what is matched from an example than predicting what forms would occur. The forms that occur are a lot like the Dhegiha positional verbs, which are essentially i + positional stem + causative. E.g., ihe=...dhe 'to lay' ithe=...dhe 'to stand' idhaN=...dhe 'to set' Typical auxiliary sequences are dhe=...dhe or thi(g)dhe. There are, however, above 100 possible forms, with about 60 attested between OP and IO. In Chiwere and Winnebago the former sequence becomes something like Winnebago re=...hii, by substitution of cognates. The thi(g)dhe form becomes Winnebago ji(ke)re. In Dakotan the latter is hiNgla (Teton). The nasalization is a bit unexpected, but OP th : Wi j : Te h is the normal set of correspondences for PS *th. There are a genuine few oddities in the correspondences. For example, Wi and IO have (h)i, not (h)u, corresponding to OP i as a motion stem. OP i 'to come' is from *(h)u, and one expects the u vowel in these branches. I'd be inclined to speculate on a new motion verb stem, except Dakotan seems to have uN. The nasal is a surprise, but at least it's a u! Also surprising is that Chiwere has we as the horizontal positional, coresponding to OP he. > There is also a -re 'causative' and a 're' demonstrative and maybe even a > 're' 'be'. We have to sort these all out. ... I might add to these the pervasive Dakotan adverbial suffix -ya < ?*rE, though that could be related to one or the other of these, too. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 16 05:01:49 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:01:49 -0700 (MST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Note that (as far as I can tell) most verbs that are semantically active > but morphologically stative can, virtually by definition, be analyzed as > active, 3rd person impersonals with a zero actor prefix. The stative > pronominal sets that we're interpreting as stative subjects would then > just be object prns. So what we're translating as 'I ache' could be > interpreted as 'it hurts me'. 'I sweat', which is stative in Quapaw, > could be read as 'It lathers me up' or the like. That's why 14 karat > intransitives like 'fall' are important and we need to know if they > incorporate etymological causatives or the like. One possibility that occurs to me in connection with Bob's investigations is that maybe Siouan statives arise from something like the pattern above, combined with a use of stative pronominals with what were once invariant adjectival stems. This might account for the scarcity of stative formations with semantically stative verb meanings. I gather that Siouan is a little off-beat in this respect. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Feb 15 16:54:29 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:54:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: > I should admit, that, unlike Bob, I'm inclined to see the -re suffixes > in Winnebago as part of the Winnebago version of the 'suddenly' or > punctual/inceptive auxiliaries that I've mentioned a while ago on this > list. The -re John's referring to here is the one that is etymologically a grammaticalized particle from *re: 'to go'. It, along with some other motion verbs can appear post-verbally with aspectual meaning. John is the expert on these and has a paper on them in Omaha. We do something similar in English when we say "Sam went and ate the whole pizza." where Sam hasn't moved an inch. 'Went' is just a 'punctative' or 'sudden action' marker here. There is also a -re 'causative' and a 're' demonstrative and maybe even a 're' 'be'. We have to sort these all out. 'Causative' and 'go/suddenly' are conjugated differently, but in the 3rd person are homonyms. And of course homonymy is one of the primary enabling factors in morphosyntactic reanalysis. This should be fun. Note that (as far as I can tell) most verbs that are semantically active but morphologically stative can, virtually by definition, be analyzed as active, 3rd person impersonals with a zero actor prefix. The stative pronominal sets that we're interpreting as stative subjects would then just be object prns. So what we're translating as 'I ache' could be interpreted as 'it hurts me'. 'I sweat', which is stative in Quapaw, could be read as 'It lathers me up' or the like. That's why 14 karat intransitives like 'fall' are important and we need to know if they incorporate etymological causatives or the like. Bob From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Fri Feb 19 15:05:03 1999 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John P. Boyle) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:05:03 -0500 Subject: Questions on Incorporation Message-ID: Dear Fellow Siouanists, I am taking a two quarter seminar with Jerry Sadock on Incorporation. I would like to do a comparative study of incorporation in Siouan and I was wondering if I could get your help. I don't think anything like this has been done before and I would like to include as many languages of the family as possible. If you could answer the following questions I would greatly appreciate it. 1) Does your language have a productive system of noun incorporation? 2) Does the language allow other thing (post positions, etc.) to be incorporated? 3) Do you know what types of things can be incorporated? (inanimate nouns, non-specific nouns, salient nouns, people/characters, etc.) 4) Do you find that younger speakers incorporate less than older speakers? 5) Do you know of any published or non-published papers on the subject on incorporation in your language? 6) Lastly, could you send some glossed examples of any and all types of incorporation in your particular language? Thank you very much. Anything else that you think would be helpful, I would be grateful for. I'm looking forward to comparing incorporation within the Siouan family and if anyone is interested I would be happy to send you a copy of the final paper. John P. Boyle University of Chicago From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 23 19:12:58 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:12:58 -0700 (MST) Subject: Questions on Incorporation Message-ID: > I would like to do a comparative study of incorporation in > Siouan ... I seem to recall a survey of Dakotan incorporation by Willem de Reuse. Can anyone confirm this? my language = Omaha-Ponca > 1) Does your language have a productive system of noun incorporation? Some objects lack articles, but I am not sure if this qualifies. There is no evidence of phonological incorporation in a productive fashion. Most of the things that are clearly phonologically incorporated are not truly productive, and are nominal or pronominal mainly in a historical sense. > 2) Does the language allow other thing (post positions, etc.) to be > incorporated? You might be looking for parallels with the incorporation of postpositional phrases that occurs in Crow. You should certainly look at the distribution of C-final enclitics in Dakotan, but as Dhegiha tends to abhor C-final things, this kind of test is hard to come by. There are some case of =C(C)V postpositions being contracted to =C(C) before V-initial verbs (see below). Demonstratives are incorporated into verbs of saying and thinking, mainly e 'that (aforesaid?), it' and ga 'yon', but also ede 'to say what' (as in 'what did he say?'), which seems to be something like [e=d(a)]=e, where e=da is 'what' (cf. edadaN 'what', presumably e=da=daN, with the daN CONTINGENT enclitic), and e is 'to say'. One could argue that most of the demonstrative + postposition/enclitic forms are constructed similarly, cf. e'=di 'that-at' = 'there (is)', e'tta 'that-to, thither', e=di=thaN, e=tta'=thaN 'that from, thence', e'=naN 'that-many', e'=gaN 'that-like, thus, so'. The latter is actually inflected, as e'=gimaN 'I am like that', e'=giz^aN 'you are like that', e'=gaN 'he is like that, like that, thus, so', cf. e=aN 'how', which lacks the g(i) derivation. One occasionally catches the postpositional forms acting as impersonal verbs, especially, e=di 'there (is)'. A nice example migth be gu'=di ga=hau! 'thither!' or 'get away!' which is marked as imperative. You can do the same with du'=di 'hither'. Postpositions seem to be incorporated in forms like [e=d]=uihe. I seem to recall that the gloss here is 'to be part of', but I'll have to check that. I seem to remember the form, but be vague on the gloss. It's perhaps moot whether [e=dh(e)]=e=gaN 'to think' has e'=gaN 'like that' as a required enclitic, or has e=dhe, the original verb 'to think' incorporated in an impersonal e'=gaN. The motion verbs all cheerfully take as proclitics the du=, s^u=, gu= series of demonstratives, and the s^(u) forms are quite productive in the sense of 'to(ward) you'. For example, s^u'=bdhe 'I'm heading toward you'. > 3) Do you know what types of things can be incorporated? (inanimate > nouns, non-specific > nouns, salient nouns, people/characters, etc.) No, I'm afraid not. > 4) Do you find that younger speakers incorporate less than older > speakers? No data. One could perhaps compare Catherine Rudin's texts with Dorsey's. My suspicion is that there are not really any temporal variations in what occurs, because it's not very productive. But I haven't looked at the "no article objects." > 5) Do you know of any published or non-published papers on the > subject on incorporation > in your language? No. > 6) Lastly, could you send some glossed examples of any and all > types of incorporation in > your particular language? Yes, if any of this qualifies as more than a gross disappointment ... I'd certainly be interested in seeing the final paper! From STRECHTER at csuchico.edu Tue Feb 23 19:39:59 1999 From: STRECHTER at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:39:59 -0800 Subject: Questions on Incorporation Message-ID: Yes, it's fairly recent. de Reuse, Willem. (1994). Noun Incorporation in Lakota Siouan. IJAL 199-260. Sara T. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Thu Feb 25 19:54:04 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:54:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Siouan Conference comment. Message-ID: Dear Friends, For those in the U.S. who intend to go to this year's Siouan and Caddoan conference in Regina, I learned the hard way that, if you're flying in and out of Canada, there are new identification requirements. A U.S. driver's license used to be enough, but now they want a birth certificate or passport. (This is apparently not true of road crossings though.) Airline employees at airports like Kansas City's, where there isn't a whole lot of international travel, can be very sticky. They wanted to kick me off the plane, but I flew on to New York, my "jumping off place" and their attitude in NYC, predictably, was "well OK, but don't forget next time." Needless to say, this is an American requirement; the Canadians never asked for ID. This time I'm not forgetting. Best, Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Feb 7 16:18:18 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:18:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: Siouan case alignment. Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: I'm writing an article for the Handbook of Comparative and Historical Linguistics being edited by Bryan Joseph and Rich Janda for Blackwell publishers (you may be familiar with Blackwell's analogous handbook for phonology). I decided that the hackneyed old Indo-European examples like mater/mother, pater/father, canis/hound, etc. needed a rest. The editors liked the idea of my using Siouan examples. I have reached the point where I'd like to talk about problems in reconstructing Siouan case alignment, and I'd like to elicit discussion and examples from you for the languages you know best. My writing won't involve any kind of comprehensive reconstruction of Siouan grammar; it's limited to case alignment in simple verbs and will be sort of a "sample" of what one may encounter in trying to reconstruct this kind of morphological distinction. As most of you know, Siouan languages have two sets of "subject" pronouns, one for active verbs (both transitive and intransitive) like 'to see, to eat, to go' and another for stative verbs like 'to be tall, to be fat, to be blue', etc. The latter set of pronouns corresponds to the set also used for transitive objects. This generally seems to be true for all Siouan languages. That is, Siouan languages can be characterized as "active languages" or "active-stative languages." My particular problem involves reconstructing the Proto-Siouan borderline between these two categories of verbs -- the clearly active and the clearly stative (or adjectival). In several languages there are cases of SEMANTICALLY ACTIVE VERBS THAT USE (OR MAY USE) THE STATIVE SUBJECT PRONOUN SET. It is this set that I'd like to ask you about. 1. Are there such verbs in the Siouan language(s) you've studied? 2. If so, what are they? 3. Can you provide examples? These would need to be in the 2nd, 3rd or inclusive (1st dual/pl.) persons, since 3rd person forms do not have prefixes that reveal case alignment. All help will be gratefully acknowledged. 4. There may also be semantically stative verbs that use active morphology. I'm also interested in any of these you have. They might include 'be sitting, be standing, by lying, be around, to stay/dwell'. Additional notes that may be helpful to you: In many active/stative languages actions over which the speaker lacks "control" may require stative morphology. So verbs like 'sneeze, hiccup, belch, fart, pant, vomit' are sometimes stative morphologically. In Kansa and Quapaw these verbs all seem to be active morphologically, but certain other verbs can be stative. 'Die' can be either. 'Fall' is another good one to look at. Miner's Winnebago lexicon lists 'fall over', 'fall down' and 'keep falling down in weakness while running in fear' as requiring the stative pronoun set. I'd like to keep this simple, so I'm not interested in "derived" verbs that are stative in their basic form but active when an instrumental prefix is used with them (this is a regular pattern in Siouan). These questions of "agency" and "control" were the subject of a nice paper by Marianne Mithun in 1991: "Active Agentive Case Marking and its Motivations", _Language_ 67:510-546. I hope my explanation is clear to everyone on the list and that some of you will be able to help me with some comments and a little data. Thank you, Bob Rankin From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Feb 7 20:05:30 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:05:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: Hi, In case anyone is interested, I just noticed something interesting about the Winnebago forms I mentioned earlier. They were verbs of 'falling' that took stative pronominal prefix sets. Two of the three of them (at least) are lexicalized causatives. This would certainly explain the patient pronouns -- historically, they were objects, not subjects. So if you get interested in this little problem (as hope you will), causatives are an obvious thing to watch out for. (I already mentioned the instrumental prefixes that have this function when used with stative roots.) For the historical linguists among us though, the Winnebago case is interesting because the causative that is frozen to the verb root 'fall' is *not* the productive causative in the language today. Thus, there really has been morphosyntactic change in Winnebago (and probably Chiwere too), and these verbs are now real stative verbs. Examples from Ken Miner's dictionary: (~ = nasal V or palatal n) (hi~- is the 1sg patient pronoun.) ka~a~n~e 'fall over' (from *ka~a~ + re) hi~-ka~n~e 'I fell over' hi~-ka~ yaate 'I'm falling over' siibre 'fall down, be fallen down' (from siip + re) hi~-sibre 'I fall down' siipagishewe 'keep falling down in weakness when running in fear' siipa~-i~-gishewe 'I keep falling, etc.' The Proto-Siouan causative was *hi_re, where person marking is inserted before the -re, and where the /r/ of -re is, in fact, epenthetic (to break up vowel clusters among prefixes). The causative should be looked upon as an AUX postposed to the main verb. (Dakotan -ya, Osage -dhe, Quapaw, -de, Kansa -ye, Omaha/Ponca -dhe.) In Chiwere and Winnebago, as opposed to the rest of Mississippi Valley Siouan, the productive causative is hi-, and the -re has been lost. EXCEPT that it is retained in numerous lexicalized cases as a kind of bleached out root extension. The -re is no longer conjugated in these instances; only the productive causative, hi-, is conjugated in CH and WI. In the verb 'to keep falling down in weakness when running in fear' it is possible that the -we portion is an allomorph of -re, but I cannot prove that since I don't know enough WI morphology/phonology. These are nice examples of how remodeling of the Chiwere-Winnebago causative has caused a shift in surface case alignment, since the patient pronouns are retained as functional subjects even though the old causative suffix has been reinterpreted as part of the verb stem. Bob From Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE Mon Feb 8 07:21:38 1999 From: Rood at Uni-Koeln.DE (David Rood) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:21:38 +0100 (MET) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: Bob -- BE careful of this one; 'fall' is a standard meaning for stative verbs in all the languages that have this active/stative pattern, so there is certainly semantic pressure to retain the form as stative even if it's etymologically otherwise. You might also be intersted in an observation in Geoff Kimball's grammar of Koasati about the stative verbs there. He maintains he can prove that the inflections are genuine objects of impersonal verbs because the negation paradigm requires third person subject negatives. See pp. 249ff. I don't have time to follow up on this now, but one should then check the other criteria in Koasati for subject status: do nouns take the nom or acc case when subjects of statives, and how does switch reference work? David David S. Rood Professor of LInguistics Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft Universitaet zu Koeln D-50923 Koeln email: rood at uni-koeln.de email: rood at colorado.edu From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Feb 8 15:15:35 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:15:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, David Rood wrote: > BE careful of this one; 'fall' is a standard meaning for stative verbs > in all the languages that have this active/stative pattern, so there is > certainly semantic pressure to retain the form as stative even if it's > etymologically otherwise. My question is whether it will be possible to identify any present or former causative morphology on the verb. Randy identifies this verb as stative in Crow (passhi), but I see no causative morphology there. But what do I know about Crow. Likewise Biloxi. > You might also be intersted in an observation in Geoff Kimball's grammar > of Koasati about the stative verbs there. He maintains he can prove > that the inflections are genuine objects of impersonal verbs because the > negation paradigm requires third person subject negatives. The problem there is that in Muskogean there is no 3rd person agent/subject morphology to appeal to historically. We don't really know where his negative "subject markers" come from since they don't also occur with affirmative clauses. He may be right, but it's also possible that he's following in the rutted footsteps of all the western linguists who have tried to prove that ergative (and here stative) constructions are really nothing but "passives." > ... one should then check the other criteria in Koasati for subject > status: do nouns take the nom or acc case when subjects of statives, and > how does switch reference work? This opens up another Muskogean can of worms, but I'm convinced (as was Heather Hardy at one time) that the famous -t and -n suffixes are 'proximate' and 'obviative' respectively, not 'subject' and 'object' with a homophonous set of switch reference markers. Proximate/obviative ties together the two "kinds" of -t and -n nicely while also explaining certain Choctaw sentences that have had to be analyzed as having "two subjects" as in "that man has two dogs" where the Choctaw is "that man-T two dogs-T for.him-sit." Unfortunately, if I'm right it renders the test hors de combat. But I digress. I'll really be interested to see how it works out across Siouan, and of course I'll share any results with the list. Biloxi seems to have a couple of interesting cases if I've understood them correctly. Thanks for the comments on Dakotan! Bob From goodtracks at juno.com Mon Feb 8 15:07:34 1999 From: goodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:07:34 -0600 Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: Bob: 1. NOTE: that I have shortened my EM address, that is to say, I removed the "jg". It now reads "goodtracks at juno.com". It is a new acct, adjusted to accomodate attachments, photos, and I presume special characters, ANSI etc. 2. In regard to your question on Siouan causative (IOM="-hi"), it seems that you have the IOM data in hand. However, should there be something specific in regard to a particular term, I will try to share my understandings of it. But again, I imagine that much of the IOM material, you can draw from the Lexicon. 3. I'm going this weekend to the symposium on IO beadwork in Tulsa at the downtown Ramada Inn. First time I've heard of anyone calling a gathering of this sort, especially, as it relates to IOM floral applique beadwork style. Several Ioways from this area plan to attend, and I will ride along with them. Of course, like linguistics, I anticpate the majority of individuals will be non-IOM/ -Natives, who will most likely be the ones to maintain the art. So, I will be always interested in applications or follow up/ outcome for the future. Till later, JimmGT From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Feb 15 07:48:19 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:48:19 -0700 (MST) Subject: Siouan case alignment. Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > clearly stative (or adjectival). In several languages there are cases of > SEMANTICALLY ACTIVE VERBS THAT USE (OR MAY USE) THE STATIVE SUBJECT > PRONOUN SET. It is this set that I'd like to ask you about. > > 1. Are there such verbs in the Siouan language(s) you've studied? Yes. Though my data, obviously, isn't going to add much to what Bob already knows about Dhegiha, since it's Omaha-Ponca. > 2. If so, what are they? > 3. Can you provide examples? These would need to be in the 2nd, 3rd or > inclusive (1st dual/pl.) persons, since 3rd person forms do not have > prefixes that reveal case alignment. All help will be gratefully > acknowledged. * dhiNge' 'to lack' aNdhiN'ge, dhidhiN'ge, wadhiN'ge The verb agrees with the one who lacks the thing, not with the thing lacked. Agreement is stative. JOD1890:107.12 maNze=s^te aNdhiN'ge he iron any I lack it DECf * gi'udaN 'to be pleased by, be pleasant for' iN'udaN, dhi'udaN, (?) iN'gudaN The verb agrees with the one who experiences the pleasure, not with the source of the pleasure. Agreement is dative/stative. Omaha Fieldwork niN'niN giu'daN= attas^aN tobacco is pleasurable for her very 'She likes to smoke too much' JOD1890:247.9 dhi'udaN=tta=the it shall be good for you! (of the thrusting of a hot iron into a water monster's injury) * gi't?e 'for one's to die' iNt?e', dhit?e', we't?e I am unsure how to count this one. I don't have any examples on the order of 'you have died for us', so it appears to pattern like the others, in that the verb agrees with the person who experiences the loss, not the one lost. However, t?e is normally active, and noticed that in one of the examples the person lost takes a subject artilce (ama). Agreement is dative/stative, active agreement with the one lost may be possible. Note that it is perfectly possible to say 'my brother died' and not mark possession only in the kinterm. That seems to be the normal pattern with inalienably possessed kin. JOD1890:347.10-11 s^iN'ga=z^iNga aNt?aN=i e= de, we't?a=i child we had him that=TOPIC, he has died to us (ours has died) Though we had a child, he has died. May be aNthaN=i? JOD1890:495.8-9 niNkka=s^iNga=ama iNt?e' ha people have died to me DECm Some of my friends have died. * uxpa'dhe 'to fall; to be lost' uwa'xpadhe, udha'xpadhe, aNwan'xpadhe There seems to be no reason why this cannot be used actively in the sense of 'to fall (from a height)', but I have only third person examples in the texts. Note, however, this example of 'to be lost': JOD1891:120.4 uxpa'dhe idha'kkuhe ha it gets lost I fear for it DECm Now note: * uixpadhe 'to lose something; something to be lost for one' iNwiN'xpadhe, ?udhi'xpadhe, ?uwagixpadhe (I'm lacking the questioned forms, and there is some variation in u-i- < u-gi- paradigms.) The one who loses the thing is agreed with, the thing lost is not. Agreement is dative/stative. JOD1890:647.2 s^aN'ge iNwiN'xpadhe=de naNba' we'bahaN horse I lost it TOPIC two he knew them He recognized two horses that I had lost. > 4. There may also be semantically stative verbs that use active > morphology. I'm also interested in any of these you have. They might > include 'be sitting, be standing, by lying, be around, to stay/dwell'. All these, in standard Dhegiha form. In OP t?e' 'to die' is always active, as far as I know, except in the na=t?'e 'to die by heat' derivation. But na= derivations are always stative. > Additional notes that may be helpful to you: In many active/stative > languages actions over which the speaker lacks "control" may require > stative morphology. So verbs like 'sneeze, hiccup, belch, fart, pant, > vomit' are sometimes stative morphologically. In Kansa and Quapaw these > verbs all seem to be active morphologically, but certain other verbs can > be stative. 'Die' can be either. 'Fall' is another good one to look at. > Miner's Winnebago lexicon lists 'fall over', 'fall down' and 'keep falling > down in weakness while running in fear' as requiring the stative pronoun > set. As far as I know the 'sneeze', etc., set are all active. I don't have inflectional information on many of them. I've mentioned 'fall' and 'die' above. There is another verb 'to fall', also, active: xiadha. I have no inflectional information on this, but in Osage (fide LaFlesche) it inflects axibdha, dhaxis^na, xiadha, aNxidha=i. Now, since this is obviously the Omaha pattern of dh-stem in the second of the two co-verbs, I suspect it reflects Omaha. I'm not sure what to make of the -a- in the third person only. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Mon Feb 15 08:42:36 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:42:36 -0700 (MST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Examples from Ken Miner's dictionary: (~ = nasal V or palatal n) (hi~- is > the 1sg patient pronoun.) > > ka~a~n~e 'fall over' (from *ka~a~ + re) > hi~-ka~n~e 'I fell over' > hi~-ka~ yaate 'I'm falling over' I'm interested in this auxiliary. It looks like hi...re, doubly inflected, in that hi + (h)a => yaa, normally, and te is the first person of re. It seems to have a progressive reading. It also appears to be mutually exclusive with the -re affix that appears in the simple form. The root kaNaN also appears in Marino, p. 285, as "hokaN" 'falling, death'. This definitely suggests that the -re is separable. > siibre 'fall down, be fallen down' (from siip + re) > hi~-sibre 'I fall down' This reminds me of OP/Os a-xi=bdha, except that there the b is the first person marker with the second co-verb, and this b appears to be constant. I wonder if this form can also have a progressive something like hi~-siip yaate I guess I'll have to keep wondering ... > siipagishewe 'keep falling down in weakness when running in fear' > siipa~-i~-gishewe 'I keep falling, etc.' I wonder if this can be etymologized in terms of siipa 'toe', and an s^-grade of gisewe 'to calm down, stop trembling'. Something like 'to have weakened toes'? ----- I should admit, that, unlike Bob, I'm inclined to see the -re suffixes in Winnebago as part of the Winnebago version of the 'suddenly' or punctual/inceptive auxiliaries that I've mentioned a while ago on this list. I am, however, far from sure that I understand this aspect of Winnebago, so that I have to admit that a comparison with the Dakotan and Dhegiha forms of the causative doesn't seem impossible either. What interests me about these forms in that light is the process of fronting of the pronouns that seems to have occurred. This would make the first case I know of in which fronting or extraction of pronominals has affected patient pronominals, and that's pretty interesting in itself. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 16 04:58:26 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:58:26 -0700 (MST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > > I should admit, that, unlike Bob, I'm inclined to see the -re suffixes > > in Winnebago as part of the Winnebago version of the 'suddenly' or > > punctual/inceptive auxiliaries that I've mentioned a while ago on this > > list. > > The -re John's referring to here is the one that is etymologically a > grammaticalized particle from *re: 'to go'. It, along with some other > motion verbs can appear post-verbally with aspectual meaning. John is the > expert on these and has a paper on them in Omaha. We do something similar > in English when we say "Sam went and ate the whole pizza." where Sam > hasn't moved an inch. 'Went' is just a 'punctative' or 'sudden action' > marker here. Nice English analog, Bob! A good point to make on the suddenly forms is that they are comprised of several parts, none of which mean 'suddenly'. In fact, I think that 'suddenly' is not a very good name for these items. It arises from a common translation used in Dorsey's texts. They also are rendered various 'begin', 'start', and 'repeatedly'. The components are the a subset of the usual Dhegiha/Chiwere positional stems and motion stems, sometimes causativized (when the sense of the main verb is transitive). The noncausativized forms can have the positional reduplicated. The formula is something like this: motion-stem + positional-stem motion-stem + reduplicated(positional-stem) motion-stem + positional-stem + causative The motion-stem or positional-stem can be omitted, and either or both can take the vertitive/orientative *k-prefix. These two stems, if included, are in concord with some aspect of the action or result of the action. The personal inflection of the causative concurs with the agent of a transitive main verb. While the motion-stem and positional-stem do match the action in some way, I'd have to admit that I'd probably do better figuring out what is matched from an example than predicting what forms would occur. The forms that occur are a lot like the Dhegiha positional verbs, which are essentially i + positional stem + causative. E.g., ihe=...dhe 'to lay' ithe=...dhe 'to stand' idhaN=...dhe 'to set' Typical auxiliary sequences are dhe=...dhe or thi(g)dhe. There are, however, above 100 possible forms, with about 60 attested between OP and IO. In Chiwere and Winnebago the former sequence becomes something like Winnebago re=...hii, by substitution of cognates. The thi(g)dhe form becomes Winnebago ji(ke)re. In Dakotan the latter is hiNgla (Teton). The nasalization is a bit unexpected, but OP th : Wi j : Te h is the normal set of correspondences for PS *th. There are a genuine few oddities in the correspondences. For example, Wi and IO have (h)i, not (h)u, corresponding to OP i as a motion stem. OP i 'to come' is from *(h)u, and one expects the u vowel in these branches. I'd be inclined to speculate on a new motion verb stem, except Dakotan seems to have uN. The nasal is a surprise, but at least it's a u! Also surprising is that Chiwere has we as the horizontal positional, coresponding to OP he. > There is also a -re 'causative' and a 're' demonstrative and maybe even a > 're' 'be'. We have to sort these all out. ... I might add to these the pervasive Dakotan adverbial suffix -ya < ?*rE, though that could be related to one or the other of these, too. From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 16 05:01:49 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:01:49 -0700 (MST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Note that (as far as I can tell) most verbs that are semantically active > but morphologically stative can, virtually by definition, be analyzed as > active, 3rd person impersonals with a zero actor prefix. The stative > pronominal sets that we're interpreting as stative subjects would then > just be object prns. So what we're translating as 'I ache' could be > interpreted as 'it hurts me'. 'I sweat', which is stative in Quapaw, > could be read as 'It lathers me up' or the like. That's why 14 karat > intransitives like 'fall' are important and we need to know if they > incorporate etymological causatives or the like. One possibility that occurs to me in connection with Bob's investigations is that maybe Siouan statives arise from something like the pattern above, combined with a use of stative pronominals with what were once invariant adjectival stems. This might account for the scarcity of stative formations with semantically stative verb meanings. I gather that Siouan is a little off-beat in this respect. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Feb 15 16:54:29 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:54:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: More case alignment. Message-ID: > I should admit, that, unlike Bob, I'm inclined to see the -re suffixes > in Winnebago as part of the Winnebago version of the 'suddenly' or > punctual/inceptive auxiliaries that I've mentioned a while ago on this > list. The -re John's referring to here is the one that is etymologically a grammaticalized particle from *re: 'to go'. It, along with some other motion verbs can appear post-verbally with aspectual meaning. John is the expert on these and has a paper on them in Omaha. We do something similar in English when we say "Sam went and ate the whole pizza." where Sam hasn't moved an inch. 'Went' is just a 'punctative' or 'sudden action' marker here. There is also a -re 'causative' and a 're' demonstrative and maybe even a 're' 'be'. We have to sort these all out. 'Causative' and 'go/suddenly' are conjugated differently, but in the 3rd person are homonyms. And of course homonymy is one of the primary enabling factors in morphosyntactic reanalysis. This should be fun. Note that (as far as I can tell) most verbs that are semantically active but morphologically stative can, virtually by definition, be analyzed as active, 3rd person impersonals with a zero actor prefix. The stative pronominal sets that we're interpreting as stative subjects would then just be object prns. So what we're translating as 'I ache' could be interpreted as 'it hurts me'. 'I sweat', which is stative in Quapaw, could be read as 'It lathers me up' or the like. That's why 14 karat intransitives like 'fall' are important and we need to know if they incorporate etymological causatives or the like. Bob From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Fri Feb 19 15:05:03 1999 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John P. Boyle) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:05:03 -0500 Subject: Questions on Incorporation Message-ID: Dear Fellow Siouanists, I am taking a two quarter seminar with Jerry Sadock on Incorporation. I would like to do a comparative study of incorporation in Siouan and I was wondering if I could get your help. I don't think anything like this has been done before and I would like to include as many languages of the family as possible. If you could answer the following questions I would greatly appreciate it. 1) Does your language have a productive system of noun incorporation? 2) Does the language allow other thing (post positions, etc.) to be incorporated? 3) Do you know what types of things can be incorporated? (inanimate nouns, non-specific nouns, salient nouns, people/characters, etc.) 4) Do you find that younger speakers incorporate less than older speakers? 5) Do you know of any published or non-published papers on the subject on incorporation in your language? 6) Lastly, could you send some glossed examples of any and all types of incorporation in your particular language? Thank you very much. Anything else that you think would be helpful, I would be grateful for. I'm looking forward to comparing incorporation within the Siouan family and if anyone is interested I would be happy to send you a copy of the final paper. John P. Boyle University of Chicago From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 23 19:12:58 1999 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:12:58 -0700 (MST) Subject: Questions on Incorporation Message-ID: > I would like to do a comparative study of incorporation in > Siouan ... I seem to recall a survey of Dakotan incorporation by Willem de Reuse. Can anyone confirm this? my language = Omaha-Ponca > 1) Does your language have a productive system of noun incorporation? Some objects lack articles, but I am not sure if this qualifies. There is no evidence of phonological incorporation in a productive fashion. Most of the things that are clearly phonologically incorporated are not truly productive, and are nominal or pronominal mainly in a historical sense. > 2) Does the language allow other thing (post positions, etc.) to be > incorporated? You might be looking for parallels with the incorporation of postpositional phrases that occurs in Crow. You should certainly look at the distribution of C-final enclitics in Dakotan, but as Dhegiha tends to abhor C-final things, this kind of test is hard to come by. There are some case of =C(C)V postpositions being contracted to =C(C) before V-initial verbs (see below). Demonstratives are incorporated into verbs of saying and thinking, mainly e 'that (aforesaid?), it' and ga 'yon', but also ede 'to say what' (as in 'what did he say?'), which seems to be something like [e=d(a)]=e, where e=da is 'what' (cf. edadaN 'what', presumably e=da=daN, with the daN CONTINGENT enclitic), and e is 'to say'. One could argue that most of the demonstrative + postposition/enclitic forms are constructed similarly, cf. e'=di 'that-at' = 'there (is)', e'tta 'that-to, thither', e=di=thaN, e=tta'=thaN 'that from, thence', e'=naN 'that-many', e'=gaN 'that-like, thus, so'. The latter is actually inflected, as e'=gimaN 'I am like that', e'=giz^aN 'you are like that', e'=gaN 'he is like that, like that, thus, so', cf. e=aN 'how', which lacks the g(i) derivation. One occasionally catches the postpositional forms acting as impersonal verbs, especially, e=di 'there (is)'. A nice example migth be gu'=di ga=hau! 'thither!' or 'get away!' which is marked as imperative. You can do the same with du'=di 'hither'. Postpositions seem to be incorporated in forms like [e=d]=uihe. I seem to recall that the gloss here is 'to be part of', but I'll have to check that. I seem to remember the form, but be vague on the gloss. It's perhaps moot whether [e=dh(e)]=e=gaN 'to think' has e'=gaN 'like that' as a required enclitic, or has e=dhe, the original verb 'to think' incorporated in an impersonal e'=gaN. The motion verbs all cheerfully take as proclitics the du=, s^u=, gu= series of demonstratives, and the s^(u) forms are quite productive in the sense of 'to(ward) you'. For example, s^u'=bdhe 'I'm heading toward you'. > 3) Do you know what types of things can be incorporated? (inanimate > nouns, non-specific > nouns, salient nouns, people/characters, etc.) No, I'm afraid not. > 4) Do you find that younger speakers incorporate less than older > speakers? No data. One could perhaps compare Catherine Rudin's texts with Dorsey's. My suspicion is that there are not really any temporal variations in what occurs, because it's not very productive. But I haven't looked at the "no article objects." > 5) Do you know of any published or non-published papers on the > subject on incorporation > in your language? No. > 6) Lastly, could you send some glossed examples of any and all > types of incorporation in > your particular language? Yes, if any of this qualifies as more than a gross disappointment ... I'd certainly be interested in seeing the final paper! From STRECHTER at csuchico.edu Tue Feb 23 19:39:59 1999 From: STRECHTER at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:39:59 -0800 Subject: Questions on Incorporation Message-ID: Yes, it's fairly recent. de Reuse, Willem. (1994). Noun Incorporation in Lakota Siouan. IJAL 199-260. Sara T. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Thu Feb 25 19:54:04 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:54:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Siouan Conference comment. Message-ID: Dear Friends, For those in the U.S. who intend to go to this year's Siouan and Caddoan conference in Regina, I learned the hard way that, if you're flying in and out of Canada, there are new identification requirements. A U.S. driver's license used to be enough, but now they want a birth certificate or passport. (This is apparently not true of road crossings though.) Airline employees at airports like Kansas City's, where there isn't a whole lot of international travel, can be very sticky. They wanted to kick me off the plane, but I flew on to New York, my "jumping off place" and their attitude in NYC, predictably, was "well OK, but don't forget next time." Needless to say, this is an American requirement; the Canadians never asked for ID. This time I'm not forgetting. Best, Bob