[Fwd: Minnesota paradox]

[ROOD DAVID S]

I think Matthews' statements in IJAL 36 (1970):103 cited by Alan Hartley
are just wrong.  I spoke to him about this once, and he simply said that
was what speakers had told him -- but I still suspect some confusion on
the part of the speakers.
	The -sota form applies to the Minnesota River; the Lakhota
(I don't know about Dakota) for the Missouri is Mnis^o's^e, using a
different word for 'muddy', namely s^o's^a/e.  I don't think there's a
need to invoke "folk memory" about the concept of 'muddy river' for the
Missouri; that's the name that's actually used for it.

	David


David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
Campus Box 295
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu