From Ogalala2 at aol.com Sun Oct 3 22:17:12 1999 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 18:17:12 EDT Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ Message-ID: /r/, /d/, and /n/ are normally considered three seperate phonemes in Catawba. I have reasons to believe that there may be only one phoneme, namely /r/ and, consequetly, that [d] and [n] are merely allophones of /r/ as is the case with Mandan and Crow/Hidatsa. I would greatly appreciate any Catawba scholar's (Shea, Voorhis, others?) opinion on this matter. From BARudes at aol.com Mon Oct 4 17:46:48 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:46:48 EDT Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ Message-ID: Ogalala2 I have a draft of a rather length paper on Catawba phonology, based largely on conversations with Frank Siebert, Jr., before his death and his field notes. To make a long story short, /r/ and /n/ are underlying phonemes for Catawba. /d/ is, in most cases, a derived phoneme. It comes from a change of /r/ to /d/ in word-initial position, the denasalization of /n/ to /d/ before oral vowels, and the voicing of /t/ to /d/ before a voiced consonant. Some cases of word-initial /n/ derive from /r/ through nasalization before a nasal vowel or an oral vowel followed by a nasal consonant. However, the majority of cases of /n/ cannot be so derived. If you email me your snail-mail address, I will send you a copy of the paper. (I cannot send it by email or as an attachment because I use a lot of special characters.) Blair A. Rudes From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Oct 4 21:24:43 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:24:43 -0600 Subject: Identity of Ogalala2 Message-ID: I notice that Blair Rudes was puzzled as to who ogalala2 at aol.com might be. I have to confess I had to look it up in the list recipients report myself: ogalala2 at aol.com is the email address of Ted Grimm. The Siouan list supplies only the return address of the sender by way of identifying the sender. In some cases this can be rather obscure. I don't believe there is anything I can do about this in terms of list configuration, but users can either (a) modify their email address to include their name, or (b) sign their contributions in the body of their letters. Email addresses of the form "Name" email_address_proper Name "Name" are generally accepted by email processors. Your email program may allow you to set one of these up explicitly or implicitly, e.g., by entering your name into one blank in a configuration form and the email address into another. It may also be possible to set up your email program to automatically (implicitly) add a signature text of some sort to your letters - you've probably noticed these in other folks' mail. A short signature including an email address is probably the best idea. Failing this, I believe subscribers can retrieve the list of subscribers, including email addresses, by sending to listproc at lists.Colorado.EDU a message with the body: recipients siouan This certainly works for me. Note that if you include a signature in this letter, either explicitly or implicitly, it will be parsed as a command to listproc and generate an error message. You can ignore the error message. JEK P.S. See, I remembered to sign my own letter this time! From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Oct 4 23:24:25 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: Identity of Ogalala2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just as an aside to Blair's answer to Ted's question about n, d and r in Catawba, these three phones at one time had almost exactly the same distribution in Catawba as they do in modern Mandan. Kennard, Hollow, Carter and Mixco all agree that the distribution in Mandan is: [d] in word-initial position before oral vowels, [r] in non-initial position before oral vowels, and [n] in any position in the word preceding nasal vowels. The sounds are complementary in Crow and Hidatsa also, but their distribution has been skewed by the fact that vowel nasality has been lost in those languages. The older Catawba and modern Mandan distribution of d, n and r may be quite old. I hope I interpreted the Mandan specialists correctly. If I made any mistakes, please let us know. Bob From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Tue Oct 5 02:48:24 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:48:24 -0500 Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ In-Reply-To: <53c4daa7.25292fe8@aol.com> Message-ID: I'm here in Ponca City, not Lawrence, without any Catawba materials with me for reference, and it's been a long time since I really looked at the data, but I could make a couple of comments off the top of my head. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Paul and Blair, but don't /r/, /d/, and /n/ contrast in the modal suffixes on verbs, with /-re/ being the independent mode ending, /-de/ the imperative, and /-ne/ the interrogative? (A couple of the vowels on these endings might be long, I can't remember.) Also, don't some of the mutating verbs mark different persons with /d-/, /n-/, and /-r-/ or /r-/? However, since I was never able to make a full phonemic analysis based on the written fieldnotes and articles available to me at the time, I think that Blair should have a better grasp of the phonetic range of each phoneme, based on his recent conversations with Frank Siebert, as he points out in his reply to this question posted to the Siouan list. By the way, I recieved about 3 e-mail questions about Catawba recently at my America Online address. I glanced at them and intended to answer, but found, when I went back to answer them, that they had been erased from my "new mail" folder on AOL. (I probably forgot to save them as new.) I can't remember the content or who they were from, so if whoever sent the messages would send them again, either to this address or my AOL address (kdshea at aol.com), I would appreciate it! Kathy Shea On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 Ogalala2 at aol.com wrote: > /r/, /d/, and /n/ are normally considered three seperate phonemes in Catawba. > I have reasons to believe that there may be only one phoneme, namely /r/ > and, consequetly, that [d] and [n] are merely allophones of /r/ as is the > case with Mandan and Crow/Hidatsa. I would greatly appreciate any Catawba > scholar's (Shea, Voorhis, others?) opinion on this matter. > From BARudes at aol.com Tue Oct 5 17:49:45 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:49:45 EDT Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ Message-ID: In reference to Kathy's comments, /r/, /n/ and /d/ are clearly contrastive phonemes in Catawba as it was recorded in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. All three occur in word-medial position before oral vowels (e.g., in different modal prefixes). In word-initial position, only /d/ and /n/ occur. (There are mutating verbs that mark the first singular with /n/, the third singular (bare stem) with /d/ (from underlying /r/) and the third plural with /i-/ which causes the stem consonant to appear as /r/. I don't remember any cases, but there may be cases where Speck or another research failed to hear the initial /i/ of the third plural and, as a result, the verb appeared to show a contrast between initial /n/ /d/ and /r/.) Before nasal vowels, only /r/ and /n/ occur. What I was talking about in my response was the underlying (morphophenemic) system and the likely pre-Catawba phonemic system, where /d/ appears to be derivative from /r/ and /n/ (except in the case of a few loan words and sound symbolic words). Modern Catawba, as recorded for example by Speck and Siebert, was a mixture of two or more dialects/langauges (Esaw, Saraw and perhaps others) with slightly different rules for the distribution of /r/ /n/ and /d/. Also, the change that resulted in the denasalization of /n/ to /d/ was ongoing in the late 1800s and early 1900s so that /n/ would appear for some speakers before oral vowels in some morphemes, but only /d/ would occur before oral vowels for other speakers. In short, the phonemic status of /d/ resulted from language mixture and ongoing sound change, aided by loan words. From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Wed Oct 6 03:38:37 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 22:38:37 -0500 Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Blair's comments are very interesting! Please send me a copy of your Catawba phonology paper whenever you send Ted one. I think you have my snail-mail address, but I will send it if you don't. Thanks! Kathy From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Tue Oct 19 03:43:02 1999 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John P. Boyle) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:43:02 -0600 Subject: Bibliography In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear fellow Siouan list members, Last weekend I was in Kansas at the Mid-America conference and while talking with Bob Rankin, I somehow managed to volunteer to edit and do a final compilation of the much sought after master Siouan bibliography. Bob gave me Pamela Munro's bibliography which she compiled in 1988 and he updated to an extent last year. Before much more work is undertaken on this task, some formatting questions need to be answered. The most important of which is what should be included. Since much of the last 30 years of work on Siouan sits in peoples file cabinets, I'm hesitant to include it in the main section of the bibliography. I propose the following format: The first section will include published material; The second section will include presentations with manuscripts that people are willing to have circulated; The third section will include papers that were presented that don't have written manuscripts or only exist in the form of raw data and/or notes. I'd like to include this third section just so people know what others have worked on. In addition, I'd like to know what type of material people think should be included in the bibliography. Bob proposed to limit it to linguistic material only (this would include word lists but not strictly anthropological material). This will keep the size much more manageable. Once these questions are resolved, I'll ask for current copies of CVs form everyone along with other bibliographical material. Please let me know what you think since this is meant to be useful to everyone and your input will affect its outcome. Thanks, John Boyle -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1671 bytes Desc: not available URL: From m.mixco at m.cc.utah.edu Tue Oct 19 16:28:14 1999 From: m.mixco at m.cc.utah.edu (m.mixco at m.cc.utah.edu) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:28:14 -0700 Subject: Bibliography In-Reply-To: Message-ID: JP Good for you! Keep up the good work! M From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Tue Oct 19 18:57:20 1999 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:57:20 -0500 Subject: Bibliography Message-ID: Thanks for taking this on! I do think it's important to include non-published material, and I'd definitely favor limiting it to linguistic topics. Catherine -------------- next part -------------- Dear fellow Siouan list members, Last weekend I was in Kansas at the Mid-America conference and while talking with Bob Rankin, I somehow managed to volunteer to edit and do a final compilation of the much sought after master Siouan bibliography. Bob gave me Pamela Munro's bibliography which she compiled in 1988 and he updated to an extent last year. Before much more work is undertaken on this task, some formatting questions need to be answered. The most important of which is what should be included. Since much of the last 30 years of work on Siouan sits in peoples file cabinets, I'm hesitant to include it in the main section of the bibliography. I propose the following format: The first section will include published material; The second section will include presentations with manuscripts that people are willing to have circulated; The third section will include papers that were presented that don't have written manuscripts or only exist in the form of raw data and/or notes. I'd like to include this third section just so people know what others have worked on. In addition, I'd like to know what type of material people think should be included in the bibliography. Bob proposed to limit it to linguistic material only (this would include word lists but not strictly anthropological material). This will keep the size much more manageable. Once these questions are resolved, I'll ask for current copies of CVs form everyone along with other bibliographical material. Please let me know what you think since this is meant to be useful to everyone and your input will affect its outcome. Thanks, John Boyle From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Oct 20 03:33:02 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:33:02 -0600 Subject: Bibliography In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, John P. Boyle wrote: > Before much more work is undertaken on this task, some formatting > questions need to be answered. The most important of which is what should > be included. Since much of the last 30 years of work on Siouan sits in > peoples file cabinets, I'm hesitant to include it in the main section of > the bibliography. I propose the following format: > > The first section will include published material; > > The second section will include presentations with > manuscripts that people are willing to have circulated; > > The third section will include papers that were presented > that don't have written manuscripts or only exist in the form of raw > data and/or notes. > > I'd like to include this third section just so people know what others have > worked on. I think this is a reasonable division of the material. > In addition, I'd like to know what type of material people think > should be included in the bibliography. Bob proposed to limit it to > linguistic material only (this would include word lists but not strictly > anthropological material). This will keep the size much more manageable. I think this is also a reasonable restriction. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Oct 21 00:28:39 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:28:39 -0500 Subject: MANDAN (again) Message-ID: John and Mauricio think Mandan maNta 'Missouri River' a possible etymon for the English name MANDAN, and I'd like to suggest an elaboration about which I'd welcome suggestions. MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738; and cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana), or directly from its etymon Assiniboine MaNtan < Mandan MaNta 'Missouri River' + Assiniboine locative postposition -en. The English forms in -l (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) show the influence of Lakota, in which the same postposition is realized as -el. Riggs gives Dakota tin (< ti + en) and Lakota til (< ti + el) 'in the house'. Might this postposition be cognate with the Mandan directional suffix -t (Kennard)? And is it related to the Dakotan & Mandan locative -ta ? (There is no Eng. form of the type *Mandat.) I don't know how the (apparently diminutive) modern Dakotan forms (e.g., Mawa'tadaN) would fit in, if at all. Is there any way Dakotan Mawata can be construed as cognate with Mandan MaNta ? (I realize I'm starting to go over old ground here, for which I apologize.) I've been trying to borrow Hollow's _Mandan Dict._ but have been unable to get it through ILL (and it isn't available from UMI): does anyone know of a circulating copy that I might be able to borrow? Thanks for any help. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Oct 21 04:13:47 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:13:47 -0600 Subject: MANDAN (again) In-Reply-To: <380E5E37.86B14B95@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > John and Mauricio think Mandan maNta 'Missouri River' a possible etymon > for the English name MANDAN, and I'd like to suggest an elaboration > about which I'd welcome suggestions. Frankly, it's been just long enough that I've forgotten exactly where we were between forms like modern Dakotan mawatadaN or Omaha mawadani, various Mandan and Hidatsa forms, and the historical Assiniboine form. Knowing the form passed through French, however, does make it easy to see the first n as a mark of nasalization, i.e., maNta(N)n(V). This puts Manda maNta 'Missouri River' in reach. Given that, the final syllable could be some sort of locative postposition, as Alan suggests, if a specific candidate can be identified. There's no suitable suffix in Omaha-Ponca, but if the source is Dakotan, then -niN might be a vocalization of -n or -l, cf. MaNmaNdha 'Mormon' (the vowel's wrong). Unfortunately, I think the various mawa-... forms are also reasonably consistent with a perceived maN, as the w is easily reduced in this context. I think this is a fair assessment for both Dakotan and Dhegiha. > MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738; and cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana), or > directly from its etymon Assiniboine MaNtan < Mandan MaNta 'Missouri > River' + Assiniboine locative postposition -en. The English forms in -l > (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) show the influence of Lakota, in which the same > postposition is realized as -el. > > Riggs gives Dakota tin (< ti + en) and Lakota til (< ti + el) 'in the > house'. In fact, the postposition is -n/-l. As it cannot occur as a free form, there is a tendency to cite it with some neutral demonstrative base like e 'that (aforesaid)'. Add to this that V + e might develop as V and even linguists tend to lean on this crutch. Still, I'm pretty sure the e is spurious in forms like til. I've always associated this truncated postposition -l with the full form -tu, though it probably also reflects at least -ka ~ -c^a, too, the latter alternant after e, since the latter would also reduce to -l. The -tu source corresponds reasonably well with Omaha-Ponca -di < *-tu, though other Dhegiha languages like Kansa, where unrounding of fronted *-du" shouldn't occur, but, with this form evidently does. (So that one wonders if it isn't non-cognate *-ti in Dhegiha, after all.) > Might this postposition be cognate with the Mandan directional > suffix -t (Kennard)? And is it related to the Dakotan & Mandan locative > -ta ? (There is no Eng. form of the type *Mandat.) It might be, but unfortunately there's another suffix to work with, cf. Dakota -(k)ta, Omaha -tta (where the -t-t- matches the -k-t-). As I recall Dakotan has -ta, but develops an intrusive -k- in forms like e-k-ta. In Dakotan truncations -ta might also alternate with -l. In Omaha-Ponca terms -tta is 'to(ward)' and -di is 'in, to'. > I don't know how the (apparently diminutive) modern Dakotan forms (e.g., > Mawa'tadaN) would fit in, if at all. Presumably mawa'ta, lacks the locative and is diminutive instead. It's not instantly clear to me why diminutive, though Algonquian diminutives are also pejoratives. I'm not familiar with such a usage in Siouan. > Is there any way Dakotan Mawata can > be construed as cognate with Mandan MaNta ? (I realize I'm starting to > go over old ground here, for which I apologize.) What occurred to me is that wa- INDEFINITE is used with statives in the sense 'something characterized by' and with nouns in contexts that look like unpossessed forms. One might suppose that wa + maNta might be 'those of the MaNta'. Also, in some forma like maNta the natural location for pronominal prefixes is between maN and ta, at least in Mississippi Valley languages, since normally syllables like maN in a stem would arise as more outward prefixes (proclitics, incorporations) than, say, pronominals, creating a set of placement models that can be reinterpreted as meaning that a prefix should follow the maN sequence in all cases. See Boas & Deloria pp. 78-98 for discussion on tendencies of this sort in the placement of pronominals. I think there are some analogous discussions of infixing in Lipkind's Winnebago grammar. Unfortunately, Boas & Deloria, p. 52, etc., it's not clear that any of these apply to wa-. And, in fact, Buechel has various examples of wa-maN- that show that wa- should precede maN, e.g., wa-maNkha-s^kaN 'creatures, beasts', wa-maN-ki-naN 'to steal from one', , wa-maNya-l 'toward a bank', etc. So, so much for that, unless anyone knows of any counter examples. Might mawa- arise by some sort of back formation to account for a long initial vowel? Is the forst vowel long in Mandan? From jggoodtracks at juno.com Thu Oct 21 13:45:56 1999 From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:45:56 -0500 Subject: Bibliography Message-ID: John Boyle: I am in agreement with your proposed Siouian Bibliography as you propose it with the three division. I agree that the Third Division on unpublished manuscripts in possession of their authors/ collectors is important to preclude any inadvertent loss, while at the same time advocating their ultilization. I also agree that the Bibliography should be limited to linguistics and language included in related publication. Frequently, obscure and/ or archaic terms with former/ earlier pronuciation(s) may be retrieved in doing so. Having already completed a extensive/ exhaustive (as close as possible) Bibliography for Ioway-Otoe-Missouria (Baxoje-Jiwere-Nyut^achi), a language group with minimal attention and documentation, I compiled 8 pages (using characters= 8pt fonts). It may be arranged/ rearranged by you to match the suggested 3 Divisions. You may ask John K, if recent additions have now been included, which is on-going, and something you will need to take into account, for all the language groups. It is located at: http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz/#GoodTracks Let me know if I can be further help, as it pertains to the above information. JimmGT From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 23 19:42:49 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:42:49 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions (was Re: Mandan (again)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > In fact, the postposition is -n/-l. As it cannot occur as a free form, > there is a tendency to cite it with some neutral demonstrative base like e > 'that (aforesaid)'. Add to this that V + e might develop as V and even > linguists tend to lean on this crutch. Still, I'm pretty sure the e is > spurious in forms like til. Of course, I should have said thil, since, it's thi(=pi) in Dakotan, the stem being aspirated. The constuction is thi=l, with = indicating the enclitic boundary. The corresponding Omaha-Ponca form would be tti=adi, in which =di after i requires the intervening formant -a-, an archaism with parallels in Dakotan, too. In Omaha-Ponca the rule appears to have been, when adding =di or =tta (or various other postpositions) to a stem that ends in -e, change e to a first. If the stem ends in some other vowel, append a first. Most of the surviving examples involve -i finals but other vowels occur. Many of the forms alternate with ones that lack the -a-, but tti=adi and tti=atta are consistent. I suspect that the -a- in all these cases is essentially an absolute marker/nominalizer. These usually derive historically from old articles or demonstratives. The following is reworded for clarity and complete sentences! > I've always associated this truncated postposition -l with the full form > -tu, though it probably also reflects at least the -c^a alternant of -ka > ~ -c^a, too. This -c^a alternant occurs after e, and would also reduce > to -l in dependent contexts where there is truncation of the final > vowel. > The -tu source corresponds reasonably well with Omaha-Ponca -di, > hypothetically from Proto-Dhegiha (and Proto-Mississippi Valley) *-tu. > However, in other Dhegiha languages like Osage and Kansa, where > unrounding of fronted *-tu" shouldn't occur, it does. Either it just > unrounds irregularly, perhaps because it is final and unstressed, or > Proto-Dhegiha had really had *-ti, which wouldn't be cognate with > Dakotan -tu after all. > > Might this postposition be cognate with the Mandan directional > > suffix -t (Kennard)? And is it related to the Dakotan & Mandan locative > > -ta ? (There is no Eng. form of the type *Mandat.) > > It might be, but unfortunately there's another suffix to work with, cf. > Dakota -(k)ta, Omaha -tta (where the -t-t- matches the -k-t-). As I > recall Dakotan has -ta, but develops an intrusive -k- in forms like > e-k-ta. In Dakotan truncations -ta might also alternate with -l. In > Omaha-Ponca terms -tta is 'to(ward)' and -di is 'in, to'. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Oct 24 15:39:31 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:39:31 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions (was Re: Mandan (again)) Message-ID: John, Thanks for all the help with locatives. Are you saying that specifically in Lakota -l is a reduction of -tu or -c^a ? Is the same true of -n in other Dakotan languages? Is -ka/-c^a also a locative? Is there (I ask facetiously, if hopefully) a comparative tabulation of Siouan locatives? Has anyone published a modern attempt at a tabulation of Siouan sound correspondences? Is it correct to say that, in both Mandan & Dakotan, -awa- (reduced to open back -a-) is a variant of -ã-? In other words, that the modern Dakota forms (e.g., mawa'tadã) could represent mãta + diminutive (whereas an older Assiniboine form was mãta + locative). Following is a revision of the etymology, correcting the enclitic forms to -l/-n and making it clear that the French name was borrowed from Assiniboine. (Please let me know if the tildes don't display correctly for anyone.) MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738, explicitly as an Assiniboine ethnonym; and cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana), or directly from its etymon Assiniboine mãtan < Mandan mãta 'Missouri River' + Assiniboine locative enclitic -n. The English variants in -l (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) reflect the Lakota form of the name, in which the locative enclitic is realized as -l. Alan From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Oct 24 18:43:51 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:43:51 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions (was Re: Mandan (again)) In-Reply-To: <38132833.9FD0CEE3@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: > Are you saying that specifically in Lakota -l is a reduction of -tu or > -c^a ? The -l can be a reflex of -tV, -cV or -kV. > Is the same true of -n in other Dakotan languages? Yes. > Has anyone published a modern attempt at a tabulation of Siouan sound > correspondences? No, though such things exist, mostly inside peoples' heads. John may have a print out of something along these lines that was done back about 1990. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Oct 24 18:55:16 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:55:16 -0500 Subject: Santee irregular verb. Message-ID: I was prowling through Boas and Deloria's _Dakota Grammar_ (always a profitable passtime for a Siouanist) and ran across a partial conjugation for the compound verb /yakhuN/ < {yakha+'uN} 'to be' in Santee on p. 98. 2sg dakhA-nuN incl. 'uN-yak-'uN-pi (f.n. 22) Does anyone know the 1st person form of this verb? I would guess /b-dakha-muN/, but I'd like to confirm it. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Oct 24 19:07:35 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:07:35 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions (was Re: Mandan (again)) In-Reply-To: <38132833.9FD0CEE3@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > Are you saying that specifically in Lakota -l is a reduction of -tu or > -c^a ? Yes. I'm not sure if all (or any) Dakotanists agree with me. In Dakotan it works pretty well (not always) simply to treat all these (-tu, -l, -ka ~ c^a) as separate phenomena. > Is the same true of -n in other Dakotan languages? Given the corespondences, I believe so in Stoney and Assiniboine. I'm not sure it's always -n in Santee-Sisseton and Yankton-Yanktonais. I'd expect -d after an oral vowel: ed ~ etu, ed ~ ec^a. > Is -ka/-c^a also a locative? No. It patterns as a postposition, and has a sense of approximately 'such a, like'. I don't recall the gloss in Buechel off the top of my head. This is what happens when a student of Dhegiha answers a question on Dakotan ... Well, there are plenty of Dakotan experts on the list! > Is there (I ask facetiously, if hopefully) a comparative tabulation of > Siouan locatives? Some of the tables of postpositions and correlatives in Boas & Deloria 1941 might come close to what you're looking for. In general, B&D are *the* source when you need a comprehensive catalog of some morphological class or pattern. I'd also say that for a nice syntactic overview you might consult the recent survey of such things by Bruce Ingham in IJAL. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Oct 24 19:28:20 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:28:20 -0600 Subject: Mandan (again) In-Reply-To: <38132833.9FD0CEE3@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Alan Hartley asks: > Is it correct to say that, in both Mandan & Dakotan, -awa- (reduced to > open back -a-) is a variant of -�-? In other words, that the modern > Dakota forms (e.g., mawa'tad�) could represent m�ta + diminutive > (whereas an older Assiniboine form was m�ta + locative). No, only that maNwa might easily reduce to something that could be perceived as maNaN or maN in Omaha-Ponca, and, I think, Dakotan. I can't say for Mandan, and you've stated things the reverse of what I would have. aN is the variant of aNwa. Incidentally, I've seen the diminutive reduced to =n in Stoney, e.g., wasabe=n for 'blackbear'. I believe this form was in the CSD from Pat Shaw. I don't recall seeing =l in Teton for this. Of course, a Teton speaker might produce =l by way of adapting =n without knowing it was a diminutive. So, what I'm saying is that a Dakotan speaker saying maNwata=... might be perceived by somewhat with less than complete facility to be saying, maNaNda=... or maNaNta=... Whatever followed (the ...) might have been a locative or a diminutive or might have varied with the time and place. > Following is a revision of the etymology, correcting the enclitic forms > to -l/-n and making it clear that the French name was borrowed from > Assiniboine. (Please let me know if the tildes don't display correctly > for anyone.) > > MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738, explicitly as an Assiniboine ethnonym; and > cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana), or directly from its etymon > Assiniboine m�tan < Mandan m�ta 'Missouri River' + Assiniboine locative > enclitic -n. The English variants in -l (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) reflect > the Lakota form of the name, in which the locative enclitic is realized > as -l. This is close, but I'd say: --- MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738), explicitly from an Assiniboine ethnonym which could be reconstituted as *MaNtan or perhaps *MaNwatan; and cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana, from maN(wa?)ta + Assiniboine diminutive or locative enclitic -n. The English variants in -l (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) reflect a Lakota form of the name, in which the enclitic is realized according to phonetic correspondences between the dialects as -l. Compare modern [Santee?] maNwata-daN '?' + diminutive enclitic -daN (ref). For maNta, cf. perhaps Mandan maNta 'Missouri River' (ref). The derivation of modern attested maNwata- is obscure. --- It's pretty clear from the way the form gets adapted from one dialect or language to another that the morphology of the form is obscure to speakers and has been for some time. From egooding at iupui.edu Sun Oct 24 23:28:12 1999 From: egooding at iupui.edu (Erik D Gooding) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:28:12 -0500 Subject: Santee irregular verb. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: THis is from Riggs' "Grammar" p. 30. He doesn't include the first person form. My suggestion would be mdakhuN. Just a suggestion. Erik On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > > I was prowling through Boas and Deloria's _Dakota Grammar_ (always a > profitable passtime for a Siouanist) and ran across a partial conjugation > for the compound verb /yakhuN/ < {yakha+'uN} 'to be' in Santee on p. 98. > > 2sg dakhA-nuN > incl. 'uN-yak-'uN-pi (f.n. 22) > > Does anyone know the 1st person form of this verb? I would guess > /b-dakha-muN/, but I'd like to confirm it. > > Bob > From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Oct 26 21:49:16 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:49:16 -0700 Subject: Dakotan switch ref.? Message-ID: Someone was asking me recently about Richard Lungstrum's dissertation on Lakhota switch reference. It was for the U. of Pennsylvania and was entitled: _Switch Reference and the Structure of Lakhota Narrative Discourse_ (1995). UMI order number 9543116. He deals with a number of different discourse particles. Bob From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Oct 27 17:21:18 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:21:18 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here are my thoughts on the locatives, seen strictly from a synchronic Lakhota perspective. I would be happy to have corrections or countertheories from others, and I apologize to those who are looking for specific diachronic information, because there won't be much here. There is a contrast between postpositional or "inflectional" (suffixal)) -ta and verbal -tu; the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a particular place', and I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is the "neutral" demonstrative root John has talked about; the latter is probably extant in ekta 'to/toward', etaN 'from' etc. I think the stressed "e" is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called personal pronouns (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential verb e' seen in sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. The -l/-n marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta postposition, but I can't give you any good arguments for that assertion. I am not aware that modern day speakers use the "thil" form for the locative of 'house'; I've heard thima'hel for 'in the house' and 'thi(y)a'ta' for 'toward the house', but I'm the first to assert that I have limited exposure to this language and probably haven't heard everything that's out there. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From pustet at babel.Colorado.EDU Wed Oct 27 20:13:09 1999 From: pustet at babel.Colorado.EDU (regina pustet) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:13:09 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > > There is a contrast between postpositional or "inflectional" > (suffixal)) -ta and verbal -tu; the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a > particular place', I'm not sure if that -tu suffix is that verbal. It occurs also in forms such as he'chetu 'so', and leha'Ntu 'now', and in many other adverbs. Nowadays you usually hear the contracted forms he'chel/he'chen and leha'Nl/leha'Nn though. This of course does not mean that such adverbs are not in fact etymologically based on a verb. For instance, the base for he'chetu should be the copula he'cha. and I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is > the "neutral" demonstrative root John has talked about; the latter is > probably extant in ekta 'to/toward', etaN 'from' etc. I think the > stressed "e" is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called > personal pronouns (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential > verb e' seen in sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. I agree. But then we have to consider the fact that verbal e' 'to be' is semantically very specific -- in contradistinction to the other 'be' verb he'cha. e' occurs only in identificational predicates like the above, and when headless relative clauses function as predicate nucleus, as in "he is the one whole stole my car"; this is, of course, just another identificational context. e' can also combine with cha to serve as a topic marker. What these three function have in common is the semantic denominator of "pointing at", in some sense, and from that, I'd say, it's just a short way semantically to a demonstrative function. In other words, John's "neutral demonstrative" e' and David's "verbal" e' might be one and the same, at least if we go back far enough in language history. I'd also like to make a connection between e' (whatever type) and the locative prefix e'- 'at' towards', which occurs, for instance, in e'-gnaka 'to put (somewhere)' (vs. gna'ka 'to put'). e'- is not listed in the Boas/Delora grammar as a locative prefix that occupies the same slot as the more common locative prefixes a-, o-, and i-, if I remember that correctly, although it certainly does. Though e'- is not particularly productive in Lakota any more. The -l/-n > marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta > postposition, I'd also vote for -tu rather than -ta. We still have some postpositons in Lakota that can be used both in a contracted and in an uncontracted form, the alternation being -l/-n vs. -tu. An example is aka'Ntu vs. aka'Nl/aka'Nn 'on top of'. but I can't give you any good arguments for that assertion. The pitfall is that stem-final -ta is also regularly reduced to -l in Lakota. That happens quite a lot in serial verb constructions. At any rate, I have investigated Lakota postpositions sometime in greater detail, and my impression is that many of them originate in serial verb constructions. Very often the element that turns into a postposition later gets truncted in serial verb chains. A very common process here is that stem-final -tu or -ta is converted to -l/-n. From that perspective, the assumption that the postposition e'l originates in the verb e'tu makes a lot of sense. Since postpositions may grammaticalize into affixes, -l/-n might be the reduced version of e'l. But, as what I said above implies already, I'm not quite sure at waht point the assumed -tu element entered the diachronic scenario. -tu might have been attached to the ancestor of an element like aka'Ntu/aka'Nl/aka'Nn 'on top of' independently of anything that might have happened to the combination e' + tu. Which is to say that only -tu might be involved in the development of -l/-n, not necessarily e' as well. > I am not aware that modern day speakers use the "thil" form for > the locative of 'house'; Never heard that either. thil might be just a rapid speech contraction of thi + el. Regina Pustet From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Oct 28 01:16:49 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:16:49 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: David Rood wrote: > the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a particular place' > The -l/-n marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu Regina Pustet wrote: > A very common process here is that > stem-final -tu or -ta is converted to -l/-n. From that perspective, the > assumption that the postposition e'l originates in the verb e'tu makes a > lot of sense. Since postpositions may grammaticalize into affixes, -l/-n > might be the reduced version of e'l. To revert to the etymology of MANDAN, is it possible then that Dakotan mãtan 'Mandan' *might* represent Mandan mãta 'Missouri River' + -e'tu (reduced to -n/-l) meaning something like 'they (who) are at the Missouri'? Might the -n/-l also represent -ta, yielding something like 'at the Missouri'? Perhaps--recalling the folk explanation of MINITARI recounted by Jimm--Dakotans asked the Mandans who they were, and the latter responded that they were those that lived on the Missouri. I'm ignorant of Siouan morphology, and I'm sure it looks as though I'm just fishing here, but that's why I'm filtering my musings through the Siouan list. I appreciate any feedback, and I do enjoy reading the postings as they wander from one topic to another. Thanks, Alan From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Oct 28 15:03:28 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:03:28 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: <3817A401.59E17016@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: > > To revert to the etymology of MANDAN, is it possible then that Dakotan > m�tan 'Mandan' *might* represent Mandan m�ta 'Missouri River' + -e'tu > (reduced to -n/-l) meaning something like 'they (who) are at the > Missouri'? Might the -n/-l also represent -ta, yielding something like > 'at the Missouri'? Perhaps--recalling the folk explanation of MINITARI > recounted by Jimm--Dakotans asked the Mandans who they were, and the > latter responded that they were those that lived on the Missouri. I haven't followed all of the discussion about mtaN etc., so I may say something dumb here, but from the point of view of Dakota syntax, a word with a final locative ending like -l/-n would be given in answer to a "where" question, not a "who" question. Just what might happen in a situtation where neither group speaks the other's language is of course quite speculative; we don't know which pieces of a conversation might be remembered and which ones not heard, and it's possible that a verb after a locative would simply not be incorporated in the form that got repeated and lexicalized. Morphologically, if Mandan works like Dakota, then certainly mtan could be used to mean 'at/on/near mta'. Note that the final -n here would be consonantal, not nasalization of the preceding vowel. David From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Oct 28 15:21:25 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:21:25 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, regina pustet wrote: > e' can also combine with cha to serve as a topic marker. This is one of the interesting things that comes out in Ingham's article, namely that often forms like ec^ha, which have a fairly obvious morphological analysis, have a function which goes beyond what the morphological analysis suggests. The comparable form in Omaha-Ponca is egaN which has a number of grammatical functions (but not topic marker) that arise historical out of 'be such a one; like that', but clearly have a life of their own. Etu may be another such example in Dakotan. > What these three function have in common is the semantic > denominator of "pointing at", in some sense, and from that, I'd say, it's > just a short way semantically to a demonstrative function. In other words, > John's "neutral demonstrative" e' and David's "verbal" e' might be one and > the same, at least if we go back far enough in language history. Tada! > I'd also > like to make a connection between e' (whatever type) and the locative > prefix e'- 'at' towards', which occurs, for instance, in e'-gnaka 'to put > (somewhere)' (vs. gna'ka 'to put'). e'- is not listed in the Boas/Delora > grammar as a locative prefix that occupies the same slot as the more > common locative prefixes a-, o-, and i-, if I remember that correctly, > although it certainly does. Though e'- is not particularly productive in > Lakota any more. There are similar things in Omaha-Ponca, though what comes to mind is eppaze 'to spend the night at a place', which may not be strictly analogous. There are some other examples, but they're not coming to mind at the moment. Are these forms really analogous to locatives in Dakotan in the sense of preceding first and second person, but following inclusive? I think they're more like outer instrumentals or other incorporations in Omaha-Ponca, i.e., precede everything. > > The -l/-n > > marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta > > postposition, > > I'd also vote for -tu rather than -ta. ... > The pitfall is that stem-final -ta is also regularly reduced to -l in > Lakota. I'd been arguing that tu = l for a while when I ran into Ingham's article. The data there left me with the distinct impression that there were also reduced el forms that matched -ka ~ c^a (the c^a alternative is normal with pronominals, as they normally end in e). I can't remember now if there were -ta cases, too, but presumably not with e-, since that introduces a transitional -k- to form ekta, an interesting irregularity that I can't account for at all. I belive there are some other e + postposition cases where -k- is introduced, but they're not coming to me at the moment. > > I am not aware that modern day speakers use the "thil" form for > > the locative of 'house'; > > Never heard that either. thil might be just a rapid speech contraction of > thi + el. tti=adi (and tti=atta) and tti=the=di (with the 'the upright inanimate') are normal in Omaha-Ponca. There is also an anlogy to maNhe with (cognate) maNthe, though I think tti=maNthe may be restricted to earthlodges. maNthe is normally 'under(neath)'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Oct 28 15:03:03 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:03:03 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Here are my thoughts on the locatives, seen strictly from a synchronic > Lakhota perspective. I would be happy to have corrections or > countertheories from others, and I apologize to those who are looking for > specific diachronic information, because there won't be much here. Actually, I think a diachronic explanation was perhaps the last thing Alan wanted! It was I who got things onto that track, it being the first thing I generally think of. > There is a contrast between postpositional or "inflectional" > (suffixal)) -ta and verbal -tu; the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a > particular place', and I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is > the "neutral" demonstrative root John has talked about; the latter is > probably extant in ekta 'to/toward', etaN 'from' etc. I think the > stressed "e" is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called > personal pronouns (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential > verb e' seen in sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. The -l/-n > marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta > postposition, but I can'nt give you any good arguments for that > assertion. I guess I don't distinguish between the two usages in looking at Omaha-Ponca. This may be a deficiency in my approach, but I think it's mostly because Omaha-Ponca doesn't make the verb : postposition distinction morphologically by truncating some of the postpisitions. Certainly e and e=di (cf. e-tu) are both used verbally more often that e=tta (cf. e-k-ta), though I'm not positive at the moment whether I recall a verbal example of e=tta at all. I think I have found other e=POST sequences that behave verbally, though mostly they all occur postpositionally (including e=di, there being no analog of el in Omaha-Ponca). The existence of the truncated subordinate/postpositional forms in -l is a major difference between Dakotan and Dhegiha and has clearly had a major influence on Dakotan grammar or perhaps only the analysis of it, because it can be reinterpreted in terms of this verbal/non-verbal distinction. The verb : postposition distinction seems to depend on whether the form occurs in predicate position in main clauses, where it is naturally taken as verbal, or not, where it would normally seem postpositional. I suppose that the non-predicative instances could just as easily be considered participial (subordinate verbal), if etu is to be considered verbal. But if e is the verbal root, then don't all the demonstratives have to be seen as verbal, or at least some instances of he, too? I thought tu occurred with all the demonstratives. Hetu would be ambiguous, but if gatu occurs then there's no e present there. Identifying some e + thing sequences as verbs and some as (demonstratives plus) postpositions does seem a rather awkward business, though it's easy to see where it comes from. Even if a language lacks the untruncated : truncated forms with their different distributions, there are sometimes semantic problems. I'm always bothered in Omaha-Ponca by finding edi '(be) there, at that' in the same class with enaN '(be) so many, that many'. Postposition seems a poor characterization of the latter. Perhaps the verbal analysis is the more general and flexible, even if the postpositional one leads to simpler, more natural translations in most cases. I suppose the fallacy I've been slipping into is assuming that one must categorize based on the least marked translation. In any event, if we consider forms like etu as verbs, I wonder if the verbal root isn't the "postpositional" component (tu/l, etc., in Dakotan; =di, naN, etc., in Omaha-Ponca), not the e, which is simply an (obligatory) incorporated demonstrative. It's true that the e alone can also appear to behave verbally, but I assume that these sentences are historically 'he/she/it is' clefts analogous with the first, second, and inclusive person pronominals: He Robert e 'that one Robert it/he (is)', with no equational verb verb present. My French isn't entirely satisfactory, but this is more or less analogous to things like Celui, c'est Robert, except for word order and except for lacking the "est." We do have to ask ourselves whether the possibility of such an analysis for the origin of the situation in Dakotan should cause us to adopt it over the one that David likes, which clearly works, too, if we're not overly concerned to reduce the number of "e" entities. A lot would depend on data that I don't control. I would have to say that the possibility of the two alternative analyses only exists in Dakotan, not in Dhegiha, and primarily because of the pattern of reduction of components like tu to -l, etc., in various contexts in Dakotan. I've also been wondering if calling e a neutral demonstrative or 'the aforesaid' as I usually do might not be just an awkard way to say 'third person pronominal'. Of course, when it appears in sequences like miye, as I assume it does, that's a bit awkward synchronically, though presumably these are etymologically something like 'it is I'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Oct 28 18:54:38 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:54:38 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > I haven't followed all of the discussion about mtaN etc., so I may > say something dumb here, but from the point of view of Dakota syntax, a > word with a final locative ending like -l/-n would be given in answer to a > "where" question, not a "who" question. I can't think of any Siouan ethnonyms for the area that involve locatives, but at least one Omaha clan name is locative: DattadaN 'on the left hand side'. Omaha and Ukaxpa (Quapaw) are not locative phrases, but they are locative (directional) adverbs. I think Winnebago is a locative in Ojibwa, something like 'at the smelly water'. Various Iroquoian tribal names are locatives. Village names can be locative. Omadi is one of the historical Omaha villages. I'm not positive about Oma at the moment, but di is the locative we've been discussing. A locative name for a village might well become an ethnonym, and I suppose we could assume something like that here. What's really potentially a problem here is the combination of an attested Mandan term with a Dakotan locative. We're essentially assuming that the Mandan name for the Missouri River, not, so far as I know, attested in Dakotan, was formerly in circulation in at least Assiniboine, or that a Mandan form 'at/by the Missouri', perhaps a village name, was partially translated into Assiniboine. I don't think any of the usual locatives in Mandan has the right shape. JEK From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Thu Oct 28 19:53:50 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:53:50 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is the "neutral" > demonstrative root John has talked about;... I think the stressed "e" > is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called personal pronouns > (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential verb e' seen in > sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. John: > I guess I don't distinguish between the two usages in looking at > Omaha-Ponca. This may be a deficiency in my approach, but I think it's > mostly because Omaha-Ponca doesn't make the verb : postposition > distinction morphologically by truncating some of the postpisitions. > We do have to ask ourselves whether the possibility of such an analysis > for the origin of the situation in Dakotan should cause us to adopt it > over the one that David likes, which clearly works, too, if we're not > overly concerned to reduce the number of "e" entities. In Dhegiha there is a distinction between {?e:}, the demonstrative, and {he} 'to be', so I'd expect all the e's in DH to be of the demonstrative variety. You find the {-he} 'be' compounded with positional verb roots to form auxiliaries (reduced biclausal constructions). When following a vowel, {-he} is conjugated in the 2nd person, otherwise it seems to be invariant (forming aspirated consonants): [$ = s-hacek] 'be sitting' 'be moving' 'be standing' 1st mi~k-HE a-ri~- HE a-tha~- HE 2nd $ni~k-HE ra-ri~-$-E ra-tha~-$-E 3rd ni k-HE Some Dhegiha languages take it farther. Osage and Quapaw have versions with zha~k-HE 'be lying'. In Dhegiha {he} is always a locative 'be' as far as I know, but this is presumably because it is always compounded with a locative verb in those languages. There is probably a dissertation to be written (by some enterprising soul) on the developments of this verb and possibly other verbs of being (for example {?u~:}. They have been grammaticalized in any number of interesting and different ways. ?U~ is the basis for a past tense in some Dhegiha dialects and, I think, in Biloxi. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Thu Oct 28 20:08:39 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:08:39 -0500 Subject: e and he. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > What these three function have in common is the semantic denominator > of "pointing at", in some sense, and from that, I'd say, it's just a > short way semantically to a demonstrative function. In other words, > John's "neutral demonstrative" e' and David's "verbal" e' might be one > and the same, at least if we go back far enough in language history. > Tada! I don't think so. I think they are historically different. They just look alike in Dakotan because they've become homophones and thereby subject to a lot of confusion. Because of their short (sometimes identical) phonological forms, we must be very careful in analyzing them in order to determine which we're dealing with. In this case though, Dhegiha preserves the evidence (my previous post) that 'to be' had an initial /h/ that has apparently been lost in Dakotan for whatever reason. Is there evidence for the *h anywhere in Dakotan? The place to look would be frozen compounds. How many morphemes is echa historically? If it's related to ekta, then could -ha be ablauted *he. Bob From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Oct 29 03:19:34 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:19:34 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: > I think Winnebago is a locative in > Ojibwa, something like 'at the smelly water'. It's not locative. Susan Golla and Ives Goddard (HNAI 15.706) suggest as the etymon Potawatomi winpyeko (pl. -k) 'people of the dirty [i.e., muddy] water'. There are similar forms in various other Algonquian languages, none of which looks locative. > What's really potentially a problem here is the combination of an attested > Mandan term with a Dakotan locative. There are parallels, e.g., Ojibway (Algonquin) bostonenang '(in) the U.S.' < Boston (Mass.) + Ojibway -nang (loc.) (Cuoq 1911) Fox pe:ko:neki 'St. Louis (Mo.)' < French Pain Court 'St. Louis' + Fox -eki (loc.) (HNAI 17.194) Fox nwa:hke:neneki 'Rock Island' < English Rock Island + Fox -eki (loc.) (ibid.) Quebec(k)er & Montrealer as against Québecois & Montréalais (though here the suffix isn't locative). In fact, how is a Mandan placename with a Dakotan locative suffix essentially different from an Ojibway placename with an English locative preposition, e.g., "in Bemidji"? (A more serious problem is, as John points out, that Siouan ethnonyms are not usually formed from locatives.) Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Oct 29 15:01:09 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:01:09 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: <38191246.D9C0755E@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > John Koontz wrote: > > I think Winnebago is a locative in Ojibwa, something like 'at the > >smelly water'. > > It's not locative. Susan Golla and Ives Goddard (HNAI 15.706) suggest as > the etymon Potawatomi winpyeko (pl. -k) 'people of the dirty [i.e., > muddy] water'. There are similar forms in various other Algonquian > languages, none of which looks locative. OK, I stand corrected! > > What's really potentially a problem here is the combination of an attested > > Mandan term with a Dakotan locative. > > There are parallels, e.g., These are certainly linguistically parallel, but I notice they all involve contact between English and a Native American language, or between two European languages. One of the observations wrt to Native American languages, at least in the East and Plains, is that they seem to be relatively impervious to loans. No one's quite sure why this is, and, in fact, we are recognizing more loans as we go along, but this situation (Mandan root word, Dakotan locative) still strikes me as odd. The most likely scenario to me seems to be adapting a Mandan original. It would be nice to have some evidence of such a form. > In fact, how is a Mandan placename with a Dakotan locative suffix > essentially different from an Ojibway placename with an English locative > preposition, e.g., "in Bemidji"? It's not, really, but I've never had my attention drawn to a case where a Siouan language had a substantial body of borrowed placenames. For cases like the names for the Platte, the Missouri, the White, etc., I've suspected for several years that if it were possible to assemble substantial sets of place names for the area (it might be, to some extent, possible) we might find that many were calqued. It looks like ethnonyms are often borrowed, however, and that's promising for your case. > A more serious problem is, as John points out, that Siouan ethnonyms are > not usually formed from locatives. It occurs to me that there is likely to be a connection between Ogalala (OP Ubdhadha) and the Niobrara (OP NiN Ubdhadha), but I'm not sure in which direction (or how), and the ethnonym is not a formal locative. From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Fri Oct 29 18:44:48 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:44:48 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: David S. Rood wrote: > Here are my thoughts on the locatives, seen strictly from a synchronic > Lakhota perspective. I would be happy to have corrections or > countertheories from others, and I apologize to those who are looking for > specific diachronic information, because there won't be much here. > > There is a contrast between postpositional or "inflectional" > (suffixal)) -ta and verbal -tu; the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a > particular place', and I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is > the "neutral" demonstrative root John has talked about; the latter is > probably extant in ekta 'to/toward', etaN 'from' etc. I think the > stressed "e" is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called > personal pronouns (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential > verb e' seen in sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. The -l/-n > marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta > postposition, but I can't give you any good arguments for that assertion. For what it's worth, I took this up with a sophisticated, educated, Dakota speaker. I pointed out that a voiced stop at the end of a word is normally reduced from a voiceless stop plus an unstressed vowel, and then I asked her for the unreduced form of "ed". Without hesitation she said "eta". She took the "-ta" to be the same as in "tiyata", "ekta" and in placenames. I told her I thought maybe it was "etu" rather than "eta", and she allowed that I could be right. She is not one to let "the great linguist" lead her astray, so I gather from this that she had either actually heard "etu" spoken sometime in the past, or that she associated it at that moment with words like "xtayetu/xtayed". One point of this is that for Manitoba Dakota speakers at least, the reduction of "etV" to "ed" is no longer productive. "ed" must be verbalized by collocation with "uN, wauN, yauN", etc., so the language has true postpositions now. And the question about whether "ed" comes from *etu or *eta IS now one of etymology; it has become diachronic rather than synchronic in the local Dakota. > I am not aware that modern day speakers use the "thil" form for > the locative of 'house'; I've heard thima'hel for 'in the house' and > 'thi(y)a'ta' for 'toward the house', but I'm the first to assert that I > have limited exposure to this language and probably haven't heard > everything that's out there. I'll second your doubts. I've never heard *thid, but "thimahed" and "thiyata", yes. Paul From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Oct 29 22:16:59 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:16:59 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: Paul Voorhis wrote: > For what it's worth, I took this up with a sophisticated, educated, Dakota > speaker. I pointed out that a voiced stop at the end of a word is normally > reduced from a voiceless stop plus an unstressed vowel, and then I asked her > for the unreduced form of "ed". Without hesitation she said "eta". She took > the "-ta" to be the same as in "tiyata", "ekta" and in placenames. I told her > I thought maybe it was "etu" rather than "eta", and she allowed that I could be > right. She is not one to let "the great linguist" lead her astray, so I gather > from this that she had either actually heard "etu" spoken sometime in the past, > or that she associated it at that moment with words like "xtayetu/xtayed". OK, getting really basic--and my apologies to any impatient Siouanists--what is the difference in meaning of a word in -n/-l/-d if the suffix represents -etu rather than -ta ? (I'm still waiting for Boas & Deloria from ILL, which perhaps will answer this sort of question.) Thanks, Alan From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Oct 29 22:16:52 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:16:52 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: John E Koontz wrote: > One of the observations wrt to Native American > languages, at least in the East and Plains, is that they seem to be > relatively impervious to loans. I've observed the same absence of borrowing in the areas of Minnesota from which the Dakota were displaced by the westward-advancing Ojibway: there are few if any O. placenames (and other vocabulary, for that matter) borrowed from Dakota. (That situation was an extreme case in that the displacement was often violent, making interpersonal contact, except violence, pretty rare.) > It occurs to me that there is likely to be a connection between Ogalala > (OP Ubdhadha) and the Niobrara (OP NiN Ubdhadha), but I'm not sure in > which direction (or how), and the ethnonym is not a formal locative. That's really interesting! So Riggs' posited connection of Lakota oglala with a Dakota word for 'scatter' is groundless? (He cites ohdada 'to scatter one's own'.) Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Oct 29 22:51:51 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:51:51 -0600 Subject: Oglala (was Re: Locative Postpositions) In-Reply-To: <381A1CD4.9778AB5B@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > > It occurs to me that there is likely to be a connection between Oglala > > (OP Ubdhadha) and the Niobrara (OP NiN Ubdhadha), but I'm not sure in > > which direction (or how), and the ethnonym is not a formal locative. > > That's really interesting! So Riggs' posited connection of Lakota oglala > with a Dakota word for 'scatter' is groundless? (He cites ohdada 'to > scatter one's own'.) Various little stories (not always the same one) that provide a context for 'scatter one's own in' are the source usually cited. I've always thought such things smacked of folk etymologizing, though, of course, they're rife in explanations of the names of Dakotan groups and must be at least occasionally true, or even mostly true. If nothing else, they reveal the Dakota philosophy of band naming and are consistent with patterns elsewhere in Siouan, e.g., in Crow. They also provide an assertion that the form in question appears to be interpretable to native speakers, if not wholely explicable. If the form is indeed correct (as it is here, but isn't in s^ahiyela 'Cheyenne' ?< 'speak redly', really 'little Cree'), then you are pretty much stuck with the form and the explanation, in the absence of some really good explanation from another source. In the case of Oglala we do have a possible alternative explanation, but I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. For one thing, there's the switch from g (Dakotan) to b (Omaha). There are cases where Dakotan has substituted gl (*kr) or bl (*pr) for forms that other languages suggest to be *pr or *kr, or at least generated alternative forms. 'Bug' is one such set, for example, and you can find others, especially among the stative verbs. Bdhadha is said to mean 'spreading out' (becoming a wide and shallow, i.e., a braided stream?) in reference to this stream name in Omaha-Ponca. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Oct 29 22:53:58 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:53:58 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: <381A1CDB.8AD2474F@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > OK, getting really basic--and my apologies to any impatient > Siouanists--what is the difference in meaning of a word in -n/-l/-d if > the suffix represents -etu rather than -ta ? (I'm still waiting for Boas > & Deloria from ILL, which perhaps will answer this sort of question.) I don't think it would make any difference from your point of view, what the precise shade of meaning of the locative was, or what its etymology was. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 30 07:27:12 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:27:12 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > In Dhegiha there is a distinction between {?e:}, the demonstrative, and > {he} 'to be', so I'd expect all the e's in DH to be of the demonstrative > variety. You find the {-he} 'be' compounded with positional verb roots to > form auxiliaries (reduced biclausal constructions). ... ... > I don't think so. I think they are historically different. They just > look alike in Dakotan because they've become homophones and thereby > subject to a lot of confusion. Because of their short (sometimes > identical) phonological forms, we must be very careful in analyzing > them in order to determine which we're dealing with. In this case though, > Dhegiha preserves the evidence (my previous post) that 'to be' had an > initial /h/ that has apparently been lost in Dakotan for whatever > reason. Is there evidence for the *h anywhere in Dakotan? The place to > look would be frozen compounds. How many morphemes is echa > historically? If it's related to ekta, then could -ha be ablauted *he. I definitely agree that *(?)e and *he are different, and that the Dhegiha postverbal he (second person s^e) forms are the *he root. I just think that the Dakotan forms cited so far don't represent this *he, but rather *e, albeit used predicatively. There are actually similar usages in Dhegiha, for what this is worth, clearly involving the *e form: JOD1890:439.20 Dhe'=e ha this is it JOD1890:497.17 S^u'kka=maNdhiN e'=e ha it is S. JOD1890:597.1-2 Xdhabe' dhe=the maNghe idhabattu=tte ehe= e ha tree this the sky it will extend to I said that DECm What I said was let this tree extend to the sky. or It is that I said let this tree extend to the sky. JOD1890:647.4 Hu'ttaNga wamaNdhaN=dhaNkha we'bahaN e'=e ha Winn. thieves the (PL) they know him that it is DECm It is this: he knows who the Winnebago [horse]thieves are. or maybe It is that he says that he knows who the Winnebago thieves are. I notice also that 'dead' is often rendered with t?e'e 'it is that he is dead' or perhaps 'he is one who is dead'. JOD1890:487.17 Frank wa?u' miNgdhaN, e'=de t?e'=e ha F. woman he married but she died ??? A woman whom F. married has died. JOD1890:512.4 I'kkuhabi=s^ti t?e'=e ha I. too he is dead DECm The =e can also be used in questions. JOD1890:567.4 A'wa=the=e a? where that QUESTION Where is it (of two places)? Examples with pronominals: JOD1890:77.9 wi'=e=bdhiN 'it is I' JOD1890:22262.15: dhi'=e=hniN=de 'since it is you' JOD1890:113.7: e'=e he 'it is he DECf' Of course, the third person is just what we've been seeing. The example from p. 487, with ede seems to me to involve an Omaha-Ponca analog of Dakotan ec^ha (indefinite topic). Dorsey invariably renders this (or =de) as 'but', but the Dakotan form is reported to be associated with unexpectedness (Rood & Taylor, if I recall properly), so this seems reasonable. Even definite relative clauses were not quite recognized as such in Dorsey's work, though he seems to have understood their practical import well enough. We can also find forms with edi 'at it/that; there' as a predicate: JOD1890:337.18 e=d=e=di=akha he is here JOD1890:425.10 ihaN' ugi'ne j^uba e=d=e=di=dhaN ama mother they seek their own some of the company there are there some of that lot of nurslings are there The double article dhaN ama is used in partitives. JOD1890:443.14 s^aaN'=ama e=d=e=di ama dhaNz^a Sioux the there are there though JOD1890:697.3 AN'phaN=wadaNbe=dhiNkhe e=d=e=di= kki Elk-gazer the he is there whether All these constructions amount to: NP [article] e=d=e=di [article] (the NP) is there The articles agree, if both are present. The final article occurs when the clause is a main clause. The first article occurs with the NP, if any. The e=d=e=di is either e=di e=di 'there (is) there' with contraction (would be el etu in Dakotan), or e=de e=di 'one (is) there' (would be ec^ha etu in Dakotan). (I don't imply that the Dakotan comparisons actually exist.) The contraction makes it impossible to tell. There are some more existential constructions without the ed=: JOD1890:88.21 ni'as^iNga j^uba e=di ama ha people some there were JOD1890:63.8 AN'phaN he'ga=s^te=aN=z^i e=di=m=ama elk not a few there were JOD1890:736.3 e=di'=ma=s^e 'you who are there' JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Oct 30 13:55:21 1999 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:55:21 +0100 Subject: Minnesota paradox Message-ID: Dear Siouanists I have been reading all the correspondence with great interest especially about the river names. Can anyone clear up for me the 'Minnesota paradox'. Riggs says that it meant 'broiled water or smoky water' which should be shota, but that it got changed to sota at some point. I have never understood all this. Does it come via another Siouan language to English, like Nebraska coming via Omaha for River Platte (equivalent to Mni Blaska or Bdaska). Any ideas. Best wishes Bruce Ingham -- Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Oct 30 14:04:19 1999 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:04:19 +0100 Subject: English lakota Dictionary Message-ID: Dear Bob You may remember that we met at that very interesting Siouan Caddoan conference in Regina in June. It was a great pleasure for me to meet you all there and the assembled members of the Sioux nation. I don't know if I mentioned it, but I have been compiling a n English lakota dictionary for some time and my publishers Curzon Press had sent it to David Rood to report on. He was generally positive about it and made many useful points, but said that I might like to let you glance at the Historical intro where i talk about the proposed Macro Siouan Phylum. I have n't said that it is God's truth, but said that it 'is fairly widely accepted' which I thought it was. I will send it to you anyway and if you find time to have a look and make any comments you would like to I would be very grateful. As you may realize, I'm out at 'the end of the village' Ihanktunwan over here and do not know what the rest of the Siouanist community think about things in general. My aim in the dictionary is to make it useable for both Indians and non-Indians and have put in a lot of examples of usage from the various written texts and tapes to hand. I am on sabbaticaland only come in here infrequently. So I will not wait for a reply, but will send the thing to you by post from home. I don't want you to edit the whole thing (unless you feel like it), but would appreciate any general comments. Best wishes. Your Bruce -- Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Oct 30 15:54:55 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:54:55 -0600 Subject: Minnesota paradox In-Reply-To: <381AF8C9.2B83B43C@soas.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear Bruce, The story or stories I have heard contend that sota means 'cloudy' or 'milky' --- the accompanying anecdote was "like a glass of water with a few drops of milk in it". The next ablaut level, shota, would be somewhat murkier, and of course xota is the usual translation of 'gray'. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Bruce Ingham wrote: > Dear Siouanists > > I have been reading all the correspondence with great interest especially about > the river names. Can anyone clear up for me the 'Minnesota paradox'. Riggs > says that it meant 'broiled water or smoky water' which should be shota, but > that it got changed to sota at some point. I have never understood all this. > Does it come via another Siouan language to English, like Nebraska coming via > Omaha for River Platte (equivalent to Mni Blaska or Bdaska). Any ideas. > > Best wishes > > Bruce Ingham > -- > Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 30 16:26:48 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:26:48 -0600 Subject: Minnesota paradox In-Reply-To: <381AF8C9.2B83B43C@soas.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Bruce Ingham wrote: > I have been reading all the correspondence with great interest especially about > the river names. Can anyone clear up for me the 'Minnesota paradox'. Riggs > says that it meant 'broiled water or smoky water' which should be shota, but > that it got changed to sota at some point. I have never understood all this. > Does it come via another Siouan language to English, like Nebraska coming via > Omaha for River Platte (equivalent to Mni Blaska or Bdaska). Any ideas. As far as I know, the only Siouan language other than Dakotan that could have been spoken to any extent in in Minnesota in historical times would be perhaps Winnebago, which doesn't have any fricative shifting to speak of. I think Assiniboine and Stoney do have some fricative shifting, but wouldn't be likely to be the sources. Only Dakotan has mniN "Minne" for 'water/river'; all other Mississippi Valley languages have niN or some obvious derivative of that, e.g., Ioway-Otoe n~iN. The pattern of calling large streams 'waters' is general to at least Mississippi Valley Siouan and Pawnee. Smaller streams use words for 'creek' or (literally) 'branch', not always cognate. Large streams often share the same name (in calqued form) across several languages, though a stream need not always have the same name in every language. Dorsey says the Ponka call the Platte 'Big River'. The Omaha, Pawnee, and most southerly Siouan groups seem to call it 'Flat River'. Northerly groups, including the Cheyenne and Sioux call it 'Shell River'. For the Dakota it seems to be a creek, while the Pawnee and southerly Siouan groups call it a water. The Missouri is called NiN' S^u'de 'Smokey Water' by the Chiwere and Dhegiha groups. The White River is NiN' i'gas^ude 'Water stricken smokey with it' in Omaha and there's historical evidence that a similar name was used by the Ioway, though the exact name is unclear. I seem to recall some discussion of these river names in Mathews' paper on Proto-Siouan continuants in IJAL. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 30 16:54:50 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:54:50 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Koontz John E wrote: > Examples with pronominals: > > JOD1890:77.9 wi'=e=bdhiN 'it is I' > JOD1890:22262.15: dhi'=e=hniN=de 'since it is you' > JOD1890:113.7: e'=e he 'it is he DECf' > > Of course, the third person is just what we've been seeing. I neglected to point out that the first and second person (couldn't locate an inclusive example) do involve an inflected verb dhiN 'to be'. This can occur without the e, as in UmaN'haN=bdhiN 'I am an Omaha' I recorded this latter example myself and concur with Dorsey that it cam across as an enclitic. The pattern of omitting what I might characterize as 'be' and other auxiliary verbs with the third person is general in Omaha-Ponca. For example, =xti 'very, true' requires an inflected auxiliary support maN 'I use', z^aN 'I use' in the first and second person, but this is omitted (usually, not always) in the third. > We can also find forms with edi 'at it/that; there' as a predicate: ... > JOD1890:425.10 ihaN' ugi'ne j^uba e=d=e=di=dhaN ama > mother they seek their own some of the company there are > there Oops, I meant 'they are there' > JOD1890:443.14 s^aaN'=ama e=d=e=di ama dhaNz^a > Sioux the there are there though Ditto. > All these constructions amount to: > > NP [article] e=d=e=di [article] > (the NP) is there > > The articles agree, if both are present. The final article occurs when > the clause is a main clause. ... and seems to be part of the construction 'to be there'. This would amount to a progressive aspect formation, as this is the formation of the progressive: verb + article, where the article agrees with the subject, which may have its own article if it is a definite NP. It may be that imperfective or something like that would be more appropriate than progressive. > There are some more existential constructions without the ed=: To be consistent: e=d= I have the impression that e'=di alone as a predicate is 'to be, exist', while e'=d=e=di is 'to be someplace'. Dorsey's translations tend that way, but are not wholely consistent. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 30 17:32:21 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:32:21 -0600 Subject: e and he. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Actually, this is all on e, and how certain predicative forms in e in Dakotan aren't the *he attested in Dhegiha and Winnebago and Chiwere. On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Is there evidence for the *h anywhere in Dakotan? The place to look would > be frozen compounds. How many morphemes is echa historically? If it's > related to ekta, then could -ha be ablauted *he. This is another aspect of the question whether e in e, etu and ec^ha used predicatively in Dakotan is the e demonstrative or a special predicative e. So far I've observed: 1) That I'm looking at the issue etymologically or historically, and that I don't have any quarrel with the predicative distinction as a synchronic fact. 2) That the e demonstrative and its derivative e=di (cf. e=tu, e=l) is also used predicatively in Omaha-Ponca. What I haven't done is shown that the predicative e participates in paradigms of demonstratives like it was the e demonstrative. The data here is from Boas & Delora 1941:116 ff: Row 14: e'l, le'l, he'l, ka'l, tukte'l Row 17: e'tu, le'tu, he'tu, ka'tu, tukte'tu Row 29: ec^ha', le'c^ha, he'c^ha, ka'kha, to'kha The absence of a vowel e in the ka forms and to forms (where they exist) is indicative of the e being separate from the following morpheme l, tu, kha. Note that kha remains kha unless preceded by e to condition affrication to c^ha. A form like *ketu or *kec^ha would be a dead give away that the e was organic, or at least 'in addition to' the demonstrative. It's clear from the stress anomalies of ec^ha' and from discussion in the notes that this form is far advanced in grammaticalization outside its nominal place in this table. It's also clear from the way el and etu are not placed adjacent in the table that they are not associated by Boas & Deloria. This is consistent with their evidence functional divergence and with the possibility that the =l forms actually have several sources. \ There are several forms built on tu, e.g., -haNtu, -haNtuya, c^haNtu (only with e, so perhaps khaNtu), -khetu, -khetuya. There are also -haNl, -c^haNl (also with e only, so perhaps -khaNl), -khel, and -khelya. The -haN and khe forms all occur separately, too. I'm going to guess that in each case -l represents both -tu and -ka ~ -c^a at least. Forms with -haN (probably from PMV *thaN) have to do with time, as do the c^haN forms. The -khe forms seem to refer to manner. There's also a -tkiya that might be -t(u)-kiya, but B&D say it's -t(a)-kiya (see below). I've also pointed out that some forms seem to insert a -k-. These include: Row 27: -k-ta: e'kta, he'kta Row 28, -k-takiya: e'ktakiya, he'ktakiya -k-tataNhaN: e'ktataNhaN These compare with the postpositions -ta and -takiya. The Omah-Ponca correspondences -tta and -ttathaN always have the -k-, or, to specific, always have the -tt- that presumably reflects -k-t-. It's possible that the -k- also appears in suffixes like -kha or -khe or might represent the article -ki(N). In that case, presumably the final -ha/-he here might represent the he 'to be' form Bob discusses, but at the moment I don't have enough understanding of these forms to be certain of this, and for the moment I'm not sure where to look for *he in Dakotan. JEK From shanwest at uvic.ca Sat Oct 30 19:34:32 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:34:32 -0700 Subject: Minnesota paradox Message-ID: My consultant in Assiniboine gave me the same as what David has said below. She also described it as "slightly polluted". Shannon West David S. Rood wrote: > Dear Bruce, > The story or stories I have heard contend that sota means 'cloudy' > or 'milky' --- the accompanying anecdote was "like a glass of water with a > few drops of milk in it". The next ablaut level, shota, would be somewhat > murkier, and of course xota is the usual translation of 'gray'. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Bruce Ingham wrote: > > > Dear Siouanists > > > > I have been reading all the correspondence with great interest especially about > > the river names. Can anyone clear up for me the 'Minnesota paradox'. Riggs > > says that it meant 'broiled water or smoky water' which should be shota, but > > that it got changed to sota at some point. I have never understood all this. > > Does it come via another Siouan language to English, like Nebraska coming via > > Omaha for River Platte (equivalent to Mni Blaska or Bdaska). Any ideas. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Bruce Ingham > > -- > > Bruce Ingham > > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > > SOAS > > > > > > From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Oct 30 20:10:13 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:10:13 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks to John for his interesting discussion and examples of the predicative use of *?e:, the general demonstrative. > > JOD1890:77.9 wi'=e=bdhiN 'it is I' > > JOD1890:22262.15: dhi'=e=hniN=de 'since it is you' > > JOD1890:113.7: e'=e he 'it is he DECf' Cf. Kansa be?e?e: 'who is it' (responding to a knock at the door). The demonstrative seems to have an underlying glottal stop that shows up in various contexts. > I recorded this latter example myself and concur with Dorsey that it > cam across as an enclitic. The pattern of omitting what I might > characterize as 'be' and other auxiliary verbs with the third person > is general in Omaha-Ponca. For example, =xti 'very, true' requires an > inflected auxiliary support maN 'I use', z^aN 'I use' in the first and > second person, but this is omitted (usually, not always) in the third. In Omaha, does this latter verb really mean 'use'. Given its meaning in other Dhegiha dialects, I'd have expected it to mean 'do'. I thought it was only Dakotan that had screwed up the semantics/morphology of *?u~ Proto-Siouan *?u:~ seems to be translatable as either 'do' or 'be'. The verb 'use' is, etymologically speaking, the verb 'do' with the usual instrumentive prefix i-. 'To do with' = 'to use' of course. This results in a verb that is variously i-?u~ or (as in Biloxi and some other langs.) simply yo~. 'To use' really ought to have the i- prefix (except in Dakotan where the two verbs simply conjugate differently). Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Oct 31 00:14:33 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:14:33 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > The demonstrative seems to have an underlying glottal stop that shows up > in various contexts. It's hard to say whether it's an underlying glottal stop or an epenthetic one. Whatever it is (and I haven't heard the relevant examples myself), it caused Dorsey to write two e's in a row. Dorsey's not terribly reliable on glottal stops. > In Omaha, does this latter verb really mean 'use'. Given its meaning in > other Dhegiha dialects, I'd have expected it to mean 'do'. I thought it > was only Dakotan that had screwed up the semantics/morphology of *?u~ OP seems to gloss aN both ways in both main and auxiliary contexts. It looks like 'to do' is usual, but not universal in auxiliary instances with =xti and =(s^ ~ h ~ 0)naN. Of course, the choice is arbitrary there, but 'to do' does make more sense. ppia'z^i=s^tes^te=waN s^aN maN'=tta=miNkhe bad even if yet I will use it naNbu'dhixdha ga'=dhaN z^aN dhagdhe=tte ring that you use it you will go home ga'maN 'I do that' edadaN aNaN=tte a 'What will we do?' There's also a verb a'...aN 'to do' used with cause or means. ea'thaN a'maN 'how (will) I do ...' a'thaN a'z^aN 'why do you do it' I suppose this might be the interrogative version of eaN 'how?' which seems to be the general demonstrative version, though also used to make questions. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Oct 31 17:50:07 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:50:07 -0800 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: [In the demonstrative particle] > It's hard to say whether it's an underlying glottal stop or an > epenthetic one. Whatever it is (and I haven't heard the relevant > examples myself), it caused Dorsey to write two e's in a row. > Dorsey's not terribly reliable on glottal stops. "Epenthetic" means 100% predictable in purely phonetic terms; none of the trendy '70's "grammatical" or "social" environments. In that generally accepted sense it cannot be epenthetic. Dhegiha languages generally lack the rampant glottal stop additions of Dakotan, where many if not most words that begin with a vowel have a [?]. I think that most Siouan languages lack this productivity for glottal stop. These recurring, non-predictable glottal stops are found in a handful of words including ?u:N 'do, be', ?iN 'wear about the shoulders', ?e: 'general demonstrative', ya?iN 'think', ?o: 'shoot at and hit, wound', ?iN- 'stone, rock' and a few others. Some are nouns, some verbs. Most seem to be word-initial, which is suspicious of course. There are a few others I think. Very messy, but there they are. If one seems to have a semi-predictable segment, i.e., one with apparent grammatical or lexical conditioning it can mean several things. (1) it can mean that the segment *used to be* epenthetic but that recent changes have obscured part of the conditioning (Dakotan epenthesis or Omaha *x? > *k? > ?, etc.). (2) it can mean there have been borrowings (including Labovian dialect borrowing) that may have muddied the waters. (3) or it may be wishful thinking on the part of the linguist who sees some partial but accidental pattern. Pan-Siouan glottal stops are peculiar enough that I'm perfectly willing to entertain (1) or (2) above as possibilities in Proto-Siouan. But they are also general enough (existing in several daughter languages spread across a lot of geography) and unpredictable enough that they cannot be epenthetic in any synchronic phonology. (The same argument holds for verb-final, unaccented ablauting -e, which is found from Montana to Virginia). These facts merely promote the argument about possible conditioning factors back about 3000 years and make them more difficult to un/re-cover and justify, of course. But that's how we have to do it if we want to get to the bottom of the problem. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Oct 31 22:42:30 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 15:42:30 -0700 Subject: Status of PS Glottal Stop (was Re: Locative Postpositions) In-Reply-To: <381C814F.E9078F41@lark.cc.ukans.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > These recurring, non-predictable glottal stops are found in a handful of > words including ?u:N 'do, be', ?iN 'wear about the shoulders', ?e: > 'general demonstrative', ya?iN 'think', ?o: 'shoot at and hit, wound', > ?iN- 'stone, rock' and a few others. Some are nouns, some verbs. Most > seem to be word-initial, which is suspicious of course. There are a few > others I think. Very messy, but there they are. The main environments in which *? might be audible, are, of course, initial position (not really audible in Omaha-Ponca) or intervocalically (also not really audible, at least in eaN 'how', which I have heard) , if k or other morpheme final stops merge with ? to produce ?. The ? from *k? is very audible on Omaha-Ponca, as in a?i 'I gave' < *ak?u. Unfortunately, I haven't heard Omaha-Ponca aNaN 'we do', so I don't know if it's aNaN (with, say, rearticulation) or aN?aN. Any of the other Dhegiha languages would, perhaps, clarify this. I seem to recall that none have aNk?aN, but can be positive. In fact, I think that only Dakotan and maybe Winnebago have C? with any *?-stop stem forms. Dakotan has k? with the inclusive and Winnebago has s^? with the second person, if I remember correctly. These two forms are prima facie evidence that ?-stop was perceived as part of the stem at some point in the history of PS. On the other hand, all these C? sequences are well preserved in Mississippi Valley Siouan, but are rare in the inflectional pattern even there. Hence, I conclude that there is something odd about the status of ? in these stems. When you realize that only Dakotan and Winnebago make much of a big deal about initial ? at all, wonder if the C?-forms don't say something about these particular languages, rather than Siouan at large. Winnebago is actually far more relevant here than Dakotan, because it alone substitutes hV for all those *V initials that regularly become ?V in Dakotan. Thus, Winnebago alone seems to have an unpredictable ? in these stems (even if it seems to be secondary) without using ? with all V-initial stems. But why, s^? if ? is not original? One possibility that occurs to me that doesn't involve *? is that there was an additional prefix in the third person, e.g., *i, leading to *i?uN > *?uNuN or something like that in the third person. Or maybe *uNuN was just long. Long vowel initials don't get epenthetic h. In this case, s^?V in the second person is by evidence with the recent third person only. Back when I was looking at *?-stems, I also noticed that a number of the languages seemed to have substituted *r-stem personal inflections for some or all *?-stems stems, especially in the second person. Dakotan has nV, for example, which doesn't correspond regularly with either Dhegiha *z^V or Winnebago s^?V. I believe this is because the forms in question sometimes have an epenthetic *r in the third person, due to prefixes, making them appear to be *r-stems. Since I could account for the *nV second persons and the Winnebago form looks secondary, too, I have to conclude that Dhegiha *z^V is the original form. Dhegiha does have *nV with some stems, incidentally, though curwe usually call these *w-stems, because of the epenthetic w that develops in the third persons, which have either a prefix *o or an initial *u, etc. Since all the inflectional forms with *C? are restricted to one language or another, and the various other inflectional forms, *mV first person, *z^V second person (perhaps *nV second persons, if they don't come from the *r-stems), don't suggest *? at all, I suggested that these stems might actually be *V-initial. The only real counter-evidence is the Winnebago second person in s^?V, secondary though it presumably is. This is a summary, without the paradigmatic evidence tables, of my position on *?-stems. Notice that it's somewhat wobbly. I think it looks like the *?-stems were actually *V-stems that frequently acquired regular epenthetic ?-initials in the third person, which sometimes resulted in secondary ?-introduction in other persons (second or inclusive), but I wouldn't want it to be forgotten that *? is also a possibility, and that Winnebago provides the best evidence of this, albeit not incontrovertable evidence. JEK From Ogalala2 at aol.com Sun Oct 3 22:17:12 1999 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 18:17:12 EDT Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ Message-ID: /r/, /d/, and /n/ are normally considered three seperate phonemes in Catawba. I have reasons to believe that there may be only one phoneme, namely /r/ and, consequetly, that [d] and [n] are merely allophones of /r/ as is the case with Mandan and Crow/Hidatsa. I would greatly appreciate any Catawba scholar's (Shea, Voorhis, others?) opinion on this matter. From BARudes at aol.com Mon Oct 4 17:46:48 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:46:48 EDT Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ Message-ID: Ogalala2 I have a draft of a rather length paper on Catawba phonology, based largely on conversations with Frank Siebert, Jr., before his death and his field notes. To make a long story short, /r/ and /n/ are underlying phonemes for Catawba. /d/ is, in most cases, a derived phoneme. It comes from a change of /r/ to /d/ in word-initial position, the denasalization of /n/ to /d/ before oral vowels, and the voicing of /t/ to /d/ before a voiced consonant. Some cases of word-initial /n/ derive from /r/ through nasalization before a nasal vowel or an oral vowel followed by a nasal consonant. However, the majority of cases of /n/ cannot be so derived. If you email me your snail-mail address, I will send you a copy of the paper. (I cannot send it by email or as an attachment because I use a lot of special characters.) Blair A. Rudes From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Oct 4 21:24:43 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:24:43 -0600 Subject: Identity of Ogalala2 Message-ID: I notice that Blair Rudes was puzzled as to who ogalala2 at aol.com might be. I have to confess I had to look it up in the list recipients report myself: ogalala2 at aol.com is the email address of Ted Grimm. The Siouan list supplies only the return address of the sender by way of identifying the sender. In some cases this can be rather obscure. I don't believe there is anything I can do about this in terms of list configuration, but users can either (a) modify their email address to include their name, or (b) sign their contributions in the body of their letters. Email addresses of the form "Name" email_address_proper Name "Name" are generally accepted by email processors. Your email program may allow you to set one of these up explicitly or implicitly, e.g., by entering your name into one blank in a configuration form and the email address into another. It may also be possible to set up your email program to automatically (implicitly) add a signature text of some sort to your letters - you've probably noticed these in other folks' mail. A short signature including an email address is probably the best idea. Failing this, I believe subscribers can retrieve the list of subscribers, including email addresses, by sending to listproc at lists.Colorado.EDU a message with the body: recipients siouan This certainly works for me. Note that if you include a signature in this letter, either explicitly or implicitly, it will be parsed as a command to listproc and generate an error message. You can ignore the error message. JEK P.S. See, I remembered to sign my own letter this time! From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Mon Oct 4 23:24:25 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: Identity of Ogalala2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just as an aside to Blair's answer to Ted's question about n, d and r in Catawba, these three phones at one time had almost exactly the same distribution in Catawba as they do in modern Mandan. Kennard, Hollow, Carter and Mixco all agree that the distribution in Mandan is: [d] in word-initial position before oral vowels, [r] in non-initial position before oral vowels, and [n] in any position in the word preceding nasal vowels. The sounds are complementary in Crow and Hidatsa also, but their distribution has been skewed by the fact that vowel nasality has been lost in those languages. The older Catawba and modern Mandan distribution of d, n and r may be quite old. I hope I interpreted the Mandan specialists correctly. If I made any mistakes, please let us know. Bob From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Tue Oct 5 02:48:24 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:48:24 -0500 Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ In-Reply-To: <53c4daa7.25292fe8@aol.com> Message-ID: I'm here in Ponca City, not Lawrence, without any Catawba materials with me for reference, and it's been a long time since I really looked at the data, but I could make a couple of comments off the top of my head. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Paul and Blair, but don't /r/, /d/, and /n/ contrast in the modal suffixes on verbs, with /-re/ being the independent mode ending, /-de/ the imperative, and /-ne/ the interrogative? (A couple of the vowels on these endings might be long, I can't remember.) Also, don't some of the mutating verbs mark different persons with /d-/, /n-/, and /-r-/ or /r-/? However, since I was never able to make a full phonemic analysis based on the written fieldnotes and articles available to me at the time, I think that Blair should have a better grasp of the phonetic range of each phoneme, based on his recent conversations with Frank Siebert, as he points out in his reply to this question posted to the Siouan list. By the way, I recieved about 3 e-mail questions about Catawba recently at my America Online address. I glanced at them and intended to answer, but found, when I went back to answer them, that they had been erased from my "new mail" folder on AOL. (I probably forgot to save them as new.) I can't remember the content or who they were from, so if whoever sent the messages would send them again, either to this address or my AOL address (kdshea at aol.com), I would appreciate it! Kathy Shea On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 Ogalala2 at aol.com wrote: > /r/, /d/, and /n/ are normally considered three seperate phonemes in Catawba. > I have reasons to believe that there may be only one phoneme, namely /r/ > and, consequetly, that [d] and [n] are merely allophones of /r/ as is the > case with Mandan and Crow/Hidatsa. I would greatly appreciate any Catawba > scholar's (Shea, Voorhis, others?) opinion on this matter. > From BARudes at aol.com Tue Oct 5 17:49:45 1999 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:49:45 EDT Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ Message-ID: In reference to Kathy's comments, /r/, /n/ and /d/ are clearly contrastive phonemes in Catawba as it was recorded in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. All three occur in word-medial position before oral vowels (e.g., in different modal prefixes). In word-initial position, only /d/ and /n/ occur. (There are mutating verbs that mark the first singular with /n/, the third singular (bare stem) with /d/ (from underlying /r/) and the third plural with /i-/ which causes the stem consonant to appear as /r/. I don't remember any cases, but there may be cases where Speck or another research failed to hear the initial /i/ of the third plural and, as a result, the verb appeared to show a contrast between initial /n/ /d/ and /r/.) Before nasal vowels, only /r/ and /n/ occur. What I was talking about in my response was the underlying (morphophenemic) system and the likely pre-Catawba phonemic system, where /d/ appears to be derivative from /r/ and /n/ (except in the case of a few loan words and sound symbolic words). Modern Catawba, as recorded for example by Speck and Siebert, was a mixture of two or more dialects/langauges (Esaw, Saraw and perhaps others) with slightly different rules for the distribution of /r/ /n/ and /d/. Also, the change that resulted in the denasalization of /n/ to /d/ was ongoing in the late 1800s and early 1900s so that /n/ would appear for some speakers before oral vowels in some morphemes, but only /d/ would occur before oral vowels for other speakers. In short, the phonemic status of /d/ resulted from language mixture and ongoing sound change, aided by loan words. From kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu Wed Oct 6 03:38:37 1999 From: kdshea at falcon.cc.ukans.edu (SHEA KATHLEEN DORETTE) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 22:38:37 -0500 Subject: catawba phonems /r/, /d/, and /n/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Blair's comments are very interesting! Please send me a copy of your Catawba phonology paper whenever you send Ted one. I think you have my snail-mail address, but I will send it if you don't. Thanks! Kathy From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Tue Oct 19 03:43:02 1999 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John P. Boyle) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:43:02 -0600 Subject: Bibliography In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear fellow Siouan list members, Last weekend I was in Kansas at the Mid-America conference and while talking with Bob Rankin, I somehow managed to volunteer to edit and do a final compilation of the much sought after master Siouan bibliography. Bob gave me Pamela Munro's bibliography which she compiled in 1988 and he updated to an extent last year. Before much more work is undertaken on this task, some formatting questions need to be answered. The most important of which is what should be included. Since much of the last 30 years of work on Siouan sits in peoples file cabinets, I'm hesitant to include it in the main section of the bibliography. I propose the following format: The first section will include published material; The second section will include presentations with manuscripts that people are willing to have circulated; The third section will include papers that were presented that don't have written manuscripts or only exist in the form of raw data and/or notes. I'd like to include this third section just so people know what others have worked on. In addition, I'd like to know what type of material people think should be included in the bibliography. Bob proposed to limit it to linguistic material only (this would include word lists but not strictly anthropological material). This will keep the size much more manageable. Once these questions are resolved, I'll ask for current copies of CVs form everyone along with other bibliographical material. Please let me know what you think since this is meant to be useful to everyone and your input will affect its outcome. Thanks, John Boyle -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1671 bytes Desc: not available URL: From m.mixco at m.cc.utah.edu Tue Oct 19 16:28:14 1999 From: m.mixco at m.cc.utah.edu (m.mixco at m.cc.utah.edu) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:28:14 -0700 Subject: Bibliography In-Reply-To: Message-ID: JP Good for you! Keep up the good work! M From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Tue Oct 19 18:57:20 1999 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:57:20 -0500 Subject: Bibliography Message-ID: Thanks for taking this on! I do think it's important to include non-published material, and I'd definitely favor limiting it to linguistic topics. Catherine -------------- next part -------------- Dear fellow Siouan list members, Last weekend I was in Kansas at the Mid-America conference and while talking with Bob Rankin, I somehow managed to volunteer to edit and do a final compilation of the much sought after master Siouan bibliography. Bob gave me Pamela Munro's bibliography which she compiled in 1988 and he updated to an extent last year. Before much more work is undertaken on this task, some formatting questions need to be answered. The most important of which is what should be included. Since much of the last 30 years of work on Siouan sits in peoples file cabinets, I'm hesitant to include it in the main section of the bibliography. I propose the following format: The first section will include published material; The second section will include presentations with manuscripts that people are willing to have circulated; The third section will include papers that were presented that don't have written manuscripts or only exist in the form of raw data and/or notes. I'd like to include this third section just so people know what others have worked on. In addition, I'd like to know what type of material people think should be included in the bibliography. Bob proposed to limit it to linguistic material only (this would include word lists but not strictly anthropological material). This will keep the size much more manageable. Once these questions are resolved, I'll ask for current copies of CVs form everyone along with other bibliographical material. Please let me know what you think since this is meant to be useful to everyone and your input will affect its outcome. Thanks, John Boyle From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Oct 20 03:33:02 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:33:02 -0600 Subject: Bibliography In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, John P. Boyle wrote: > Before much more work is undertaken on this task, some formatting > questions need to be answered. The most important of which is what should > be included. Since much of the last 30 years of work on Siouan sits in > peoples file cabinets, I'm hesitant to include it in the main section of > the bibliography. I propose the following format: > > The first section will include published material; > > The second section will include presentations with > manuscripts that people are willing to have circulated; > > The third section will include papers that were presented > that don't have written manuscripts or only exist in the form of raw > data and/or notes. > > I'd like to include this third section just so people know what others have > worked on. I think this is a reasonable division of the material. > In addition, I'd like to know what type of material people think > should be included in the bibliography. Bob proposed to limit it to > linguistic material only (this would include word lists but not strictly > anthropological material). This will keep the size much more manageable. I think this is also a reasonable restriction. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Oct 21 00:28:39 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:28:39 -0500 Subject: MANDAN (again) Message-ID: John and Mauricio think Mandan maNta 'Missouri River' a possible etymon for the English name MANDAN, and I'd like to suggest an elaboration about which I'd welcome suggestions. MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738; and cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana), or directly from its etymon Assiniboine MaNtan < Mandan MaNta 'Missouri River' + Assiniboine locative postposition -en. The English forms in -l (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) show the influence of Lakota, in which the same postposition is realized as -el. Riggs gives Dakota tin (< ti + en) and Lakota til (< ti + el) 'in the house'. Might this postposition be cognate with the Mandan directional suffix -t (Kennard)? And is it related to the Dakotan & Mandan locative -ta ? (There is no Eng. form of the type *Mandat.) I don't know how the (apparently diminutive) modern Dakotan forms (e.g., Mawa'tadaN) would fit in, if at all. Is there any way Dakotan Mawata can be construed as cognate with Mandan MaNta ? (I realize I'm starting to go over old ground here, for which I apologize.) I've been trying to borrow Hollow's _Mandan Dict._ but have been unable to get it through ILL (and it isn't available from UMI): does anyone know of a circulating copy that I might be able to borrow? Thanks for any help. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Oct 21 04:13:47 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:13:47 -0600 Subject: MANDAN (again) In-Reply-To: <380E5E37.86B14B95@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > John and Mauricio think Mandan maNta 'Missouri River' a possible etymon > for the English name MANDAN, and I'd like to suggest an elaboration > about which I'd welcome suggestions. Frankly, it's been just long enough that I've forgotten exactly where we were between forms like modern Dakotan mawatadaN or Omaha mawadani, various Mandan and Hidatsa forms, and the historical Assiniboine form. Knowing the form passed through French, however, does make it easy to see the first n as a mark of nasalization, i.e., maNta(N)n(V). This puts Manda maNta 'Missouri River' in reach. Given that, the final syllable could be some sort of locative postposition, as Alan suggests, if a specific candidate can be identified. There's no suitable suffix in Omaha-Ponca, but if the source is Dakotan, then -niN might be a vocalization of -n or -l, cf. MaNmaNdha 'Mormon' (the vowel's wrong). Unfortunately, I think the various mawa-... forms are also reasonably consistent with a perceived maN, as the w is easily reduced in this context. I think this is a fair assessment for both Dakotan and Dhegiha. > MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738; and cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana), or > directly from its etymon Assiniboine MaNtan < Mandan MaNta 'Missouri > River' + Assiniboine locative postposition -en. The English forms in -l > (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) show the influence of Lakota, in which the same > postposition is realized as -el. > > Riggs gives Dakota tin (< ti + en) and Lakota til (< ti + el) 'in the > house'. In fact, the postposition is -n/-l. As it cannot occur as a free form, there is a tendency to cite it with some neutral demonstrative base like e 'that (aforesaid)'. Add to this that V + e might develop as V and even linguists tend to lean on this crutch. Still, I'm pretty sure the e is spurious in forms like til. I've always associated this truncated postposition -l with the full form -tu, though it probably also reflects at least -ka ~ -c^a, too, the latter alternant after e, since the latter would also reduce to -l. The -tu source corresponds reasonably well with Omaha-Ponca -di < *-tu, though other Dhegiha languages like Kansa, where unrounding of fronted *-du" shouldn't occur, but, with this form evidently does. (So that one wonders if it isn't non-cognate *-ti in Dhegiha, after all.) > Might this postposition be cognate with the Mandan directional > suffix -t (Kennard)? And is it related to the Dakotan & Mandan locative > -ta ? (There is no Eng. form of the type *Mandat.) It might be, but unfortunately there's another suffix to work with, cf. Dakota -(k)ta, Omaha -tta (where the -t-t- matches the -k-t-). As I recall Dakotan has -ta, but develops an intrusive -k- in forms like e-k-ta. In Dakotan truncations -ta might also alternate with -l. In Omaha-Ponca terms -tta is 'to(ward)' and -di is 'in, to'. > I don't know how the (apparently diminutive) modern Dakotan forms (e.g., > Mawa'tadaN) would fit in, if at all. Presumably mawa'ta, lacks the locative and is diminutive instead. It's not instantly clear to me why diminutive, though Algonquian diminutives are also pejoratives. I'm not familiar with such a usage in Siouan. > Is there any way Dakotan Mawata can > be construed as cognate with Mandan MaNta ? (I realize I'm starting to > go over old ground here, for which I apologize.) What occurred to me is that wa- INDEFINITE is used with statives in the sense 'something characterized by' and with nouns in contexts that look like unpossessed forms. One might suppose that wa + maNta might be 'those of the MaNta'. Also, in some forma like maNta the natural location for pronominal prefixes is between maN and ta, at least in Mississippi Valley languages, since normally syllables like maN in a stem would arise as more outward prefixes (proclitics, incorporations) than, say, pronominals, creating a set of placement models that can be reinterpreted as meaning that a prefix should follow the maN sequence in all cases. See Boas & Deloria pp. 78-98 for discussion on tendencies of this sort in the placement of pronominals. I think there are some analogous discussions of infixing in Lipkind's Winnebago grammar. Unfortunately, Boas & Deloria, p. 52, etc., it's not clear that any of these apply to wa-. And, in fact, Buechel has various examples of wa-maN- that show that wa- should precede maN, e.g., wa-maNkha-s^kaN 'creatures, beasts', wa-maN-ki-naN 'to steal from one', , wa-maNya-l 'toward a bank', etc. So, so much for that, unless anyone knows of any counter examples. Might mawa- arise by some sort of back formation to account for a long initial vowel? Is the forst vowel long in Mandan? From jggoodtracks at juno.com Thu Oct 21 13:45:56 1999 From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:45:56 -0500 Subject: Bibliography Message-ID: John Boyle: I am in agreement with your proposed Siouian Bibliography as you propose it with the three division. I agree that the Third Division on unpublished manuscripts in possession of their authors/ collectors is important to preclude any inadvertent loss, while at the same time advocating their ultilization. I also agree that the Bibliography should be limited to linguistics and language included in related publication. Frequently, obscure and/ or archaic terms with former/ earlier pronuciation(s) may be retrieved in doing so. Having already completed a extensive/ exhaustive (as close as possible) Bibliography for Ioway-Otoe-Missouria (Baxoje-Jiwere-Nyut^achi), a language group with minimal attention and documentation, I compiled 8 pages (using characters= 8pt fonts). It may be arranged/ rearranged by you to match the suggested 3 Divisions. You may ask John K, if recent additions have now been included, which is on-going, and something you will need to take into account, for all the language groups. It is located at: http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz/#GoodTracks Let me know if I can be further help, as it pertains to the above information. JimmGT From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 23 19:42:49 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:42:49 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions (was Re: Mandan (again)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > In fact, the postposition is -n/-l. As it cannot occur as a free form, > there is a tendency to cite it with some neutral demonstrative base like e > 'that (aforesaid)'. Add to this that V + e might develop as V and even > linguists tend to lean on this crutch. Still, I'm pretty sure the e is > spurious in forms like til. Of course, I should have said thil, since, it's thi(=pi) in Dakotan, the stem being aspirated. The constuction is thi=l, with = indicating the enclitic boundary. The corresponding Omaha-Ponca form would be tti=adi, in which =di after i requires the intervening formant -a-, an archaism with parallels in Dakotan, too. In Omaha-Ponca the rule appears to have been, when adding =di or =tta (or various other postpositions) to a stem that ends in -e, change e to a first. If the stem ends in some other vowel, append a first. Most of the surviving examples involve -i finals but other vowels occur. Many of the forms alternate with ones that lack the -a-, but tti=adi and tti=atta are consistent. I suspect that the -a- in all these cases is essentially an absolute marker/nominalizer. These usually derive historically from old articles or demonstratives. The following is reworded for clarity and complete sentences! > I've always associated this truncated postposition -l with the full form > -tu, though it probably also reflects at least the -c^a alternant of -ka > ~ -c^a, too. This -c^a alternant occurs after e, and would also reduce > to -l in dependent contexts where there is truncation of the final > vowel. > The -tu source corresponds reasonably well with Omaha-Ponca -di, > hypothetically from Proto-Dhegiha (and Proto-Mississippi Valley) *-tu. > However, in other Dhegiha languages like Osage and Kansa, where > unrounding of fronted *-tu" shouldn't occur, it does. Either it just > unrounds irregularly, perhaps because it is final and unstressed, or > Proto-Dhegiha had really had *-ti, which wouldn't be cognate with > Dakotan -tu after all. > > Might this postposition be cognate with the Mandan directional > > suffix -t (Kennard)? And is it related to the Dakotan & Mandan locative > > -ta ? (There is no Eng. form of the type *Mandat.) > > It might be, but unfortunately there's another suffix to work with, cf. > Dakota -(k)ta, Omaha -tta (where the -t-t- matches the -k-t-). As I > recall Dakotan has -ta, but develops an intrusive -k- in forms like > e-k-ta. In Dakotan truncations -ta might also alternate with -l. In > Omaha-Ponca terms -tta is 'to(ward)' and -di is 'in, to'. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Oct 24 15:39:31 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:39:31 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions (was Re: Mandan (again)) Message-ID: John, Thanks for all the help with locatives. Are you saying that specifically in Lakota -l is a reduction of -tu or -c^a ? Is the same true of -n in other Dakotan languages? Is -ka/-c^a also a locative? Is there (I ask facetiously, if hopefully) a comparative tabulation of Siouan locatives? Has anyone published a modern attempt at a tabulation of Siouan sound correspondences? Is it correct to say that, in both Mandan & Dakotan, -awa- (reduced to open back -a-) is a variant of -?-? In other words, that the modern Dakota forms (e.g., mawa'tad?) could represent m?ta + diminutive (whereas an older Assiniboine form was m?ta + locative). Following is a revision of the etymology, correcting the enclitic forms to -l/-n and making it clear that the French name was borrowed from Assiniboine. (Please let me know if the tildes don't display correctly for anyone.) MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738, explicitly as an Assiniboine ethnonym; and cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana), or directly from its etymon Assiniboine m?tan < Mandan m?ta 'Missouri River' + Assiniboine locative enclitic -n. The English variants in -l (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) reflect the Lakota form of the name, in which the locative enclitic is realized as -l. Alan From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Oct 24 18:43:51 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:43:51 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions (was Re: Mandan (again)) In-Reply-To: <38132833.9FD0CEE3@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: > Are you saying that specifically in Lakota -l is a reduction of -tu or > -c^a ? The -l can be a reflex of -tV, -cV or -kV. > Is the same true of -n in other Dakotan languages? Yes. > Has anyone published a modern attempt at a tabulation of Siouan sound > correspondences? No, though such things exist, mostly inside peoples' heads. John may have a print out of something along these lines that was done back about 1990. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Oct 24 18:55:16 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:55:16 -0500 Subject: Santee irregular verb. Message-ID: I was prowling through Boas and Deloria's _Dakota Grammar_ (always a profitable passtime for a Siouanist) and ran across a partial conjugation for the compound verb /yakhuN/ < {yakha+'uN} 'to be' in Santee on p. 98. 2sg dakhA-nuN incl. 'uN-yak-'uN-pi (f.n. 22) Does anyone know the 1st person form of this verb? I would guess /b-dakha-muN/, but I'd like to confirm it. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Oct 24 19:07:35 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:07:35 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions (was Re: Mandan (again)) In-Reply-To: <38132833.9FD0CEE3@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > Are you saying that specifically in Lakota -l is a reduction of -tu or > -c^a ? Yes. I'm not sure if all (or any) Dakotanists agree with me. In Dakotan it works pretty well (not always) simply to treat all these (-tu, -l, -ka ~ c^a) as separate phenomena. > Is the same true of -n in other Dakotan languages? Given the corespondences, I believe so in Stoney and Assiniboine. I'm not sure it's always -n in Santee-Sisseton and Yankton-Yanktonais. I'd expect -d after an oral vowel: ed ~ etu, ed ~ ec^a. > Is -ka/-c^a also a locative? No. It patterns as a postposition, and has a sense of approximately 'such a, like'. I don't recall the gloss in Buechel off the top of my head. This is what happens when a student of Dhegiha answers a question on Dakotan ... Well, there are plenty of Dakotan experts on the list! > Is there (I ask facetiously, if hopefully) a comparative tabulation of > Siouan locatives? Some of the tables of postpositions and correlatives in Boas & Deloria 1941 might come close to what you're looking for. In general, B&D are *the* source when you need a comprehensive catalog of some morphological class or pattern. I'd also say that for a nice syntactic overview you might consult the recent survey of such things by Bruce Ingham in IJAL. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Oct 24 19:28:20 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:28:20 -0600 Subject: Mandan (again) In-Reply-To: <38132833.9FD0CEE3@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Alan Hartley asks: > Is it correct to say that, in both Mandan & Dakotan, -awa- (reduced to > open back -a-) is a variant of -?-? In other words, that the modern > Dakota forms (e.g., mawa'tad?) could represent m?ta + diminutive > (whereas an older Assiniboine form was m?ta + locative). No, only that maNwa might easily reduce to something that could be perceived as maNaN or maN in Omaha-Ponca, and, I think, Dakotan. I can't say for Mandan, and you've stated things the reverse of what I would have. aN is the variant of aNwa. Incidentally, I've seen the diminutive reduced to =n in Stoney, e.g., wasabe=n for 'blackbear'. I believe this form was in the CSD from Pat Shaw. I don't recall seeing =l in Teton for this. Of course, a Teton speaker might produce =l by way of adapting =n without knowing it was a diminutive. So, what I'm saying is that a Dakotan speaker saying maNwata=... might be perceived by somewhat with less than complete facility to be saying, maNaNda=... or maNaNta=... Whatever followed (the ...) might have been a locative or a diminutive or might have varied with the time and place. > Following is a revision of the etymology, correcting the enclitic forms > to -l/-n and making it clear that the French name was borrowed from > Assiniboine. (Please let me know if the tildes don't display correctly > for anyone.) > > MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738, explicitly as an Assiniboine ethnonym; and > cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana), or directly from its etymon > Assiniboine m?tan < Mandan m?ta 'Missouri River' + Assiniboine locative > enclitic -n. The English variants in -l (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) reflect > the Lakota form of the name, in which the locative enclitic is realized > as -l. This is close, but I'd say: --- MANDAN < Fr. Mantanne (1738), explicitly from an Assiniboine ethnonym which could be reconstituted as *MaNtan or perhaps *MaNwatan; and cf. late 18th-cent. Sp. Mandana, from maN(wa?)ta + Assiniboine diminutive or locative enclitic -n. The English variants in -l (e.g., Mandal, Mandelle) reflect a Lakota form of the name, in which the enclitic is realized according to phonetic correspondences between the dialects as -l. Compare modern [Santee?] maNwata-daN '?' + diminutive enclitic -daN (ref). For maNta, cf. perhaps Mandan maNta 'Missouri River' (ref). The derivation of modern attested maNwata- is obscure. --- It's pretty clear from the way the form gets adapted from one dialect or language to another that the morphology of the form is obscure to speakers and has been for some time. From egooding at iupui.edu Sun Oct 24 23:28:12 1999 From: egooding at iupui.edu (Erik D Gooding) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:28:12 -0500 Subject: Santee irregular verb. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: THis is from Riggs' "Grammar" p. 30. He doesn't include the first person form. My suggestion would be mdakhuN. Just a suggestion. Erik On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > > I was prowling through Boas and Deloria's _Dakota Grammar_ (always a > profitable passtime for a Siouanist) and ran across a partial conjugation > for the compound verb /yakhuN/ < {yakha+'uN} 'to be' in Santee on p. 98. > > 2sg dakhA-nuN > incl. 'uN-yak-'uN-pi (f.n. 22) > > Does anyone know the 1st person form of this verb? I would guess > /b-dakha-muN/, but I'd like to confirm it. > > Bob > From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Tue Oct 26 21:49:16 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:49:16 -0700 Subject: Dakotan switch ref.? Message-ID: Someone was asking me recently about Richard Lungstrum's dissertation on Lakhota switch reference. It was for the U. of Pennsylvania and was entitled: _Switch Reference and the Structure of Lakhota Narrative Discourse_ (1995). UMI order number 9543116. He deals with a number of different discourse particles. Bob From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Oct 27 17:21:18 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:21:18 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here are my thoughts on the locatives, seen strictly from a synchronic Lakhota perspective. I would be happy to have corrections or countertheories from others, and I apologize to those who are looking for specific diachronic information, because there won't be much here. There is a contrast between postpositional or "inflectional" (suffixal)) -ta and verbal -tu; the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a particular place', and I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is the "neutral" demonstrative root John has talked about; the latter is probably extant in ekta 'to/toward', etaN 'from' etc. I think the stressed "e" is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called personal pronouns (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential verb e' seen in sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. The -l/-n marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta postposition, but I can't give you any good arguments for that assertion. I am not aware that modern day speakers use the "thil" form for the locative of 'house'; I've heard thima'hel for 'in the house' and 'thi(y)a'ta' for 'toward the house', but I'm the first to assert that I have limited exposure to this language and probably haven't heard everything that's out there. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From pustet at babel.Colorado.EDU Wed Oct 27 20:13:09 1999 From: pustet at babel.Colorado.EDU (regina pustet) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:13:09 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > > There is a contrast between postpositional or "inflectional" > (suffixal)) -ta and verbal -tu; the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a > particular place', I'm not sure if that -tu suffix is that verbal. It occurs also in forms such as he'chetu 'so', and leha'Ntu 'now', and in many other adverbs. Nowadays you usually hear the contracted forms he'chel/he'chen and leha'Nl/leha'Nn though. This of course does not mean that such adverbs are not in fact etymologically based on a verb. For instance, the base for he'chetu should be the copula he'cha. and I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is > the "neutral" demonstrative root John has talked about; the latter is > probably extant in ekta 'to/toward', etaN 'from' etc. I think the > stressed "e" is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called > personal pronouns (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential > verb e' seen in sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. I agree. But then we have to consider the fact that verbal e' 'to be' is semantically very specific -- in contradistinction to the other 'be' verb he'cha. e' occurs only in identificational predicates like the above, and when headless relative clauses function as predicate nucleus, as in "he is the one whole stole my car"; this is, of course, just another identificational context. e' can also combine with cha to serve as a topic marker. What these three function have in common is the semantic denominator of "pointing at", in some sense, and from that, I'd say, it's just a short way semantically to a demonstrative function. In other words, John's "neutral demonstrative" e' and David's "verbal" e' might be one and the same, at least if we go back far enough in language history. I'd also like to make a connection between e' (whatever type) and the locative prefix e'- 'at' towards', which occurs, for instance, in e'-gnaka 'to put (somewhere)' (vs. gna'ka 'to put'). e'- is not listed in the Boas/Delora grammar as a locative prefix that occupies the same slot as the more common locative prefixes a-, o-, and i-, if I remember that correctly, although it certainly does. Though e'- is not particularly productive in Lakota any more. The -l/-n > marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta > postposition, I'd also vote for -tu rather than -ta. We still have some postpositons in Lakota that can be used both in a contracted and in an uncontracted form, the alternation being -l/-n vs. -tu. An example is aka'Ntu vs. aka'Nl/aka'Nn 'on top of'. but I can't give you any good arguments for that assertion. The pitfall is that stem-final -ta is also regularly reduced to -l in Lakota. That happens quite a lot in serial verb constructions. At any rate, I have investigated Lakota postpositions sometime in greater detail, and my impression is that many of them originate in serial verb constructions. Very often the element that turns into a postposition later gets truncted in serial verb chains. A very common process here is that stem-final -tu or -ta is converted to -l/-n. From that perspective, the assumption that the postposition e'l originates in the verb e'tu makes a lot of sense. Since postpositions may grammaticalize into affixes, -l/-n might be the reduced version of e'l. But, as what I said above implies already, I'm not quite sure at waht point the assumed -tu element entered the diachronic scenario. -tu might have been attached to the ancestor of an element like aka'Ntu/aka'Nl/aka'Nn 'on top of' independently of anything that might have happened to the combination e' + tu. Which is to say that only -tu might be involved in the development of -l/-n, not necessarily e' as well. > I am not aware that modern day speakers use the "thil" form for > the locative of 'house'; Never heard that either. thil might be just a rapid speech contraction of thi + el. Regina Pustet From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Oct 28 01:16:49 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:16:49 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: David Rood wrote: > the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a particular place' > The -l/-n marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu Regina Pustet wrote: > A very common process here is that > stem-final -tu or -ta is converted to -l/-n. From that perspective, the > assumption that the postposition e'l originates in the verb e'tu makes a > lot of sense. Since postpositions may grammaticalize into affixes, -l/-n > might be the reduced version of e'l. To revert to the etymology of MANDAN, is it possible then that Dakotan m?tan 'Mandan' *might* represent Mandan m?ta 'Missouri River' + -e'tu (reduced to -n/-l) meaning something like 'they (who) are at the Missouri'? Might the -n/-l also represent -ta, yielding something like 'at the Missouri'? Perhaps--recalling the folk explanation of MINITARI recounted by Jimm--Dakotans asked the Mandans who they were, and the latter responded that they were those that lived on the Missouri. I'm ignorant of Siouan morphology, and I'm sure it looks as though I'm just fishing here, but that's why I'm filtering my musings through the Siouan list. I appreciate any feedback, and I do enjoy reading the postings as they wander from one topic to another. Thanks, Alan From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Oct 28 15:03:28 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:03:28 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: <3817A401.59E17016@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: > > To revert to the etymology of MANDAN, is it possible then that Dakotan > m?tan 'Mandan' *might* represent Mandan m?ta 'Missouri River' + -e'tu > (reduced to -n/-l) meaning something like 'they (who) are at the > Missouri'? Might the -n/-l also represent -ta, yielding something like > 'at the Missouri'? Perhaps--recalling the folk explanation of MINITARI > recounted by Jimm--Dakotans asked the Mandans who they were, and the > latter responded that they were those that lived on the Missouri. I haven't followed all of the discussion about mtaN etc., so I may say something dumb here, but from the point of view of Dakota syntax, a word with a final locative ending like -l/-n would be given in answer to a "where" question, not a "who" question. Just what might happen in a situtation where neither group speaks the other's language is of course quite speculative; we don't know which pieces of a conversation might be remembered and which ones not heard, and it's possible that a verb after a locative would simply not be incorporated in the form that got repeated and lexicalized. Morphologically, if Mandan works like Dakota, then certainly mtan could be used to mean 'at/on/near mta'. Note that the final -n here would be consonantal, not nasalization of the preceding vowel. David From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Oct 28 15:21:25 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:21:25 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, regina pustet wrote: > e' can also combine with cha to serve as a topic marker. This is one of the interesting things that comes out in Ingham's article, namely that often forms like ec^ha, which have a fairly obvious morphological analysis, have a function which goes beyond what the morphological analysis suggests. The comparable form in Omaha-Ponca is egaN which has a number of grammatical functions (but not topic marker) that arise historical out of 'be such a one; like that', but clearly have a life of their own. Etu may be another such example in Dakotan. > What these three function have in common is the semantic > denominator of "pointing at", in some sense, and from that, I'd say, it's > just a short way semantically to a demonstrative function. In other words, > John's "neutral demonstrative" e' and David's "verbal" e' might be one and > the same, at least if we go back far enough in language history. Tada! > I'd also > like to make a connection between e' (whatever type) and the locative > prefix e'- 'at' towards', which occurs, for instance, in e'-gnaka 'to put > (somewhere)' (vs. gna'ka 'to put'). e'- is not listed in the Boas/Delora > grammar as a locative prefix that occupies the same slot as the more > common locative prefixes a-, o-, and i-, if I remember that correctly, > although it certainly does. Though e'- is not particularly productive in > Lakota any more. There are similar things in Omaha-Ponca, though what comes to mind is eppaze 'to spend the night at a place', which may not be strictly analogous. There are some other examples, but they're not coming to mind at the moment. Are these forms really analogous to locatives in Dakotan in the sense of preceding first and second person, but following inclusive? I think they're more like outer instrumentals or other incorporations in Omaha-Ponca, i.e., precede everything. > > The -l/-n > > marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta > > postposition, > > I'd also vote for -tu rather than -ta. ... > The pitfall is that stem-final -ta is also regularly reduced to -l in > Lakota. I'd been arguing that tu = l for a while when I ran into Ingham's article. The data there left me with the distinct impression that there were also reduced el forms that matched -ka ~ c^a (the c^a alternative is normal with pronominals, as they normally end in e). I can't remember now if there were -ta cases, too, but presumably not with e-, since that introduces a transitional -k- to form ekta, an interesting irregularity that I can't account for at all. I belive there are some other e + postposition cases where -k- is introduced, but they're not coming to me at the moment. > > I am not aware that modern day speakers use the "thil" form for > > the locative of 'house'; > > Never heard that either. thil might be just a rapid speech contraction of > thi + el. tti=adi (and tti=atta) and tti=the=di (with the 'the upright inanimate') are normal in Omaha-Ponca. There is also an anlogy to maNhe with (cognate) maNthe, though I think tti=maNthe may be restricted to earthlodges. maNthe is normally 'under(neath)'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Oct 28 15:03:03 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:03:03 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Here are my thoughts on the locatives, seen strictly from a synchronic > Lakhota perspective. I would be happy to have corrections or > countertheories from others, and I apologize to those who are looking for > specific diachronic information, because there won't be much here. Actually, I think a diachronic explanation was perhaps the last thing Alan wanted! It was I who got things onto that track, it being the first thing I generally think of. > There is a contrast between postpositional or "inflectional" > (suffixal)) -ta and verbal -tu; the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a > particular place', and I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is > the "neutral" demonstrative root John has talked about; the latter is > probably extant in ekta 'to/toward', etaN 'from' etc. I think the > stressed "e" is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called > personal pronouns (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential > verb e' seen in sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. The -l/-n > marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta > postposition, but I can'nt give you any good arguments for that > assertion. I guess I don't distinguish between the two usages in looking at Omaha-Ponca. This may be a deficiency in my approach, but I think it's mostly because Omaha-Ponca doesn't make the verb : postposition distinction morphologically by truncating some of the postpisitions. Certainly e and e=di (cf. e-tu) are both used verbally more often that e=tta (cf. e-k-ta), though I'm not positive at the moment whether I recall a verbal example of e=tta at all. I think I have found other e=POST sequences that behave verbally, though mostly they all occur postpositionally (including e=di, there being no analog of el in Omaha-Ponca). The existence of the truncated subordinate/postpositional forms in -l is a major difference between Dakotan and Dhegiha and has clearly had a major influence on Dakotan grammar or perhaps only the analysis of it, because it can be reinterpreted in terms of this verbal/non-verbal distinction. The verb : postposition distinction seems to depend on whether the form occurs in predicate position in main clauses, where it is naturally taken as verbal, or not, where it would normally seem postpositional. I suppose that the non-predicative instances could just as easily be considered participial (subordinate verbal), if etu is to be considered verbal. But if e is the verbal root, then don't all the demonstratives have to be seen as verbal, or at least some instances of he, too? I thought tu occurred with all the demonstratives. Hetu would be ambiguous, but if gatu occurs then there's no e present there. Identifying some e + thing sequences as verbs and some as (demonstratives plus) postpositions does seem a rather awkward business, though it's easy to see where it comes from. Even if a language lacks the untruncated : truncated forms with their different distributions, there are sometimes semantic problems. I'm always bothered in Omaha-Ponca by finding edi '(be) there, at that' in the same class with enaN '(be) so many, that many'. Postposition seems a poor characterization of the latter. Perhaps the verbal analysis is the more general and flexible, even if the postpositional one leads to simpler, more natural translations in most cases. I suppose the fallacy I've been slipping into is assuming that one must categorize based on the least marked translation. In any event, if we consider forms like etu as verbs, I wonder if the verbal root isn't the "postpositional" component (tu/l, etc., in Dakotan; =di, naN, etc., in Omaha-Ponca), not the e, which is simply an (obligatory) incorporated demonstrative. It's true that the e alone can also appear to behave verbally, but I assume that these sentences are historically 'he/she/it is' clefts analogous with the first, second, and inclusive person pronominals: He Robert e 'that one Robert it/he (is)', with no equational verb verb present. My French isn't entirely satisfactory, but this is more or less analogous to things like Celui, c'est Robert, except for word order and except for lacking the "est." We do have to ask ourselves whether the possibility of such an analysis for the origin of the situation in Dakotan should cause us to adopt it over the one that David likes, which clearly works, too, if we're not overly concerned to reduce the number of "e" entities. A lot would depend on data that I don't control. I would have to say that the possibility of the two alternative analyses only exists in Dakotan, not in Dhegiha, and primarily because of the pattern of reduction of components like tu to -l, etc., in various contexts in Dakotan. I've also been wondering if calling e a neutral demonstrative or 'the aforesaid' as I usually do might not be just an awkard way to say 'third person pronominal'. Of course, when it appears in sequences like miye, as I assume it does, that's a bit awkward synchronically, though presumably these are etymologically something like 'it is I'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Oct 28 18:54:38 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:54:38 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > I haven't followed all of the discussion about mtaN etc., so I may > say something dumb here, but from the point of view of Dakota syntax, a > word with a final locative ending like -l/-n would be given in answer to a > "where" question, not a "who" question. I can't think of any Siouan ethnonyms for the area that involve locatives, but at least one Omaha clan name is locative: DattadaN 'on the left hand side'. Omaha and Ukaxpa (Quapaw) are not locative phrases, but they are locative (directional) adverbs. I think Winnebago is a locative in Ojibwa, something like 'at the smelly water'. Various Iroquoian tribal names are locatives. Village names can be locative. Omadi is one of the historical Omaha villages. I'm not positive about Oma at the moment, but di is the locative we've been discussing. A locative name for a village might well become an ethnonym, and I suppose we could assume something like that here. What's really potentially a problem here is the combination of an attested Mandan term with a Dakotan locative. We're essentially assuming that the Mandan name for the Missouri River, not, so far as I know, attested in Dakotan, was formerly in circulation in at least Assiniboine, or that a Mandan form 'at/by the Missouri', perhaps a village name, was partially translated into Assiniboine. I don't think any of the usual locatives in Mandan has the right shape. JEK From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Thu Oct 28 19:53:50 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:53:50 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is the "neutral" > demonstrative root John has talked about;... I think the stressed "e" > is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called personal pronouns > (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential verb e' seen in > sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. John: > I guess I don't distinguish between the two usages in looking at > Omaha-Ponca. This may be a deficiency in my approach, but I think it's > mostly because Omaha-Ponca doesn't make the verb : postposition > distinction morphologically by truncating some of the postpisitions. > We do have to ask ourselves whether the possibility of such an analysis > for the origin of the situation in Dakotan should cause us to adopt it > over the one that David likes, which clearly works, too, if we're not > overly concerned to reduce the number of "e" entities. In Dhegiha there is a distinction between {?e:}, the demonstrative, and {he} 'to be', so I'd expect all the e's in DH to be of the demonstrative variety. You find the {-he} 'be' compounded with positional verb roots to form auxiliaries (reduced biclausal constructions). When following a vowel, {-he} is conjugated in the 2nd person, otherwise it seems to be invariant (forming aspirated consonants): [$ = s-hacek] 'be sitting' 'be moving' 'be standing' 1st mi~k-HE a-ri~- HE a-tha~- HE 2nd $ni~k-HE ra-ri~-$-E ra-tha~-$-E 3rd ni k-HE Some Dhegiha languages take it farther. Osage and Quapaw have versions with zha~k-HE 'be lying'. In Dhegiha {he} is always a locative 'be' as far as I know, but this is presumably because it is always compounded with a locative verb in those languages. There is probably a dissertation to be written (by some enterprising soul) on the developments of this verb and possibly other verbs of being (for example {?u~:}. They have been grammaticalized in any number of interesting and different ways. ?U~ is the basis for a past tense in some Dhegiha dialects and, I think, in Biloxi. Bob From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Thu Oct 28 20:08:39 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:08:39 -0500 Subject: e and he. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > What these three function have in common is the semantic denominator > of "pointing at", in some sense, and from that, I'd say, it's just a > short way semantically to a demonstrative function. In other words, > John's "neutral demonstrative" e' and David's "verbal" e' might be one > and the same, at least if we go back far enough in language history. > Tada! I don't think so. I think they are historically different. They just look alike in Dakotan because they've become homophones and thereby subject to a lot of confusion. Because of their short (sometimes identical) phonological forms, we must be very careful in analyzing them in order to determine which we're dealing with. In this case though, Dhegiha preserves the evidence (my previous post) that 'to be' had an initial /h/ that has apparently been lost in Dakotan for whatever reason. Is there evidence for the *h anywhere in Dakotan? The place to look would be frozen compounds. How many morphemes is echa historically? If it's related to ekta, then could -ha be ablauted *he. Bob From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Oct 29 03:19:34 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:19:34 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: > I think Winnebago is a locative in > Ojibwa, something like 'at the smelly water'. It's not locative. Susan Golla and Ives Goddard (HNAI 15.706) suggest as the etymon Potawatomi winpyeko (pl. -k) 'people of the dirty [i.e., muddy] water'. There are similar forms in various other Algonquian languages, none of which looks locative. > What's really potentially a problem here is the combination of an attested > Mandan term with a Dakotan locative. There are parallels, e.g., Ojibway (Algonquin) bostonenang '(in) the U.S.' < Boston (Mass.) + Ojibway -nang (loc.) (Cuoq 1911) Fox pe:ko:neki 'St. Louis (Mo.)' < French Pain Court 'St. Louis' + Fox -eki (loc.) (HNAI 17.194) Fox nwa:hke:neneki 'Rock Island' < English Rock Island + Fox -eki (loc.) (ibid.) Quebec(k)er & Montrealer as against Qu?becois & Montr?alais (though here the suffix isn't locative). In fact, how is a Mandan placename with a Dakotan locative suffix essentially different from an Ojibway placename with an English locative preposition, e.g., "in Bemidji"? (A more serious problem is, as John points out, that Siouan ethnonyms are not usually formed from locatives.) Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Oct 29 15:01:09 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:01:09 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: <38191246.D9C0755E@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > John Koontz wrote: > > I think Winnebago is a locative in Ojibwa, something like 'at the > >smelly water'. > > It's not locative. Susan Golla and Ives Goddard (HNAI 15.706) suggest as > the etymon Potawatomi winpyeko (pl. -k) 'people of the dirty [i.e., > muddy] water'. There are similar forms in various other Algonquian > languages, none of which looks locative. OK, I stand corrected! > > What's really potentially a problem here is the combination of an attested > > Mandan term with a Dakotan locative. > > There are parallels, e.g., These are certainly linguistically parallel, but I notice they all involve contact between English and a Native American language, or between two European languages. One of the observations wrt to Native American languages, at least in the East and Plains, is that they seem to be relatively impervious to loans. No one's quite sure why this is, and, in fact, we are recognizing more loans as we go along, but this situation (Mandan root word, Dakotan locative) still strikes me as odd. The most likely scenario to me seems to be adapting a Mandan original. It would be nice to have some evidence of such a form. > In fact, how is a Mandan placename with a Dakotan locative suffix > essentially different from an Ojibway placename with an English locative > preposition, e.g., "in Bemidji"? It's not, really, but I've never had my attention drawn to a case where a Siouan language had a substantial body of borrowed placenames. For cases like the names for the Platte, the Missouri, the White, etc., I've suspected for several years that if it were possible to assemble substantial sets of place names for the area (it might be, to some extent, possible) we might find that many were calqued. It looks like ethnonyms are often borrowed, however, and that's promising for your case. > A more serious problem is, as John points out, that Siouan ethnonyms are > not usually formed from locatives. It occurs to me that there is likely to be a connection between Ogalala (OP Ubdhadha) and the Niobrara (OP NiN Ubdhadha), but I'm not sure in which direction (or how), and the ethnonym is not a formal locative. From VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA Fri Oct 29 18:44:48 1999 From: VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA (VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:44:48 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: David S. Rood wrote: > Here are my thoughts on the locatives, seen strictly from a synchronic > Lakhota perspective. I would be happy to have corrections or > countertheories from others, and I apologize to those who are looking for > specific diachronic information, because there won't be much here. > > There is a contrast between postpositional or "inflectional" > (suffixal)) -ta and verbal -tu; the verb e'tu means 'to be in/at a > particular place', and I am not convinced that this stressed "e'" is > the "neutral" demonstrative root John has talked about; the latter is > probably extant in ekta 'to/toward', etaN 'from' etc. I think the > stressed "e" is the verb root 'be', found in e.g. the so-called > personal pronouns (miye', niye', unki'yepi) and the definite existential > verb e' seen in sentences like "He' Robert e'" 'that's Robert'. The -l/-n > marker is, in my opinion, the reduced form of e'tu, not the -ta > postposition, but I can't give you any good arguments for that assertion. For what it's worth, I took this up with a sophisticated, educated, Dakota speaker. I pointed out that a voiced stop at the end of a word is normally reduced from a voiceless stop plus an unstressed vowel, and then I asked her for the unreduced form of "ed". Without hesitation she said "eta". She took the "-ta" to be the same as in "tiyata", "ekta" and in placenames. I told her I thought maybe it was "etu" rather than "eta", and she allowed that I could be right. She is not one to let "the great linguist" lead her astray, so I gather from this that she had either actually heard "etu" spoken sometime in the past, or that she associated it at that moment with words like "xtayetu/xtayed". One point of this is that for Manitoba Dakota speakers at least, the reduction of "etV" to "ed" is no longer productive. "ed" must be verbalized by collocation with "uN, wauN, yauN", etc., so the language has true postpositions now. And the question about whether "ed" comes from *etu or *eta IS now one of etymology; it has become diachronic rather than synchronic in the local Dakota. > I am not aware that modern day speakers use the "thil" form for > the locative of 'house'; I've heard thima'hel for 'in the house' and > 'thi(y)a'ta' for 'toward the house', but I'm the first to assert that I > have limited exposure to this language and probably haven't heard > everything that's out there. I'll second your doubts. I've never heard *thid, but "thimahed" and "thiyata", yes. Paul From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Oct 29 22:16:59 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:16:59 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: Paul Voorhis wrote: > For what it's worth, I took this up with a sophisticated, educated, Dakota > speaker. I pointed out that a voiced stop at the end of a word is normally > reduced from a voiceless stop plus an unstressed vowel, and then I asked her > for the unreduced form of "ed". Without hesitation she said "eta". She took > the "-ta" to be the same as in "tiyata", "ekta" and in placenames. I told her > I thought maybe it was "etu" rather than "eta", and she allowed that I could be > right. She is not one to let "the great linguist" lead her astray, so I gather > from this that she had either actually heard "etu" spoken sometime in the past, > or that she associated it at that moment with words like "xtayetu/xtayed". OK, getting really basic--and my apologies to any impatient Siouanists--what is the difference in meaning of a word in -n/-l/-d if the suffix represents -etu rather than -ta ? (I'm still waiting for Boas & Deloria from ILL, which perhaps will answer this sort of question.) Thanks, Alan From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Oct 29 22:16:52 1999 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:16:52 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: John E Koontz wrote: > One of the observations wrt to Native American > languages, at least in the East and Plains, is that they seem to be > relatively impervious to loans. I've observed the same absence of borrowing in the areas of Minnesota from which the Dakota were displaced by the westward-advancing Ojibway: there are few if any O. placenames (and other vocabulary, for that matter) borrowed from Dakota. (That situation was an extreme case in that the displacement was often violent, making interpersonal contact, except violence, pretty rare.) > It occurs to me that there is likely to be a connection between Ogalala > (OP Ubdhadha) and the Niobrara (OP NiN Ubdhadha), but I'm not sure in > which direction (or how), and the ethnonym is not a formal locative. That's really interesting! So Riggs' posited connection of Lakota oglala with a Dakota word for 'scatter' is groundless? (He cites ohdada 'to scatter one's own'.) Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Oct 29 22:51:51 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:51:51 -0600 Subject: Oglala (was Re: Locative Postpositions) In-Reply-To: <381A1CD4.9778AB5B@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > > It occurs to me that there is likely to be a connection between Oglala > > (OP Ubdhadha) and the Niobrara (OP NiN Ubdhadha), but I'm not sure in > > which direction (or how), and the ethnonym is not a formal locative. > > That's really interesting! So Riggs' posited connection of Lakota oglala > with a Dakota word for 'scatter' is groundless? (He cites ohdada 'to > scatter one's own'.) Various little stories (not always the same one) that provide a context for 'scatter one's own in' are the source usually cited. I've always thought such things smacked of folk etymologizing, though, of course, they're rife in explanations of the names of Dakotan groups and must be at least occasionally true, or even mostly true. If nothing else, they reveal the Dakota philosophy of band naming and are consistent with patterns elsewhere in Siouan, e.g., in Crow. They also provide an assertion that the form in question appears to be interpretable to native speakers, if not wholely explicable. If the form is indeed correct (as it is here, but isn't in s^ahiyela 'Cheyenne' ?< 'speak redly', really 'little Cree'), then you are pretty much stuck with the form and the explanation, in the absence of some really good explanation from another source. In the case of Oglala we do have a possible alternative explanation, but I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. For one thing, there's the switch from g (Dakotan) to b (Omaha). There are cases where Dakotan has substituted gl (*kr) or bl (*pr) for forms that other languages suggest to be *pr or *kr, or at least generated alternative forms. 'Bug' is one such set, for example, and you can find others, especially among the stative verbs. Bdhadha is said to mean 'spreading out' (becoming a wide and shallow, i.e., a braided stream?) in reference to this stream name in Omaha-Ponca. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Oct 29 22:53:58 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:53:58 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: <381A1CDB.8AD2474F@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > OK, getting really basic--and my apologies to any impatient > Siouanists--what is the difference in meaning of a word in -n/-l/-d if > the suffix represents -etu rather than -ta ? (I'm still waiting for Boas > & Deloria from ILL, which perhaps will answer this sort of question.) I don't think it would make any difference from your point of view, what the precise shade of meaning of the locative was, or what its etymology was. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 30 07:27:12 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:27:12 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > In Dhegiha there is a distinction between {?e:}, the demonstrative, and > {he} 'to be', so I'd expect all the e's in DH to be of the demonstrative > variety. You find the {-he} 'be' compounded with positional verb roots to > form auxiliaries (reduced biclausal constructions). ... ... > I don't think so. I think they are historically different. They just > look alike in Dakotan because they've become homophones and thereby > subject to a lot of confusion. Because of their short (sometimes > identical) phonological forms, we must be very careful in analyzing > them in order to determine which we're dealing with. In this case though, > Dhegiha preserves the evidence (my previous post) that 'to be' had an > initial /h/ that has apparently been lost in Dakotan for whatever > reason. Is there evidence for the *h anywhere in Dakotan? The place to > look would be frozen compounds. How many morphemes is echa > historically? If it's related to ekta, then could -ha be ablauted *he. I definitely agree that *(?)e and *he are different, and that the Dhegiha postverbal he (second person s^e) forms are the *he root. I just think that the Dakotan forms cited so far don't represent this *he, but rather *e, albeit used predicatively. There are actually similar usages in Dhegiha, for what this is worth, clearly involving the *e form: JOD1890:439.20 Dhe'=e ha this is it JOD1890:497.17 S^u'kka=maNdhiN e'=e ha it is S. JOD1890:597.1-2 Xdhabe' dhe=the maNghe idhabattu=tte ehe= e ha tree this the sky it will extend to I said that DECm What I said was let this tree extend to the sky. or It is that I said let this tree extend to the sky. JOD1890:647.4 Hu'ttaNga wamaNdhaN=dhaNkha we'bahaN e'=e ha Winn. thieves the (PL) they know him that it is DECm It is this: he knows who the Winnebago [horse]thieves are. or maybe It is that he says that he knows who the Winnebago thieves are. I notice also that 'dead' is often rendered with t?e'e 'it is that he is dead' or perhaps 'he is one who is dead'. JOD1890:487.17 Frank wa?u' miNgdhaN, e'=de t?e'=e ha F. woman he married but she died ??? A woman whom F. married has died. JOD1890:512.4 I'kkuhabi=s^ti t?e'=e ha I. too he is dead DECm The =e can also be used in questions. JOD1890:567.4 A'wa=the=e a? where that QUESTION Where is it (of two places)? Examples with pronominals: JOD1890:77.9 wi'=e=bdhiN 'it is I' JOD1890:22262.15: dhi'=e=hniN=de 'since it is you' JOD1890:113.7: e'=e he 'it is he DECf' Of course, the third person is just what we've been seeing. The example from p. 487, with ede seems to me to involve an Omaha-Ponca analog of Dakotan ec^ha (indefinite topic). Dorsey invariably renders this (or =de) as 'but', but the Dakotan form is reported to be associated with unexpectedness (Rood & Taylor, if I recall properly), so this seems reasonable. Even definite relative clauses were not quite recognized as such in Dorsey's work, though he seems to have understood their practical import well enough. We can also find forms with edi 'at it/that; there' as a predicate: JOD1890:337.18 e=d=e=di=akha he is here JOD1890:425.10 ihaN' ugi'ne j^uba e=d=e=di=dhaN ama mother they seek their own some of the company there are there some of that lot of nurslings are there The double article dhaN ama is used in partitives. JOD1890:443.14 s^aaN'=ama e=d=e=di ama dhaNz^a Sioux the there are there though JOD1890:697.3 AN'phaN=wadaNbe=dhiNkhe e=d=e=di= kki Elk-gazer the he is there whether All these constructions amount to: NP [article] e=d=e=di [article] (the NP) is there The articles agree, if both are present. The final article occurs when the clause is a main clause. The first article occurs with the NP, if any. The e=d=e=di is either e=di e=di 'there (is) there' with contraction (would be el etu in Dakotan), or e=de e=di 'one (is) there' (would be ec^ha etu in Dakotan). (I don't imply that the Dakotan comparisons actually exist.) The contraction makes it impossible to tell. There are some more existential constructions without the ed=: JOD1890:88.21 ni'as^iNga j^uba e=di ama ha people some there were JOD1890:63.8 AN'phaN he'ga=s^te=aN=z^i e=di=m=ama elk not a few there were JOD1890:736.3 e=di'=ma=s^e 'you who are there' JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Oct 30 13:55:21 1999 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:55:21 +0100 Subject: Minnesota paradox Message-ID: Dear Siouanists I have been reading all the correspondence with great interest especially about the river names. Can anyone clear up for me the 'Minnesota paradox'. Riggs says that it meant 'broiled water or smoky water' which should be shota, but that it got changed to sota at some point. I have never understood all this. Does it come via another Siouan language to English, like Nebraska coming via Omaha for River Platte (equivalent to Mni Blaska or Bdaska). Any ideas. Best wishes Bruce Ingham -- Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Oct 30 14:04:19 1999 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:04:19 +0100 Subject: English lakota Dictionary Message-ID: Dear Bob You may remember that we met at that very interesting Siouan Caddoan conference in Regina in June. It was a great pleasure for me to meet you all there and the assembled members of the Sioux nation. I don't know if I mentioned it, but I have been compiling a n English lakota dictionary for some time and my publishers Curzon Press had sent it to David Rood to report on. He was generally positive about it and made many useful points, but said that I might like to let you glance at the Historical intro where i talk about the proposed Macro Siouan Phylum. I have n't said that it is God's truth, but said that it 'is fairly widely accepted' which I thought it was. I will send it to you anyway and if you find time to have a look and make any comments you would like to I would be very grateful. As you may realize, I'm out at 'the end of the village' Ihanktunwan over here and do not know what the rest of the Siouanist community think about things in general. My aim in the dictionary is to make it useable for both Indians and non-Indians and have put in a lot of examples of usage from the various written texts and tapes to hand. I am on sabbaticaland only come in here infrequently. So I will not wait for a reply, but will send the thing to you by post from home. I don't want you to edit the whole thing (unless you feel like it), but would appreciate any general comments. Best wishes. Your Bruce -- Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Oct 30 15:54:55 1999 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:54:55 -0600 Subject: Minnesota paradox In-Reply-To: <381AF8C9.2B83B43C@soas.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear Bruce, The story or stories I have heard contend that sota means 'cloudy' or 'milky' --- the accompanying anecdote was "like a glass of water with a few drops of milk in it". The next ablaut level, shota, would be somewhat murkier, and of course xota is the usual translation of 'gray'. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Bruce Ingham wrote: > Dear Siouanists > > I have been reading all the correspondence with great interest especially about > the river names. Can anyone clear up for me the 'Minnesota paradox'. Riggs > says that it meant 'broiled water or smoky water' which should be shota, but > that it got changed to sota at some point. I have never understood all this. > Does it come via another Siouan language to English, like Nebraska coming via > Omaha for River Platte (equivalent to Mni Blaska or Bdaska). Any ideas. > > Best wishes > > Bruce Ingham > -- > Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 30 16:26:48 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:26:48 -0600 Subject: Minnesota paradox In-Reply-To: <381AF8C9.2B83B43C@soas.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Bruce Ingham wrote: > I have been reading all the correspondence with great interest especially about > the river names. Can anyone clear up for me the 'Minnesota paradox'. Riggs > says that it meant 'broiled water or smoky water' which should be shota, but > that it got changed to sota at some point. I have never understood all this. > Does it come via another Siouan language to English, like Nebraska coming via > Omaha for River Platte (equivalent to Mni Blaska or Bdaska). Any ideas. As far as I know, the only Siouan language other than Dakotan that could have been spoken to any extent in in Minnesota in historical times would be perhaps Winnebago, which doesn't have any fricative shifting to speak of. I think Assiniboine and Stoney do have some fricative shifting, but wouldn't be likely to be the sources. Only Dakotan has mniN "Minne" for 'water/river'; all other Mississippi Valley languages have niN or some obvious derivative of that, e.g., Ioway-Otoe n~iN. The pattern of calling large streams 'waters' is general to at least Mississippi Valley Siouan and Pawnee. Smaller streams use words for 'creek' or (literally) 'branch', not always cognate. Large streams often share the same name (in calqued form) across several languages, though a stream need not always have the same name in every language. Dorsey says the Ponka call the Platte 'Big River'. The Omaha, Pawnee, and most southerly Siouan groups seem to call it 'Flat River'. Northerly groups, including the Cheyenne and Sioux call it 'Shell River'. For the Dakota it seems to be a creek, while the Pawnee and southerly Siouan groups call it a water. The Missouri is called NiN' S^u'de 'Smokey Water' by the Chiwere and Dhegiha groups. The White River is NiN' i'gas^ude 'Water stricken smokey with it' in Omaha and there's historical evidence that a similar name was used by the Ioway, though the exact name is unclear. I seem to recall some discussion of these river names in Mathews' paper on Proto-Siouan continuants in IJAL. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 30 16:54:50 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:54:50 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Koontz John E wrote: > Examples with pronominals: > > JOD1890:77.9 wi'=e=bdhiN 'it is I' > JOD1890:22262.15: dhi'=e=hniN=de 'since it is you' > JOD1890:113.7: e'=e he 'it is he DECf' > > Of course, the third person is just what we've been seeing. I neglected to point out that the first and second person (couldn't locate an inclusive example) do involve an inflected verb dhiN 'to be'. This can occur without the e, as in UmaN'haN=bdhiN 'I am an Omaha' I recorded this latter example myself and concur with Dorsey that it cam across as an enclitic. The pattern of omitting what I might characterize as 'be' and other auxiliary verbs with the third person is general in Omaha-Ponca. For example, =xti 'very, true' requires an inflected auxiliary support maN 'I use', z^aN 'I use' in the first and second person, but this is omitted (usually, not always) in the third. > We can also find forms with edi 'at it/that; there' as a predicate: ... > JOD1890:425.10 ihaN' ugi'ne j^uba e=d=e=di=dhaN ama > mother they seek their own some of the company there are > there Oops, I meant 'they are there' > JOD1890:443.14 s^aaN'=ama e=d=e=di ama dhaNz^a > Sioux the there are there though Ditto. > All these constructions amount to: > > NP [article] e=d=e=di [article] > (the NP) is there > > The articles agree, if both are present. The final article occurs when > the clause is a main clause. ... and seems to be part of the construction 'to be there'. This would amount to a progressive aspect formation, as this is the formation of the progressive: verb + article, where the article agrees with the subject, which may have its own article if it is a definite NP. It may be that imperfective or something like that would be more appropriate than progressive. > There are some more existential constructions without the ed=: To be consistent: e=d= I have the impression that e'=di alone as a predicate is 'to be, exist', while e'=d=e=di is 'to be someplace'. Dorsey's translations tend that way, but are not wholely consistent. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 30 17:32:21 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:32:21 -0600 Subject: e and he. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Actually, this is all on e, and how certain predicative forms in e in Dakotan aren't the *he attested in Dhegiha and Winnebago and Chiwere. On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > Is there evidence for the *h anywhere in Dakotan? The place to look would > be frozen compounds. How many morphemes is echa historically? If it's > related to ekta, then could -ha be ablauted *he. This is another aspect of the question whether e in e, etu and ec^ha used predicatively in Dakotan is the e demonstrative or a special predicative e. So far I've observed: 1) That I'm looking at the issue etymologically or historically, and that I don't have any quarrel with the predicative distinction as a synchronic fact. 2) That the e demonstrative and its derivative e=di (cf. e=tu, e=l) is also used predicatively in Omaha-Ponca. What I haven't done is shown that the predicative e participates in paradigms of demonstratives like it was the e demonstrative. The data here is from Boas & Delora 1941:116 ff: Row 14: e'l, le'l, he'l, ka'l, tukte'l Row 17: e'tu, le'tu, he'tu, ka'tu, tukte'tu Row 29: ec^ha', le'c^ha, he'c^ha, ka'kha, to'kha The absence of a vowel e in the ka forms and to forms (where they exist) is indicative of the e being separate from the following morpheme l, tu, kha. Note that kha remains kha unless preceded by e to condition affrication to c^ha. A form like *ketu or *kec^ha would be a dead give away that the e was organic, or at least 'in addition to' the demonstrative. It's clear from the stress anomalies of ec^ha' and from discussion in the notes that this form is far advanced in grammaticalization outside its nominal place in this table. It's also clear from the way el and etu are not placed adjacent in the table that they are not associated by Boas & Deloria. This is consistent with their evidence functional divergence and with the possibility that the =l forms actually have several sources. \ There are several forms built on tu, e.g., -haNtu, -haNtuya, c^haNtu (only with e, so perhaps khaNtu), -khetu, -khetuya. There are also -haNl, -c^haNl (also with e only, so perhaps -khaNl), -khel, and -khelya. The -haN and khe forms all occur separately, too. I'm going to guess that in each case -l represents both -tu and -ka ~ -c^a at least. Forms with -haN (probably from PMV *thaN) have to do with time, as do the c^haN forms. The -khe forms seem to refer to manner. There's also a -tkiya that might be -t(u)-kiya, but B&D say it's -t(a)-kiya (see below). I've also pointed out that some forms seem to insert a -k-. These include: Row 27: -k-ta: e'kta, he'kta Row 28, -k-takiya: e'ktakiya, he'ktakiya -k-tataNhaN: e'ktataNhaN These compare with the postpositions -ta and -takiya. The Omah-Ponca correspondences -tta and -ttathaN always have the -k-, or, to specific, always have the -tt- that presumably reflects -k-t-. It's possible that the -k- also appears in suffixes like -kha or -khe or might represent the article -ki(N). In that case, presumably the final -ha/-he here might represent the he 'to be' form Bob discusses, but at the moment I don't have enough understanding of these forms to be certain of this, and for the moment I'm not sure where to look for *he in Dakotan. JEK From shanwest at uvic.ca Sat Oct 30 19:34:32 1999 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:34:32 -0700 Subject: Minnesota paradox Message-ID: My consultant in Assiniboine gave me the same as what David has said below. She also described it as "slightly polluted". Shannon West David S. Rood wrote: > Dear Bruce, > The story or stories I have heard contend that sota means 'cloudy' > or 'milky' --- the accompanying anecdote was "like a glass of water with a > few drops of milk in it". The next ablaut level, shota, would be somewhat > murkier, and of course xota is the usual translation of 'gray'. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Bruce Ingham wrote: > > > Dear Siouanists > > > > I have been reading all the correspondence with great interest especially about > > the river names. Can anyone clear up for me the 'Minnesota paradox'. Riggs > > says that it meant 'broiled water or smoky water' which should be shota, but > > that it got changed to sota at some point. I have never understood all this. > > Does it come via another Siouan language to English, like Nebraska coming via > > Omaha for River Platte (equivalent to Mni Blaska or Bdaska). Any ideas. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Bruce Ingham > > -- > > Bruce Ingham > > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > > SOAS > > > > > > From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sat Oct 30 20:10:13 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:10:13 -0500 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks to John for his interesting discussion and examples of the predicative use of *?e:, the general demonstrative. > > JOD1890:77.9 wi'=e=bdhiN 'it is I' > > JOD1890:22262.15: dhi'=e=hniN=de 'since it is you' > > JOD1890:113.7: e'=e he 'it is he DECf' Cf. Kansa be?e?e: 'who is it' (responding to a knock at the door). The demonstrative seems to have an underlying glottal stop that shows up in various contexts. > I recorded this latter example myself and concur with Dorsey that it > cam across as an enclitic. The pattern of omitting what I might > characterize as 'be' and other auxiliary verbs with the third person > is general in Omaha-Ponca. For example, =xti 'very, true' requires an > inflected auxiliary support maN 'I use', z^aN 'I use' in the first and > second person, but this is omitted (usually, not always) in the third. In Omaha, does this latter verb really mean 'use'. Given its meaning in other Dhegiha dialects, I'd have expected it to mean 'do'. I thought it was only Dakotan that had screwed up the semantics/morphology of *?u~ Proto-Siouan *?u:~ seems to be translatable as either 'do' or 'be'. The verb 'use' is, etymologically speaking, the verb 'do' with the usual instrumentive prefix i-. 'To do with' = 'to use' of course. This results in a verb that is variously i-?u~ or (as in Biloxi and some other langs.) simply yo~. 'To use' really ought to have the i- prefix (except in Dakotan where the two verbs simply conjugate differently). Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Oct 31 00:14:33 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:14:33 -0600 Subject: Locative Postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > The demonstrative seems to have an underlying glottal stop that shows up > in various contexts. It's hard to say whether it's an underlying glottal stop or an epenthetic one. Whatever it is (and I haven't heard the relevant examples myself), it caused Dorsey to write two e's in a row. Dorsey's not terribly reliable on glottal stops. > In Omaha, does this latter verb really mean 'use'. Given its meaning in > other Dhegiha dialects, I'd have expected it to mean 'do'. I thought it > was only Dakotan that had screwed up the semantics/morphology of *?u~ OP seems to gloss aN both ways in both main and auxiliary contexts. It looks like 'to do' is usual, but not universal in auxiliary instances with =xti and =(s^ ~ h ~ 0)naN. Of course, the choice is arbitrary there, but 'to do' does make more sense. ppia'z^i=s^tes^te=waN s^aN maN'=tta=miNkhe bad even if yet I will use it naNbu'dhixdha ga'=dhaN z^aN dhagdhe=tte ring that you use it you will go home ga'maN 'I do that' edadaN aNaN=tte a 'What will we do?' There's also a verb a'...aN 'to do' used with cause or means. ea'thaN a'maN 'how (will) I do ...' a'thaN a'z^aN 'why do you do it' I suppose this might be the interrogative version of eaN 'how?' which seems to be the general demonstrative version, though also used to make questions. From rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu Sun Oct 31 17:50:07 1999 From: rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu (Robert L. Rankin) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:50:07 -0800 Subject: Locative Postpositions Message-ID: [In the demonstrative particle] > It's hard to say whether it's an underlying glottal stop or an > epenthetic one. Whatever it is (and I haven't heard the relevant > examples myself), it caused Dorsey to write two e's in a row. > Dorsey's not terribly reliable on glottal stops. "Epenthetic" means 100% predictable in purely phonetic terms; none of the trendy '70's "grammatical" or "social" environments. In that generally accepted sense it cannot be epenthetic. Dhegiha languages generally lack the rampant glottal stop additions of Dakotan, where many if not most words that begin with a vowel have a [?]. I think that most Siouan languages lack this productivity for glottal stop. These recurring, non-predictable glottal stops are found in a handful of words including ?u:N 'do, be', ?iN 'wear about the shoulders', ?e: 'general demonstrative', ya?iN 'think', ?o: 'shoot at and hit, wound', ?iN- 'stone, rock' and a few others. Some are nouns, some verbs. Most seem to be word-initial, which is suspicious of course. There are a few others I think. Very messy, but there they are. If one seems to have a semi-predictable segment, i.e., one with apparent grammatical or lexical conditioning it can mean several things. (1) it can mean that the segment *used to be* epenthetic but that recent changes have obscured part of the conditioning (Dakotan epenthesis or Omaha *x? > *k? > ?, etc.). (2) it can mean there have been borrowings (including Labovian dialect borrowing) that may have muddied the waters. (3) or it may be wishful thinking on the part of the linguist who sees some partial but accidental pattern. Pan-Siouan glottal stops are peculiar enough that I'm perfectly willing to entertain (1) or (2) above as possibilities in Proto-Siouan. But they are also general enough (existing in several daughter languages spread across a lot of geography) and unpredictable enough that they cannot be epenthetic in any synchronic phonology. (The same argument holds for verb-final, unaccented ablauting -e, which is found from Montana to Virginia). These facts merely promote the argument about possible conditioning factors back about 3000 years and make them more difficult to un/re-cover and justify, of course. But that's how we have to do it if we want to get to the bottom of the problem. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Oct 31 22:42:30 1999 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 15:42:30 -0700 Subject: Status of PS Glottal Stop (was Re: Locative Postpositions) In-Reply-To: <381C814F.E9078F41@lark.cc.ukans.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Robert L. Rankin wrote: > These recurring, non-predictable glottal stops are found in a handful of > words including ?u:N 'do, be', ?iN 'wear about the shoulders', ?e: > 'general demonstrative', ya?iN 'think', ?o: 'shoot at and hit, wound', > ?iN- 'stone, rock' and a few others. Some are nouns, some verbs. Most > seem to be word-initial, which is suspicious of course. There are a few > others I think. Very messy, but there they are. The main environments in which *? might be audible, are, of course, initial position (not really audible in Omaha-Ponca) or intervocalically (also not really audible, at least in eaN 'how', which I have heard) , if k or other morpheme final stops merge with ? to produce ?. The ? from *k? is very audible on Omaha-Ponca, as in a?i 'I gave' < *ak?u. Unfortunately, I haven't heard Omaha-Ponca aNaN 'we do', so I don't know if it's aNaN (with, say, rearticulation) or aN?aN. Any of the other Dhegiha languages would, perhaps, clarify this. I seem to recall that none have aNk?aN, but can be positive. In fact, I think that only Dakotan and maybe Winnebago have C? with any *?-stop stem forms. Dakotan has k? with the inclusive and Winnebago has s^? with the second person, if I remember correctly. These two forms are prima facie evidence that ?-stop was perceived as part of the stem at some point in the history of PS. On the other hand, all these C? sequences are well preserved in Mississippi Valley Siouan, but are rare in the inflectional pattern even there. Hence, I conclude that there is something odd about the status of ? in these stems. When you realize that only Dakotan and Winnebago make much of a big deal about initial ? at all, wonder if the C?-forms don't say something about these particular languages, rather than Siouan at large. Winnebago is actually far more relevant here than Dakotan, because it alone substitutes hV for all those *V initials that regularly become ?V in Dakotan. Thus, Winnebago alone seems to have an unpredictable ? in these stems (even if it seems to be secondary) without using ? with all V-initial stems. But why, s^? if ? is not original? One possibility that occurs to me that doesn't involve *? is that there was an additional prefix in the third person, e.g., *i, leading to *i?uN > *?uNuN or something like that in the third person. Or maybe *uNuN was just long. Long vowel initials don't get epenthetic h. In this case, s^?V in the second person is by evidence with the recent third person only. Back when I was looking at *?-stems, I also noticed that a number of the languages seemed to have substituted *r-stem personal inflections for some or all *?-stems stems, especially in the second person. Dakotan has nV, for example, which doesn't correspond regularly with either Dhegiha *z^V or Winnebago s^?V. I believe this is because the forms in question sometimes have an epenthetic *r in the third person, due to prefixes, making them appear to be *r-stems. Since I could account for the *nV second persons and the Winnebago form looks secondary, too, I have to conclude that Dhegiha *z^V is the original form. Dhegiha does have *nV with some stems, incidentally, though curwe usually call these *w-stems, because of the epenthetic w that develops in the third persons, which have either a prefix *o or an initial *u, etc. Since all the inflectional forms with *C? are restricted to one language or another, and the various other inflectional forms, *mV first person, *z^V second person (perhaps *nV second persons, if they don't come from the *r-stems), don't suggest *? at all, I suggested that these stems might actually be *V-initial. The only real counter-evidence is the Winnebago second person in s^?V, secondary though it presumably is. This is a summary, without the paradigmatic evidence tables, of my position on *?-stems. Notice that it's somewhat wobbly. I think it looks like the *?-stems were actually *V-stems that frequently acquired regular epenthetic ?-initials in the third person, which sometimes resulted in secondary ?-introduction in other persons (second or inclusive), but I wouldn't want it to be forgotten that *? is also a possibility, and that Winnebago provides the best evidence of this, albeit not incontrovertable evidence. JEK