From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 5 16:10:52 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:10:52 -0600 Subject: Siouan Conference Message-ID: I wonder if any person or persons who were at the Siouan & Caddoan Conference this past weekend (June 2-3) would be willing to post a summary or postmortem? The same would be desirable for the informal Dhegiha para-session held the afternoon of June 1st. It would also be nice to see a summary and list of action items with regard to the future management of the meeting. I will say for myself that the Wichita Tribe were very kind hosts with a beautiful Tribal Center and this was a very pleasant conference. Though it was demonstrated that linguists as a whole are not particularly good at the handgame, the north side covered itself with glory with the aid of Mark Swetland, Jimm Good Tracks, and Louanna Furbee and her husband, as well quite a number of local people whose names I do not know, apart from one, Jimmy Reeder, who was singing on that side of the drum. I played on the south side and was guessed immediately at every trial, even dropping the bead several times. I'd like to thank the Wichita Language Class for putting up the handgame and taking my ineptitude with with such good grace. Ahau! From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Jun 5 16:22:59 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:22:59 -0700 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Everyone, Here's the address for a little tool that we developed at the University of Victoria to help linguists use phonetic script easily on web pages: http://web.uvic.ca/lancenrd/ipa/ I thought it might be of use to some fellow Siouanists. Let me know if there are any characters that aren't there that you would find useful. However, at this time, we can't accomodate all the diacritic combinations. Hope you like it, Shannon West P.S. I know I promised copies of my colloquium paper to several of you about 5 months ago, and as soon as I get it in PDF format, I'll put it on my website for download by anyone that wants it. Fair warning, it's a work in progress. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 6 06:17:13 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:17:13 -0600 Subject: More Dhegiha Evidentials Message-ID: Naturally, these examples will please Dhegiha students more than others, but I thought they might be interesting to anyone who was at the Conference as a supplement to the paper I presented there. Example of ge as evidential. Kansas e=di'=ge= s^te=aN. Kansas they must be in some places. (of winter hides) there EVID(scattered) so-ever jod 1891:19.3 The translation in 'must be' is Dorsey's. More use of 'must be' Dhe'=the e'=the= a'na, e=dh=e'=gaN=bi=ama nu'=akha. This it must be ! thought they say the man jod 1890:149.10-11 Note first person inflection of article *the* as *athe* in next set. Na! agdha'the athe', e'= ama. Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say. Na! agdha'sniN=kki az^aN' athe', e'= ama. Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say jod 1890:63.5-6 In Future of Surity The future of surity 'shall surely' consists of tta FUTURE + the EVIDENTIAL usually. Here is an example or two with tta + khe. I looked for tta + dhaN or tta + ge without any luck. e=da'=daN ua'z^i= tta=khe'= s^ti waN'gidhe oN?i'=i: what I plant will surely too all he has given to me: jod 1890:518.3 MaNdhiN'c^hakki iNs^?a'ge t?e'=tta=khe. Manthin tcaki old man will surely die as he reclines jod 1890:765.8 Dhi'daNbe gaN'=dha=xti e'=de a'?aNz^i To see you she had a strong desire but she, being unsuccessful t?e'=tta=khe. she will surely die as she reclines. jod 1890:775.6 With Presentative, both *khe* and *the* in parallel Si wac^hi's^ka wiN ed=e=di'=khe', ama; Again creek one there it was, they say; s^i tti' wiN' ed=e=di'=the'=ama. again tent one it was there, they say. jod 1890:150.5-6 MaNc^hu'=khe idha=bi=ama. Grizzly bear he found, they say. Ga=the=di MaNc^hu' e=d=e=di'=khe. In that place Grizzly bear there he is lying. jod 1890:287.5 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 8 01:14:51 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:14:51 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: I was just looking at the ways Quapaw handles temporal relationships (since it lacks morphological tense) and ran across this sentence in a Dorsey text c. 1890. The baffling thing about the sentence is that /-khe/ ‘LYING.CONTINUATIVE AUXILIARY’ should agree with the subject, ‘they’ (the people bringing the step father home), not the step father, who is the grammatical object here, and who is presumably the one lying down. di-átte-z^íka íyowí-ttaN akdániN kdí your-father-little V1-wound-?-as V1-SUUS-bring VERT-come your stepfather as X shot him, (they) are taking him back to his own home Since your stepfather has been shot, (they) are taking him home -khe, ppákkaNkka tta-thaN. LYING.CONTIN.AUX, nose-crooked LOC-from nose-crooked from from Crooked-Nose’s (a trading post). At the April meeting we had discussed the possible use of the article -khe 'lying' in a few contexts where it seemed actually to carry a 'past' connotation (or denotation?). Someone suggested that this might be because a person referred to in the past might be considered 'dead' and therefore horizontal. If the above sentence is not just speaker error, then it may be that -khe has been extended analogically from deceased animates to past events generally. I mentioned in April that I had a few instances of that in Kansa but that I thought then that they represented "speaker error". Now I'm not as sure. Comments welcome. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 8 05:07:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:07:35 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <393EF38B.F0EA46DA@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: I'm having trouble reading the quotation marks in the first paragraph, and the vowels in the example. I think they may not have been fully ASCII-n-ized. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 8 05:38:26 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:38:26 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <393EF38B.F0EA46DA@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > di-�tte-z^�ka �yow�-ttaN akd�niN kd� ? di-a'tte-z^iNka e'yowe'-ttaN akda'niN kde' > your-father-little V1-wound-?-as V1-SUUS-bring VERT-come > your stepfather as X shot him, (they) are taking him back to his own > home > Since your stepfather has been shot, (they) are taking him home > > -khe, pp�kkaNkka tta-thaN. ? -khe, ppa'kkaNkka tta-thaN > LYING.CONTIN.AUX, nose-crooked LOC-from > nose-crooked from > from Crooked-Nose�s (a trading post). I make this the equivalent of OP "Dhi-a'de-z^iNga" kkiu'=egaN your stepfather wounded having been agdha'dhiN gdhe'= khe having theirs they are going home it seems Ppa'kkaNkka= tta=thaN Crooked-Nose from I'm not sure of idhadi z^iNga as 'stepfather', and I've substituted kkiu' 'wounded' for what looks like a-(g)i-u(e?). OP does have iu 'wounded with' and giu 'wounded for one'. Coming to the point, I'd argue that this is a khe 'evidential' (in the sense of 'evidently'), and that it agrees in gender with the evidence, i.e., the body of the wounded or killed man. As Dorsey conceived of the ~ khe ~ dhaN ~ ge (in order of increasing rarity) as past in such sentence-final contexts, that may explain the gloss. Here's an equivalent OP example from Dorsey: E=di ahi=bi=ama=kki, t?e=dha=bi=khe=ama. There they arrived, they say when, he lay killed, they say. jod 1890:178.5 This isn't a continuative, for example, because it co=occurs with bi. It also co-occurs with the quotative. The whole is something like: 'They say that when they arrived evidently he was dead.' I'm not sure about the second quotative within the when clause. I think it's just extra, or otherwise it's 'They say that when they say that ...' Incidentally, the =ttaN 'when' is cognate with OP =daN CONTINGENT or maybe =daN DURING. I think =taN occurs as 'when' in Osage, too. I was at first a bit puzzled as to how to explain the agreement pattern of the evidentials, but I'm now operating on the theory (which seems to work) that they agree with the evidence underlying (no pun) the conclusion. Sometimes that's a constituent of the sentence (object, subject, or something else). Sometimes it's merely implicit. From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 8 07:04:12 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:04:12 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: > > di-átte-z^íka íyowí-ttaN akdániN kdí > > ? di-a'tte-z^iNka e'yowe'-ttaN akda'niN kde' > Just z^ka, no nasality here. iyowi and kdi. It looks fine on my screen. I have Netscape configured to show all the accented vowels and the Siouan font though. > > Coming to the point, I'd argue that this is a khe 'evidential' (in the > sense of 'evidently'), and that it agrees in gender with the evidence, > i.e., the body of the wounded or killed man. As Dorsey conceived of the ~ > khe ~ dhaN ~ ge (in order of increasing rarity) as past in such > sentence-final contexts, that may explain the gloss. > Since you were discussing this earlier, I figured that what this was. What I find strange is the part about agreeing with "the evidence". I think I need to understand that a little better. > > E=di ahi=bi=ama=kki, t?e=dha=bi=khe=ama. > There they arrived, they say when, he lay killed, they say. > jod 1890:178.5 But it isn't an exact equivalent since the person in the horizontal position is subject of the clause in the Omaha example, but not in the Quapaw one. > > Incidentally, the =ttaN 'when' is cognate with OP =daN CONTINGENT or maybe > =daN DURING. I think =taN occurs as 'when' in Osage, too. Possibly, but that would depend on Quapaw accent. Simple *t > tt only following an accented vowel. I suspect the Quapaw cognate is -naN 'as, time when' (implying near simultaneity of events in the 2 clauses). There's also a Quapaw -taN 'when, if'. > > I was at first a bit puzzled as to how to explain the agreement pattern of > the evidentials, but I'm now operating on the theory (which seems to work) > that they agree with the evidence underlying (no pun) the conclusion. > Sometimes that's a constituent of the sentence (object, subject, or > something else). Sometimes it's merely implicit. I hope we can pin it down better than that. See this is what happens when we get off into discourse. I still hope it will turn out to be more grammatical than "merely implicit." Too much wiggle room there. Bob From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Fri Jun 9 05:19:07 2000 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:19:07 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <393F456C.57C6383C@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > Since you were discussing this earlier, I figured that what this was. What I > find strange is the part about agreeing with "the evidence". I think I need > to understand that a little better. > > E=di ahi=bi=ama=kki, t?e=dha=bi=khe=ama. > > There they arrived, they say when, he lay killed, they say. > > jod 1890:178.5 > > But it isn't an exact equivalent since the person in the horizontal position > is subject of the clause in the Omaha example, but not in the Quapaw one. > > I was at first a bit puzzled as to how to explain the agreement pattern of > > the evidentials, but I'm now operating on the theory (which seems to work) > > that they agree with the evidence underlying (no pun) the conclusion. > > Sometimes that's a constituent of the sentence (object, subject, or > > something else). Sometimes it's merely implicit. > > I hope we can pin it down better than that. See this is what happens when we > get off into discourse. I still hope it will turn out to be more grammatical > than "merely implicit." Too much wiggle room there. Perhaps if there were any question whether such things existed, but the numerous *the* examples show they do. Flexibility can be a fault in an analysis, but I'm not sure it's a fault in a grammar. Difficult to learn, maybe! In these examples I've stuck with khe or dhaN. The more numerous *the* examples are coniderably harder to analyze. For one thing, *the* seems to be a favored or default choice. For another, it's very hard to tell what *the* might be referring to, even if there's an NP with a *the* article in the context. It may refer simply to "punctual" events, while "*khe* might refer to durative events. Of course, *khe* often does refer to a constituent NP or some aspect of the verbal action not represented as an NP, and I suppose *the* must often do so, too. The problem is that *the* and *dhaN* are not very "marked" articles, though *khe* and *ge* are, referring here to frequency of occurrence. Subject agreement: jod 1890:35.3 si=khe snede'=axti=hnaN=i=khe the foot(print) was always very long jod 1890:32.1 ppa'hewadhahuni wiN e=di=khe=ama a man-eating hill was lying there An object: jod 1890:222.4 ihe'=dha=bi=khe=ama it {an arrow] had been placed (or mounted) [on a wall], they say [*ihe'* also refers to the arrow's shape.] Probably a reference to the implicit action of the verb jod 1890:379.7 ni'as^iNga j^u'ba sigdha'=bi=khe=ama some persons left a trail in a long line, they say [shape attributed to the trail] jod 1890:148.5 du'ba z^aN'=bi=khe=ama four it as sleeps (days), they say [or perhaps to the set of four?] Perhaps a reference to the trail/path evidencing the departure? jod 1890:58.19-59.1 a'khi=a'gdha=i=khe they [group of people at a dance] have gone home [khe because of the set?] jod 1890:149:7-8 agdha'=bi=khe=ama they say he had gone homeward [but not here] Clearly a reference to the feather, but NP perhaps an object. jod 1890:52.6 hiNxpe' wiN udhi'xpadha=bi=khe=ama a feather had fallen (he had discarded it by hand) To a distant subject: jod 1890:116.3-4 waba'gdheze z^iN'ga ... "..." a'=bi=dhaN=ama manual [when clause] [quotation] it said, they say "When he had read the manual, it told him he would get a gun." Who knows? jod 1890:17.14 wasa'be ghage'=xti=hnaN naNz^iN'=bi=khe=ama black bear just crying hard he stood there, they say [perhaps the duration of time?] When we have parallel examples of =bi=the=ama and =bi=khe=ama and =bi=dhaN=ama, I think we can take it that they are doing similar things, but differ somehow by "gender." There are also parallel =tta=the and =tta=khe as 'futures of surity', and parallel uses of =(i)=the=(di) and =(i)=khe=(di) as 'when', and parallel uses of =the and =khe and =ge with locative predicates. This inclines me to understand =(i)=the and =(i)=khe as parallel, too. From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 13 04:17:10 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:17:10 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > Perhaps if there were any question whether such things existed, but the > numerous *the* examples show they do. Flexibility can be a fault in an > analysis, but I'm not sure it's a fault in a grammar. I'm not suggesting that. I'm not even sure that at the stage we're at one can even fault the analysis. You've demonstrated clearly that these constructions exist. What I find unclear is still whether or not they are evidentials. If we already have an evidential construction with approximately the shape {-abiama}, then what does the addition of the positional {-the, -khe, -dhaN, -ge} in the middle add to that? It is clear that {-the}is the unmarked positional, in that it's the one that occurs with nominalized verbs, subordinated clauses and so forth. But what's its function in these present cases? Evidential, incipient tense, classification, what? {-khe} is the one I remember getting from Mrs. Rowe when I changed a present tense English sentence into a past tense equivalent. At the time I thought she might be forcing a grammatical distinction that didn't really exist in Siouan. I think we should be looking at/for distinctions beyond that of "evidential". > It may refer simply to "punctual" events, while "*khe* might refer to durative > events. That's the general sort of thing I'm thinking about. > jod 1890:17.14 > wasa'be ghage'=xti=hnaN naNz^iN'=bi=khe=ama > black bear just crying hard he stood there, they say > [perhaps the duration of time?] > That's a baffling one, certainly. > When we have parallel examples of =bi=the=ama and =bi=khe=ama and > =bi=dhaN=ama, I think we can take it that they are doing similar things, > but differ somehow by "gender." Right, but probably not as evidentials, unless there are "by sight", "by sound" etc. evidentials, something I don't think is the case in Dhegiha. BTW, are these connected to the conjugated auxiliaries, mikhe, nikhe, athaNhe, adhiNhe, etc.? They don't seem to be to me (following -abi as they do), but my Kaw and Quapaw data are a lot sparser. Thanks again for the many examples. At least no one can say there's no more to do in Dhegiha grammar! Bob From Ogalala2 at aol.com Tue Jun 13 18:02:18 2000 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:02:18 EDT Subject: 20th Conference in Anandarko, Proto-Siouan /r/ & /y/ Message-ID: Based on cognates for dung, little/young, to sing, to sleep, and to stab, add zh > y to Chiwere (Ch) in Table IV, p. 11 under Proto-Siouan *y. Thus, "r" splits into two phonemes "r, zh > y." The Degihans have pointed out my erroneous use of ch and dh in Osage. Remove the v over c and j for Osage. Please let me know if my Osage orthography needs other modifications. Thanks for your inputs, your comments are much appreciated. Ted Grimm From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Fri Jun 16 17:18:20 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:18:20 -0500 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: Fascinating stuff on evidentials, both John's additional examples of ge etc. and Bob's Quapaw sentence! I haven't had a chance to think about them much (just got home yesterday and after 2 weeks of driving around Texas laundry is a higher priority than grammar) so this is entirely off the top of my head. John's ideas that the/khe/etc. agree with the "evidence" and/or have some aspectual function(marking punctual vs nonpunctual?) seem to work nicely for a lot of the examples. The existence of person inflection (first person athe) looks more like grammatical agreement -- and also makes the look more verbal than I'd have guessed. Maybe we're actually looking at something approaching serial verb constructions or even a separate superordinate clause. Bob's question is important: "What I find unclear is still whether or not they are evidentials. If we already have an evidential construction with approximately the shape {-abiama}, then what does the addition of the positional {-the, -khe, -dhaN, -ge} in the middle add to that? ... Evidential, incipient tense, classification, what? " We've been calling (bi)-ama "quotative", but it doesn't always mark an actual quote. I've always taken it as more like what Balkanists call the "admirative" or "renarrated mood" or "non-witnessed" or "hearsay" form; that is, it seems to mean the speaker isn't personally vouching for the truth of the utterance. (Is this right?) If ama means the speaker is NOT claiming to have specific evidence, and if the/khe/dhaN/ge indicate (and agree with) the presence of specific evidence it's downright weird for the two to cooccur, so maybe I'm completely wrong... in any case, the question of what exactly all these little bits of stuff at the ends of clauses are and how they interact needs more work! I'm still worried about how all this relates to the bits of stuff on Noun Phrases (aka articles) too... John's copious examples of all of the positional articles (the/khe/dhaN/ge) as evidentials and also as "when" are making it look more and more like the article series and these other things are actually all identical. Homophony gets less attractive as an explanation the more the whole set of forms is seen to fill all three roles. Maybe we should just chuck the whole article/evidential/conjunction problem out the window and simply call these words "positionals" wherever they occur? (Or for a wordier terminology, "deictic elements specifying spatial, temporal, and/or discourse position" or some such??) But this kind of semantic label leaves totally unsolved the part of the puzzle I'm most interested in, namely their syntactic status. I once tried to defend the position that these words are articles, period, and that clauses they attach to are nominalized. But maybe they are in fact always verbal elements of some sort (auxiliaries?) and the nouns they attach to are clausal? (Siouan languages have plenty of precedent for treating nouns as verbs/clauses, eg inflecting them for person...) Or perhaps they are some kind of abstract agreement that can show up on either nominal or verbal projections? Or, as I suggested a paragraph or two back, they could be a separate, higher predicate which takes various kinds of projections as argument? I can think of any number of potentially plausible analyses, but at the moment, no good way of deciding among them. Ah, well -- plenty of fun stuff to keep us busy. And this is without even bringing up the animate article forms..... Enough for now, Catherine From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jun 16 20:17:05 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:17:05 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <002EFCF4.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: > We've been calling (bi)-ama "quotative", but it doesn't always mark an > actual quote. I've always taken it as more like what Balkanists call > the "admirative" or "renarrated mood" or "non-witnessed" or "hearsay" > form; that is, it seems to mean the speaker isn't personally vouching > for the truth of the utterance. (Is this right?) If ama means the > speaker is NOT claiming to have specific evidence, and if > the/khe/dhaN/ge indicate (and agree with) the presence of specific > evidence it's downright weird for the two to cooccur, so maybe I'm > completely wrong... in any case, the question of what exactly all these > little bits of stuff at the ends of clauses are and how they interact > needs more work! The Balkan sense is the one that Siouanists intend, I think. Anyway, it's the one I understand: information that is supported by general repetition and acceptance, not by personal experience. If you think of ama in this sense as a sort of higher predicate, then it's not too surprising that it can occur above the other evidential, the one that works somewhat like a Turkish perfect. That in itself is a sort of higher predicate, and they're just nested: "They say that it seemed that ..." What's a bit surprising is that I don't think that the declarative (personal experience) is nested within the quotative - though now I'll have to check seriously, i.e., no "They say that he asserted personally that ..." > I'm still worried about how all this relates to the bits of stuff on > Noun Phrases (aka articles) too... John's copious examples of all of > the positional articles (the/khe/dhaN/ge) as evidentials and also as > "when" are making it look more and more like the article series and > these other things are actually all identical. Homophony gets less > attractive as an explanation the more the whole set of forms is seen to > fill all three roles. I think we have to have both a general name, for which positionals might do, and a functional name, for uses in particular contexts. The contexts for the the/khe/dhaN/ge set that I know of are: - simple evidential with independent (?) sentence: [ ... verb-(PLUR)-EVID ...] - future of surity (shall surely ...): [... verb tta-(PLUR)-EVID ...] - when clauses: [... verb EVID]-(POSTPOSITION) - articles (NP)-(DEM)-EVID-(POSTPOSITION) - INDEFINITE/INTERROGATIVE-EVID-POSTPOSITION as 'where?' - e-the 'may' and e-the-gaN 'maybe' "modals" Note that last night I also noticed that there are instances of =the=di=hi 'when' combined with kki 'when' with something like future hypothetical meaning. > I once tried to defend the position that these words are articles, > period, and that clauses they attach to are nominalized. But maybe they > are in fact always verbal elements of some sort (auxiliaries?) and the > nouns they attach to are clausal? I think these are not all that different, for Siouan purposes. > Or perhaps they are some kind of abstract agreement that can show up on > either nominal or verbal projections? Or, as I suggested a paragraph or > two back, they could be a separate, higher predicate which takes various > kinds of projections as argument? I can think of any number of > potentially plausible analyses, but at the moment, no good way of > deciding among them. Anyway, they seem to agree with something about the noun or clause. The only way I can get at it presently is by looking at examples in Dorsey. It's usually clear why khe, dhaN or ge might be used, but unless *the* also has personal agreement, it's hard to know what it might be agreeing with. Regina Pustet said at the Caddoan & Siouan Conference (I guess we can call it that this time), that Dakotan articles are used in similar ways. They wouldn't agree in gender, of course, but is there any literature on this? ---- Returning to terminology, we might call akha/ama 'animate [something] positionals', and dhiNkhe/thaN/dhiN/ma 'animate [un-something] positionals', and the/khe/gdhaN/ge 'inanimate positionals'. Of course, khe tends to show up in at least the 'animate [un-something] positionals' list, too. '(Un)something' here would be either proximate/obviative or marked/unmarked, as possibilities. There is a fourth set of positionals, namely the/gdhe/he/khe/dhaN/gdhaN that occur in 'suddenly/inceptive/iterative' auxiliaries and in verbs of placement and a few other less clear contexts. Also, the regular verbs of posture naz^iN/a...gdhiN/z^aN/maN...dhiN have some grammatical uses. These several classes could be referred to as definite articles, conjunctions, auxiliaries, etc., of various sorts in context. I haven't thought out the details yet. JEK From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Jun 16 20:50:00 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:50:00 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just a tidbit about the Lakhota articles. Yes, they too can function as clause-finals, but I've never studied them systematically in that role. The ordinarly definite article, ki, can be translated 'if' in clause final position, and generally marks a future or non-real clause. The other one which we gloss as 'the aforesaid', k7uN, marks either a past-before-the-past clause (English aux. "had" + past ppl) or a strong assertion of truth. When kids are having the kind of argument that in English goes "did not." "did so." "did not." "did so." the Lakhota equivalent is "s^ni." "k7uN." "s^ni". "k7uN." I know these aren't quite the same as what we usually refer to as evidentials, but they do constitute a use of the articles to indicate the degree of confidence the speaker has in the reality of the clause. There is little doubt in my mind that the article and the particle are the same morpheme, but I would need to muse a long time, I think, before coming up with either a semantic or a functional description that covers what seems to me as an English speaker to be "both" of those roles. I do think it's related to the fact that the difference between nouns and verbs is very slippery in these languages, at least in the lexicon. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jun 16 22:27:30 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:27:30 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Just a tidbit about the Lakhota articles. Yes, they too can function as > clause-finals, but I've never studied them systematically in that role. > The ordinarly definite article, ki, can be translated 'if' in clause final > position, and generally marks a future or non-real clause. This sounds an awful lot like Omaha-Ponca =kki 'if, when', although the sound correspondence is wrong, i.e., OP kki should correspond to Da *khi, and Dakota ki should correspond to OP *gi. Perhaps OP has an underlying cluster of some origin in =kki: ??kki < -X-ki. As an aside, there are a couple of OP words with final -gi of obscure provenance, e.g., wakkaNda 'god, powerful spirit' vs. wakkaNdagi 'watermonster' and in some Dhegiha languages, if I recall, 'doctor, magician'. There's at least one other -gi word sort of like this, that I forget. > The other one which we gloss as 'the aforesaid', k7uN, marks either a > past-before-the-past clause (English aux. "had" + past ppl) or a strong > assertion of truth. This reminds me of the development of 'been' as 'long since, already, definitely' in AAVE. > I know these aren't quite the same as what we usually refer to as > evidentials, but they do constitute a use of the articles to indicate > the degree of confidence the speaker has in the reality of the clause. > There is little doubt in my mind that the article and the particle are > the same morpheme, but I would need to muse a long time, I think, before > coming up with either a semantic or a functional description that covers > what seems to me as an English speaker to be "both" of those roles. Well, an article and a conjunction like *when* or *if* both express information status. *The* in English tags something as a reference previously made, or clear from the context, 'the man I mentioned' or 'the bathroom', 'the steering wheel', etc. And *if* definitely covers the ground 'grant me that something might be true or might exist', while *when* essentially refers to a definite event, pre-existing, or unquestioned, if not previously mentioned. 'The man I mentioned' is more like a *when* situation and 'the steering wheel' is more like an *if* situation. Exx. If I can find time, I'll come visit. The time/occasion being found, I'll come visit. If there are footprints, they must have gone that way. There being footprints/the footprints being (there), they must have gone that way. The first of these is a *the* situation, I think, while the second is a *khe* situation. The first of these is also a future situation (a 'shall surely' situation?), whereas if it were past: If he found the time, he visited you. The time being found, he visited you. => It seems that he found the (*the*) time. (The evidence is the visit.) Or from the footprint example. It seems that there were some (*khe*) footprints. (They could be seen.) By extension (maybe): It seems that they went that way (*khe*) (The evidence is the implicit line of footprints.) ---- I wonder if there's any parallel here to the Algonquian conjunct order? My recollection is that these tend to occur in subordinated clauses, but in some languages in some narratives most clauses are conjunct. In some languages the conjunct replaces the independent, in fact. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 17 02:42:31 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:42:31 -0600 Subject: Another Patient-Subject Verb Message-ID: Here's an interesting Omaha-Ponca patient subject example that I found in Dorsey's 1891 Omaha and Ponka Letters collection, p. 78, in a the Notes to a letter from Gihaz^i (Samuel White) to Cornelius Rickman. Gihaz^i delivered an English preface to his letter in which he stated that he had been having problems with sore eyes, but "Now my eyes are well, and I am in good health." Dorsey offers as the Omaha equivalent: Is^ta'=dhaN aNgi'gdhaska, iN'udaN. eyes the my own are well it's good for me The form aNgi'gdhaska agrees with the speaker using the patient marker aN, though is^ta'=dhaN 'the eyes' is in patient form, too, to judge by the article. (It might also be an obviative subject, I guess, though the verb doesn't take an plural marking.) The verb stem is a suus gigdhaska 'one's own to be clear', from gaska 'to strike clear', probably here 'to become clear', following partially the pattern of u-ga-X stems meaning 'to become X colored'. Dorsey renders the form literally as 'mine is white again', primarily refering to the cornea and secondarily to the sight. Compare 1890:690.8 Wi' naNxi'de aN'ska=xti I hearing it is very good for me I have excellent hearing JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 17 03:12:22 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:12:22 -0600 Subject: Dorsey's Footnotes Message-ID: As in the preceding posting, Dorsey's footnotes can be very interesting. For example, in the Omaha and Ponka Letters, p. 93: "The style is not that of the usual Ponka, e.g., ittaNge wiwitta t?e, instead of wittaNge iNt?e; ...; wa?u witta t?e, instead of wa?u=s^ti iNt?e; though both forms are used, fide G[eorge Miller], an Omaha." Here we see an early use of the possessive pronoun instead of the inalienable possessive prefix and a dative sibject verb. Or, p. 101-2: "Hexaka-mani's mother was an Omaha. He is the chief of a Yankton gens. When the author met him at the Omaha Agency in 1878, he found that H-m coul read and write his native tongue, the Yankton dialect of the Dakota. In the course of an hour H-m learned the aditional characters required for writing Omaha, and after his return home he sent the accompanying Omaha letter written in detached syllables. Being a Yankton he is used to writing k before d, so in writing Omaha he retained the k (instead of using g) before the [cent sign] (=dh)." (Here dh is actually Dorsey's spelling. P. 105 "The two letters dictated by this Indian [Ttenuga-zi] are peculiar (i.e., unique) in the number of English words adopted." (The words seem to be used to further specify more generic Omaha equivalents like IttigaNdhai Commissioner" 'the Commissioner grandfather (senior or non-local official)' or unaN's^taN depot 'the stopping place depot'. P. 109 Points out an instance of 'you see' as dhas^taNbe, i.e., doubly inflected, which is today the norm, but then noteworthy. P. 116-117 IhaN=khe e=da'=daN iz^a'z^e adhiN e'=iN=the gmo the what name she had perhaps "IhaN=khe [the reclining grandmother] is used because the old woman's mother's body was laid in the grave years ago, and is regarded as still reclining." And notice that khe is here used with a subject, abeit apparently an obviative one. P. 95 "S^ahiedha was a Yankton by birth. He married a Ponka woman and was adopted into the tribe." In Cheyenne's letter occurs makhaN "maka'" 'medicine', in Dakota form, which Dorsey notes would be makkaN "maka" in usual usage. The letter is otherwise in OP form, and it's not clear if there are other trace of a Dakota "accent" that Dorsey (or I) may have missed. Note that Dorsey's printed orthography is different from his usage in his fieldnotes, which was a sort of extended Riggs system, so it's not clear to me what he wrote that he latter rendered as "k." Probably just that, but I'm not sure. I haven't really begun to touch on the significance of the notes (and the letters) to historical issues, or matters of sociolinguistics, except perhaps in mentioning some examples of intermarriage and mutual influence of languages. Dorsey often comments on the degree of facility of the individual in English or other languages, as well as relationships, name changes, and the like. In regard to the last, he often seems to have updated names to reflect the time of publication as opposed to the time of recording, something I discovered in examining some of his fieldnotes (thanks to Dr. Archambault of the NAA). JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 17 22:52:37 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:52:37 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > I think we have to have both a general name, for which positionals might > do, and a functional name, for uses in particular contexts. The contexts > for the the/khe/dhaN/ge set that I know of are: > > - simple evidential with independent (?) sentence: [ ... verb-(PLUR)-EVID > ...] > - future of surity (shall surely ...): [... verb tta-(PLUR)-EVID ...] > - when clauses: [... verb EVID]-(POSTPOSITION) > - articles (NP)-(DEM)-EVID-(POSTPOSITION) > - INDEFINITE/INTERROGATIVE-EVID-POSTPOSITION as 'where?' > - e-the 'may' and e-the-gaN 'maybe' "modals" I omitted here one more modal: - e-iN-the 'perhaps' Note that I think that the iN in this form may be the OP reflex of the iN that occurs as part of the Dakota future/irrealis -iNkt- (or -ktA conditioning iN, in a more traditional analysis). It would be nice if this were e-iN-tte, but I'm pretty sure it's eiNthe. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 17 22:57:57 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:57:57 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > If he found the time, he visited you. > The time being found, he visited you. > > => > > It seems that he found the (*the*) time. (The evidence is the visit.) > > Or from the footprint example. > > It seems that there were some (*khe*) footprints. (They could be seen.) > > By extension (maybe): > > It seems that they went that way (*khe*) (The evidence is the implicit > line of footprints.) The main problem with this sort of analysis is that in the 'when' uses the order is [reason]=when, consequence, but in the evidential uses the order is [consequence]=EVID, where the set of 'when' and EVID markers are the same. The "evidence" may appear in the consequence clause, or be implicit, but it seems strange that the development isn't more like DEM=when [consequence]. That is, how does the EVID marker hop to the end of the main clause? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jun 18 02:12:03 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:12:03 -0600 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000605091431.00b01468@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > Here's the address for a little tool that we developed at the University of > Victoria to help linguists use phonetic script easily on web > pages: http://web.uvic.ca/lancenrd/ipa/ I thought it might be of use to > some fellow Siouanists. Let me know if there are any characters that > aren't there that you would find useful. However, at this time, we can't > accomodate all the diacritic combinations. I finally got around to checking this out, and it is certainly something anyone planning to use IPA might want to look at. I suspect that it might be a good idea to move the character gif files to a local location and revise the HTML to point to this local location. Otherwise UVIC's site might receive quite a pounding if this approach became widespread. I suppose that froma Siouanist point of view, the characters I miss are the ones that Siouanists use that come out of the Americanist tradition, as opposed to the IPA, e.g., things with haceks and ogoneks. From shanwest at uvic.ca Sun Jun 18 06:08:05 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:08:05 -0700 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 08:12 PM 17/06/00 -0600, you wrote: >On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > > Here's the address for a little tool that we developed at the > University of > > Victoria to help linguists use phonetic script easily on web > > pages: http://web.uvic.ca/lancenrd/ipa/ I thought it might be of use to > > some fellow Siouanists. Let me know if there are any characters that > > aren't there that you would find useful. However, at this time, we can't > > accomodate all the diacritic combinations. > >I finally got around to checking this out, and it is certainly something >anyone planning to use IPA might want to look at. I suspect that it might >be a good idea to move the character gif files to a local location and >revise the HTML to point to this local location. Otherwise UVIC's site >might receive quite a pounding if this approach became widespread. Yes. That is in the plan. We want to let people download the gifs and then change the 'path to graphics' box. (That's why it's there). When it's changed, the html changes as well. >I suppose that froma Siouanist point of view, the characters I miss are >the ones that Siouanists use that come out of the Americanist tradition, >as opposed to the IPA, e.g., things with haceks and ogoneks. I made c, j, s, and z with haceks. What else would you like to see? It's basically my project, so I can add some if you think you'd use it. And what are ogoneks? Shannon West From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Sun Jun 18 23:59:03 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:59:03 +1000 Subject: For web page makers Message-ID: > I made c, j, s, and z with haceks. What else would you like to see? It's > basically my project, so I can add some if you think you'd use it. And > what are ogoneks? Ogonek is what I think John calls the little subscript hook that goes in the opposite direction to a cedilla. They're used for the nasal vowels of Polish (and by Americanists for nasal V's also). Ogonek may be Polish. It always seemed strange to me since in Slavic it should mean "little fire" and in Russian it's always been the name of a variety/humor/satire magazine. Those are all the hacek-ed charx I need, although the Coloradans use h-hacek for [x] and, I think, g-hacek for [gamma] and maybe n-hacek for the velar nasal. Bob From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Jun 19 00:21:13 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:21:13 -0700 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <394D6247.1F70D6F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: At 09:59 AM 19/06/00 +1000, you wrote: > > I made c, j, s, and z with haceks. What else would you like to see? It's > > basically my project, so I can add some if you think you'd use it. And > > what are ogoneks? > >Ogonek is what I think John calls the little subscript hook that goes in the >opposite direction to a cedilla. They're used for the nasal vowels of Polish >(and by Americanists for nasal V's also). Ogonek may be Polish. It always >seemed strange to me since in Slavic it should mean "little fire" and in >Russian >it's always been the name of a variety/humor/satire magazine. Aha! That's what that thing is called! Hmm, so each vowel would need one of those? Or just the basic a e i o u? >Those are all the hacek-ed charx I need, although the Coloradans use >h-hacek for >[x] and, I think, g-hacek for [gamma] and maybe n-hacek for the velar nasal. Those I could definitely add if people want them. I don't want to do a lot of work if no one is interested, but I'd be happy to do it if people will use it. Shannon From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 00:38:09 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:38:09 +1000 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. Message-ID: ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Just a tidbit about the Lakhota articles. Yes, they too can function as > clause-finals, but I've never studied them systematically in that role. > The ordinarly definite article, ki, can be translated 'if' in clause final > position, and generally marks a future or non-real clause. We use nominalized verbs in Englsh with the "if" meaning. "No 'nays' heard, the 'ayes' have it." = "If/since there are no 'nays', the 'ayes' win." Or, "no water (being) available, we'll just have to drink beer." I think that's what's happening in Lakota. The nominalized verb form simply carries with it a variety of additional meanings depending on the verb inflection in the main clause. It can be uncertainty, causation, etc., depending on circimstances. > The other one > which we gloss as 'the aforesaid', k7uN, marks either a > past-before-the-past clause (English aux. "had" + past ppl) or a strong > assertion of truth. When kids are having the kind of argument that in > English goes "did not." "did so." "did not." "did so." the Lakhota > equivalent is "s^ni." "k7uN." "s^ni". "k7uN." I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like a nearly exact equivalent. Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 00:54:41 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:54:41 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: > John's ideas that the/khe/etc. agree with the "evidence" and/or have some > aspectual function(marking punctual vs nonpunctual?) seem to work nicely for a > lot of the examples. The existence of person inflection (first person athe) > looks more like grammatical agreement -- and also makes the look more verbal > than I'd have guessed. Maybe we're actually looking at something approaching > serial verb constructions or even a separate superordinate clause. All the animate positionals now have conjugated forms. a-nihe, a-thaN, m-iNkhe, and presumably either a-khe or mi-khe (the latter for sure in Quapaw for -khe). So they've gone from being Proto-Siouan verb roots 'sit, stand, lie' to classificatory demonstratives in Mandan, classifiers in Dakotan, classificatory articles in Dhegiha and then back to being conjugated verbs in Dhegiha. Full circle. I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms. > > "What I find unclear is still whether or not they are evidentials." I'm still asking that question. This is something that really begs for fresh field work. Maybe Kathy can try contrasting the forms with -abiama and -abi-{positional}-ama (if I got the syntax right there) to see what differences in meaning there are. She could start with John's examples from the JOD texts. It's clear that the positionals have undergone massive amounts of additional grammaticalization in Dhegiha and that we're only beginning to understand some of them. I agree with Catherine that -abiama, to use the Omaha form, is similar to Balkan hearsay. I'm a lot less clear on the function of the positionals in the same complex. Turkish -ti/-mi$ is just the Turkish way of rendering the Balkan hearsay distinction. And it's probably the origin of it. Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 02:08:39 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:08:39 +1000 Subject: For web page makers Message-ID: Shannon West wrote: > Aha! That's what that thing is called! Hmm, so each vowel would need one > of those? Or just the basic a e i o u? For me, just the five. People like Iroquoianists might need more. Like maybe a turned [v] with a hook and an epsilon or ae=digraph with the hook. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 15:25:12 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:25:12 -0600 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000617230002.00e1ea90@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > I made c, j, s, and z with haceks. What else would you like to see? It's Oops, sorry! I didn't have the list in front of me by the time I got to writing the response and assumed it was pure IPA, based on the forms I'd focussed on. But,,, apart from this set, I've seen hacek used with n (for a nasalized r in Winnebago, by Ken Miner), and with g (for gamma, by the Colorado Lakhota Project). > basically my project, so I can add some if you think you'd use it. And > what are ogoneks? Ogonek is nasal hook. I noticed tildes, but not hooks. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 15:49:15 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:49:15 -0600 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <394D6247.1F70D6F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > ... the Coloradans use h-hacek for [x] ... Oops, yes, I forgot. Sorry, David (and Eli and Neva and Allan)! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 15:55:43 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:55:43 -0600 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000618170438.00aa5120@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > Aha! That's what that thing is called! Hmm, so each vowel would need one > of those? Or just the basic a e i o u? Maybe it means 'flame'? I think I got it from a reputable source, but it's well known on the Web that my Slavic etymologies are weak. Anyway, for most Siouan languages, aiou suffice, but e occurs in various primary sources for various reasons. For Tanoan you need ae and open o, too, I think, plus all the other vowels, in combination with acute, grave, and circumflex. Also with capitals you ever plan to work with texts of any size. The Tanoanists, of course, are on their own as far as this list is concerned :-) but I keep having to worry about them personally, and I can report that their vowel systems are a real nuisance. You can't even fit them into the "wastage" in a standard-sized font, at least if you want capitals. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 15:58:27 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:27 -0600 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. In-Reply-To: <394D6B71.98B5B8F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > a nearly exact equivalent. How about that little dhaN 'past' auxiliary in Dhegiha, cf. OP =the=dhaN EVID (or whatever)-in the past? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 16:03:43 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:03:43 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <394D6F51.C61E0F19@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the > inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms. I had't either, so I was pretty surprised at the following. I can't think what that a- is if not first person. Note first person inflection of article *the* as *athe* in next set. Na! agdha'the athe', e'= ama. Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say. Na! agdha'sniN=kki az^aN' athe', e'= ama. Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say jod 1890:63.5-6 I posted these before, but I realize some of my posts must get long enough that they get skipped over with glazed eyes. These are also interesting in being (some of the) examples in which the evidential is glossed with 'must have' in what is clearly the evidential sense for English. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 16:11:03 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:11:03 -0600 Subject: For web page makers (fwd) Message-ID: Here's something I sent aside in response to a query on using Unicode for Web sites: Unicode is missing precomposed combinations for things like vowel plus nasal hook plus accent. They only offer precomposed combinations with diacritics for things that occur in (mostly) European(-originating) languages. Doing so was part of the compromise that got them together with the European ISO committee. Their original scheme, on which linguists must still rely is to provide sequences of base character symbols and diacritics symbols, I think with the diacritics preceding, but I forget. Unfortunately, most early implementations that I have seen blythely ignore this, and one that didn't that I looked at produced grossly inferior looking results for combinations, sort of like what WP (for DOS or early Windows?) used to do, with spidery lines for the diacritics. ---- The problem with a Unicode web site is the problem with any Web site that uses other than the cross-section of standard Unix and Windows characters that the Web standard recognizes. People at sites without those characters can't see anything. For example, at a Unix site you can't see some of the fairly innocent things (s-hacek?) that Wayne Leman uses in his Cheyenne site, because those characters aren't available in the usual Unix set (in the US). What you see instead is a helpful blank. (Incidentally, WL is aware of this, but feels, reasonably, that most of his readers will be using Windows systems.) The problem is that though the poster of a Web pages gets to see it as intended fully populated with local fonts, the receiver can only see it that way of the receiver has all the same fonts. Web pages are rendered with the aid of browser-local fonts. So, until all sites support Unicode, which means until all Unix and Windows (and Mac. etc.) sites support Unicode in at least their Web browsers, Unicode is not going to help at the receiving end. Moreover, for our purposes they have to support not just precomposition, but composition of combinations by local rendering, so that when they see a sequence ogonek acute a they render it as an accented a with a nasal hook. --- There is an alternative, which I have been meaning to look at. The road to hell is paved with uncompleted projects. This alternative is a scheme put forward by Bitstream and Netscape to support downloadable fonts. These fonts slow down the page, because they have to be downloaded, if not present in the browser environment, but they do get downloaded and used if they are missing. They are secure, so they can't be used locally except in conjunction with Web browsing. They are supported natively by Netscape browsers, and there is a plugin that gets automatically dowloaded into MS Internet Explorer that supports them there. The one glitch I know of so far is that making this plugin downloadable requires the support and cooperation of the people maintaining the Web server (not just the Web pages), at the distributing site. The other glitch (of sorts) is that the tool that makes the fonts from regular TrueType fonts costs c. $200.00. It is possible to download a trial version of it that will make one or two fonts. It has been my intention to test this out on the Standard Siouan fonts, but I haven't gotten around to it. Of course, if you are, say, using a PC browser on a system that has the Standard Siouan fonts installed, and browsing pages that are coded in these fonts (among others) you should see the pages in Standard Siouan characters. At least this is the theory. Jan has discovered some problem combinations, though I don't remember the specifics at the moment. The advantage of this approach over the approach of representing each character as a gif file, which is what Shannon has set up, is that the html files use a single character to represent a character, instead of using a graphics file download instruction. Also, though I haven't tried and don't know the details, I'd think that the downloading might be faster. Note: MS also has a downloadable fonts scheme, but it doesn't work with Netscape, and may not work with all versions of MSIE, e.g., the Unix one, though the Mac version of MSIE is also supposed to be somewhat impoverished, feature-wise (incipient case suffix in English!). From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Mon Jun 19 16:20:07 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:20:07 -0600 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. In-Reply-To: <394D6B71.98B5B8F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: > > > > The other one > > which we gloss as 'the aforesaid', k7uN, marks either a > > past-before-the-past clause (English aux. "had" + past ppl) or a strong > > assertion of truth. When kids are having the kind of argument that in > > English goes "did not." "did so." "did not." "did so." the Lakhota > > equivalent is "s^ni." "k7uN." "s^ni". "k7uN." > > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > a nearly exact equivalent. That seems very far-fetched semantically to me for the article meaning. Perhaps you should also know that plain ?uN is apparently in free variation with k?uN. If you're looking for compounding, I'd look instead at the postposition ?uN 'with; because", but even that doesnt' make semantic sense to me. David From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 18:10:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:10:35 -0600 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > > a nearly exact equivalent. > > How about that little dhaN 'past' auxiliary in Dhegiha, cf. OP =the=dhaN > EVID (or whatever)-in the past? If I recall correctly, Bob Rankin reports this in Quapaw in an inflected form something like 1/2/3 maN, z^aN, naN (???) with the reading 'used to'. In OP there are just those sporadic -dhaN 'past' glosses by Dorsey. It doesn't always occur after the evidential, as far as I can recollect. The Quapaw form also reminds me of the 1/2/3 maN/z^aN/(aN) auxiliary that must follow post-verbal =xti 'truely, very' and =s^naN ~ =hnaN ~ =naN (progressive phonological developments) 'only, exclusively, habitually', which may be connected with the aN that appears as maN in the first person only of =(a)z^i NEGATIVE: =m=az^i (=maN=z^i?) 'I + NEG'. The only -aN wandering around unclaimed that I can recall is the one in =(s^te)s^te(w(aN)) 'soever'. From BARudes at aol.com Mon Jun 19 23:15:45 2000 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:15:45 EDT Subject: For web page makers Message-ID: No, just a, e, o, u with nasal hook will suffice for Iroquoianists; however, we use a lot of other special characters that I won't even mention here (unless asked). Blair From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 23:33:52 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:33:52 +1000 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. Message-ID: > > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > > a nearly exact equivalent. > > How about that little dhaN 'past' auxiliary in Dhegiha, cf. OP =the=dhaN > EVID (or whatever)-in the past? That's the doublet of the Omaha-Ponca reflex of *?uN: 'do' It is conjugated as an auxiliary still in Quapaw, and, I suspect, the other dialects. m-aN 'I do/did' z^-aN 'you do/did' naN 's/he does/did' with the epenthetic n/dh/y in the 3rd person. The epenthetic glide in the 3rd person is the only thing that distinguishes the AUX from the main verb as far as I can tell. That, plus it's syntactic function, of course. In Quapaw texts it nearly always has an "imperfective" meaning, i.e., is best translated 'used to'. In OP it would be homophonous with the sitting inanimate dhaN. In Quapaw it is homophonous with the habitual naN but this is only because Dorsey didn't transcribe initial voiceless nasals. Habitual is really hnaN in QU < *shnaN. These all occupy different enclitic slots. Habitual precedes -abe/i 'pl' and what I've called 'imperfective' here is nearly always in the rightmost slot, following 'pl.' Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 23:42:41 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:42:41 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: > > I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the > > inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms. > > I had't either, so I was pretty surprised at the following. I can't think > what that a- is if not first person. > Na! agdha'the athe', e'= ama. > Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say. > ------------ > Na! agdha'sniN=kki az^aN' athe', e'= ama. > Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say > jod 1890:63.5-6 I was thinking of those as examples of -tte/-tta 'potential mode' with the confusion of th/tt that Dorsey evinced early on. Quapaw has similar usages, but they're all transcribed with the symbol JOD used for tt in that language (around 1890). Quapaw doubles up the tte sometimes, and you find ttaitte and the like. They always get some sort of conditional or modal translation. I was assuming it was the same morpheme as what we erroniously call 'future tense' in other words. I think we agreed a long time ago that it's some sort of irrealis or potential mode marker derived from 'want' (which meaning it still has in Hidatsa and Biloxi as I recall). How confident are you of Dorsey's transcription here? Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 23:50:02 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:50:02 +1000 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. Message-ID: > > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > > a nearly exact equivalent. > > That seems very far-fetched semantically to me for the article > meaning. Perhaps you should also know that plain ?uN is apparently in free > variation with k?uN. If you're looking for compounding, I'd look instead > at the postposition ?uN 'with; because", but even that doesnt' make > semantic sense to me. *?uN has been grammaticalized or seim-grammaticalized with these 'past' (or perfect/imperfect) notions in a number of languages, often leaving doublets. I just posted a note on this construction in the Dhegiha languages, but there are similar usages in Biloxi. As I recall Winnebago also uses it (ut I wouldn't want to be held to that without checking). There's also the peculiar translations of ?uN as 'be' rather than 'do' in a number of languages. I've never tried to sort those out, but they exist. I certainly don't find it any more far fetched than "do support" in English. Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 20 00:45:37 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:45:37 +1000 Subject: Quapaw potential mode. Message-ID: wie naN-hi aN-o- ki- ttoN-we tta-i-tte- naN, 1sg alone-EMP 1PAT-in-BEN-depend-PL POT-?-POT-as Me alone just me they depend would as Since they would be depending on just me alone, wi-tteke o-a-ki-we-bda-bda a-b-di$taN. my-mo.bro in-1AGT-BEN-INDF-1AGT-work-1AGT-work on-AGT-stop my mother’s brother I work-work I ceased I stopped working for my (maternal) uncle. The exact structure and meaning of the compounded potential particles, tta-í-tte is unclear, unless maybe the second -tte is perhaps -the, your 'evidential'. For Dorsey, the meaning resulted in the meaning ‘would’. Even a single instance of POTENTIAL ASPECT used in this past scenario yields ‘would’ as the best English translation, since reference is to the future in the past. (see next eg.) The next sentence occurs earlier in the same autobiography. koíçôttà wittéke wákiwébdabdá tte. at that point in time, my mother’s brother I for him work-work would At that point in time I would go to work for my (maternal) uncle. POTENTIAL MODE used in this past scenario yields ‘would’ as the best English translation, since reference is to the future in the past. From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 20 00:54:25 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:54:25 +1000 Subject: Corrected Quapaw. Message-ID: Sorry, I forgot to alter the font on my second example of Quapaw potential mode. koi$oNttaN, wi-tteke o-a-ki-we-bda-bda tte. at that point in time, my mother’s brother I for him work-work would At that point in time I would go to work for my (maternal) uncle. that should be more readable. I hope. Bob From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 20 01:38:55 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:38:55 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: <394EB1AA.6018693@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: Bob, As you know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop. Surely glottal stops don't pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants???? That makes it even more unlikely that this is the second element of k?uN 'the aforementioned; past completed', since the /?/ doesn't belong there. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 20 06:03:58 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:03:58 +1000 Subject: new track: ?uN Message-ID: I'm afraid it's Dakotan that's out of step on this one. As far as I can tell (and I could easily be corrected), in the languages that have both, 'do' and 'be' should behave exactly the same and may well be the same verb in a pan-Siouan context. Dakotan is peculiar in that it seems to have mixed up reflexes of 'be' and 'use'. It "should" have the mu, nu, etc. conjugation for 'be' (and *perhaps* use the regular wa-, ya- allomorphs with 'use'. At least 'use' should be different because it has a prefix historically.) 'Use' is really *i-?uN 'to do with'. Most of the other languages have clear reflexes of the expected *i- 'instrument', and I've never been able to figure out why Dakotan doesn't. By the way, I still can't account for the fact that 'be' and 'do' seem to be the same. It bothers me semantically, but I think the conjugations are the same. > Bob, As you know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope > I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you > treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': > > mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' > nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' > ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' > uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' > > In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has > an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop. Surely glottal stops don't > pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants???? > > That makes it even more unlikely that this is the second element of k?uN > 'the aforementioned; past completed', since the /?/ doesn't belong there. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu From soup at vm.inext.cz Tue Jun 20 06:59:57 2000 From: soup at vm.inext.cz (SOUP) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:59:57 +0200 Subject: For web page makers (haceks and ogoneks) Message-ID: Just if you are interested in the etymologies of ogonek and hacek: on 19 June 2000 Bob wrote > Ogonek is what I think John calls the little subscript hook that > goes in the opposite direction to a cedilla. > They're used for the nasal vowels of Polish > (and by Americanists for nasal V's also). Ogonek may be Polish. > It always seemed strange to me since in Slavic it should > mean "little fire" and in Russian > it's always been the name of a variety/humor/satire magazine. on 18 June 2000 John wrote > Maybe it means 'flame'? I think I got it from a reputable source, but Ogonek comes from Polish and it means "little tail" (from ogon - "tail"), apparently giving the idea of a vowel having a tail. "Fire" is "ogien^" in Polish. Russian for fire is ogo'n^ I am not sure what the diminutive would be, but assume ogo'n^ok. Hacek (originally ha'c^ek) comes from Czech and it means "little hook" (from ha'k - hook). Haceks were invented by a Czech priest and scholar by the name of Jan Hus hwo was burned at a stake as a heretic in July 1415. By haceks he wanted to simplify the Czech transcription that used digraphs untill then (cz for c^, sz for s^, rz for r^ etc.). He also invented the stress mark and thus changed "aa" for a' an so on. It did simplify the transcription, but in the age of computers, fonts and Internet one wonders whether it would have been better to keep the digraphs. Hopefully Unicode will solve this soon. Jan From soup at vm.inext.cz Tue Jun 20 08:20:34 2000 From: soup at vm.inext.cz (SOUP) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:20:34 +0200 Subject: For web page makers (Unicode vs. SS font) Message-ID: on 19 June 2000 Koontz John E wrote > There is an alternative, which I have been meaning to look at. The road > to hell is paved with uncompleted projects. This alternative is a scheme > put forward by Bitstream and Netscape to support downloadable fonts. > These fonts slow down the page, because they have to be downloaded, if not > present in the browser environment, but they do get downloaded and used if > they are missing. They are secure, so they can't be used locally except > in conjunction with Web browsing. They are supported natively by Netscape > browsers, and there is a plugin that gets automatically dowloaded into MS > Internet Explorer that supports them there. The one glitch I know of so > far is that making this plugin downloadable requires the support and > cooperation of the people maintaining the Web server (not just the Web > pages), at the distributing site. I have played with the SS font and tried to use it as downloadable, but I haven't been successful. It worked with other fonts with special characters but not wit the SS font. > Of course, if you are, say, using a PC browser on a system that has the > Standard Siouan fonts installed, and browsing pages that are coded in > these fonts (among others) you should see the pages in Standard Siouan > characters. At least this is the theory. Jan has discovered some problem > combinations, though I don't remember the specifics at the moment. The problem was that the SS font had to be set in TOOLS/OPTIONS/FONTS (for MS IE). After this it works just all right. Yet not only the siouan text but all texts on all sites are displayed in the SS font and since it doesn't look as "smooth" as other fonts on the screen, it is better to re-set the TOOLS/OPTIONS/FONTS for, lets say, Times New Roman. Visiting such siouan site thus requires constant setting and re-setting. I had some reports that the setting wasn't necessary in Win NT and in Netscape (although some Netscape users could not see the character at all). > The advantage of this approach over the approach of representing each > character as a gif file, which is what Shannon has set up, is that the > html files use a single character to represent a character, instead of > using a graphics file download instruction. Also, though I haven't tried > and don't know the details, I'd think that the downloading might be > faster. Yes, I too am a bit skeptical as concerns the downloading speed of the gif files in large text sites. And also the convenience of "typing" long texts with the gif files (but I haven't taken a real close look at it). > Unicode is missing precomposed combinations for things like vowel plus > nasal hook plus accent. There are other faults of Unicode - sites that use it cannot be searched for words containing the special siouan characters. You simply can't type the character into the "find-box". Such a site thus looses one of its most relevant purposes. Shannon's gif files would not work for this either. But I think the Standard Siouan font would - if one knows the characters' codes and types them into the find-box. > The problem with a Unicode web site is the problem with any Web site that > uses other than the cross-section of standard Unix and Windows characters > that the Web standard recognizes. People at sites without those > characters can't see anything. For example, at a Unix site you can't see > some of the fairly innocent things (s-hacek?) that Wayne Leman uses in his > Cheyenne site, because those characters aren't available in the usual Unix > set (in the US). What you see instead is a helpful blank. (Incidentally, > WL is aware of this, but feels, reasonably, that most of his readers will > be using Windows systems.) > The problem is that though the poster of a Web pages gets to see it as > intended fully populated with local fonts, the receiver can only see it > that way of the receiver has all the same fonts. Web pages are rendered > with the aid of browser-local fonts. I have been working on a web site with siouan texts. At first I used John's Standard Siouan font, but it required downloading, instaling and setting in the browsers options (and even after that it would not work with all browsers). I thought this number of steps would discourage most visitors. So I have changed the site into Unicode. You can see the result on www.inext.cz/siouan . I got reports that the special characters are well seen by users of MS IE, but not always by those who use Netscape. I would be interested in reports from your ends of the line. >>From all that has been said it seems to me that the Standard Siouan font would be the best solution if it is made automatically downloadable. Jan F. Ullrich From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 20 13:52:17 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:52:17 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: <394F094E.E40390C1@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: A couple of things I need to point out in case people reading this exchange don't know Dakotan very well. First, the mu, nu 'use' set is NOT using the stative prefix set -- you can say ma?uN 'he used me'; so historically these prefixes are active, but show the reduced form of the pronoun (which would be /b/ beofre a /y/ or an oral vowel), nasalized because of the following nasal vowel. Second, the meaning 'be' is not a copula (you all knew that, of course), but 'exist', and in language after language which has an active/stative intransitive verb distinction, the 'exist' verb is always active, contrary to my English-speaking expectations. Now as to the semantics of "be" and "do" in the same verb, I can see some kind of connection though a path like do>act>active>lively>living>exist; cf. Latin ago and English 'agitated', perhaps. where "lively" might even be unnecessary. Note also that there is an auxiliary use of ?uN 'be' in Lakhota similar to that of haN but with a different set of verbs -- a student of mine started to investigate this once, but didn't get very far and I've forgotten just what he did find out. I don't know whether the auxiliary use is connected or not, but there's another spot where 'be' and 'do' could overlap. I better quit. I'm usually the one to object to any kind of speculative semantic path suggestions....must have been something odd in the coffee this morning. I'm still not at all content with deriving k?uN 'the aforementioned' from ki+?uN. The syntax of finding a verb in that position is weird, and those semantic suggestions don't fit my intuitions at all. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 14:04:27 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:04:27 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <394EAFF1.78CFB38@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > > I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the > > > inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms. > > > > I had't either, so I was pretty surprised at the following. I can't think > > what that a- is if not first person. > > Na! agdha'the athe', e'= ama. > > Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say. > > ------------ > > Na! agdha'sniN=kki az^aN' athe', e'= ama. > > Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say > > jod 1890:63.5-6 > > I was thinking of those as examples of -tte/-tta 'potential mode' with the > confusion of th/tt that Dorsey evinced early on. Quapaw has similar usages, > but they're all transcribed with the symbol JOD used for tt in that language > (around 1890). Quapaw doubles up the tte sometimes, and you find ttaitte and > the like. They always get some sort of conditional or modal translation. I > was assuming it was the same morpheme as what we erroniously call 'future > tense' in other words. I think we agreed a long time ago that it's some sort > of irrealis or potential mode marker derived from 'want' (which meaning it > still has in Hidatsa and Biloxi as I recall). > > How confident are you of Dorsey's transcription here? Pretty confident. The give away of the aspirate is the breve above the e, i.e., this is ate in both cases. The articles "te" and "ke", and the whens "te" and "ke"0 and the "evidential" "te" as Dorsey spells them for OP are essentially always breved. The breve itself isn't a mark of aspiration, but it seems to be a mark of the combined states lax (not tense) and unstressed. Plus if it were the future, it would be still off that it were inflected, prefixally and not with a following article auxiliary, whereas prefixal inflection like this is not odd for articles, albeit it is for inanimate articles. And, in OP, when it's "taite" or "tate" that's the future of surity translated 'shall surely'. In these cases it's always -te, so you don't see the breve, just as with dhiNke, etc., but, I am still pretty sure it is *the*, for the following reasons. First, it never ablauts itself. It is invariant. Second, it always conditions ablaut itself (note "tate", not just "taite", where it's (b)i that conditions the ablaut), and the grade of ablaut it conditions is not the grade that the future conditions, which is e. Third, there are a passel of other "modal" and "evidential" markers with the same structure, all ending in a non-ablauting "te", so that even when you're still wrestling with what might be the underlying sense of all these "te" you're still suspicious that they're possibly connected. Fourth, the plural follows the first syllable, never the second or both. Fifth, and this is a more recently argument, it seems that 'shall surely' can easily be analyzed as 'shall from the evidence, shall evidently, shall seemingly' instead of regular 'shall (by intent or unsupported prediction or polite suggestion), can, irrealis'. Of course, reduplicated future might also express an "intense future" and this was a factor I considered before finally rejecting that notion and settling on the analysis *tta(=i)=the* for these sequences. Naturally, I'd have to be a bit timid about asserting things for Quapaw, but I'm inclined to think that Dorsey's transcriptions must have enough wiggle room that your ttaitte is probably a *ttaithe* with a similar analysis to the OP formation. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 14:15:43 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:15:43 -0600 Subject: Quapaw potential mode. In-Reply-To: <394EBEB1.D220D20D@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > wie naN-hi aN-o- ki- ttoN-we tta-i-tte- naN, > 1sg alone-EMP 1PAT-in-BEN-depend-PL POT-?-POT-as > Me alone just me they depend would as > Since they would be depending on just me alone, > > wi-tteke o-a-ki-we-bda-bda a-b-di$taN. > my-mo.bro in-1AGT-BEN-INDF-1AGT-work-1AGT-work on-AGT-stop > my mother�s brother I work-work I ceased > I stopped working for my (maternal) uncle. > > The exact structure and meaning of the compounded potential particles, > tta-�-tte is unclear, unless maybe the second -tte is perhaps -the, your > 'evidential'. For Dorsey, the meaning resulted in the meaning �would�. I'd read it 'since it appeared that they would be depending on me alone' or 'since I concluded that they would be depending on me alone'. I'm assuming that he quit working for his uncle because more immediate responsibilities developed. In other words, what is presumably the analog of OP *the* here adds something more than the potential. Of course, focussing on the evidential sense heavily in the translation might not be appropriate for literary purposes, any more than rendering a gender marker as 'the male/female' would be in translating from a gender language like English into a Dhegiha language, e.g., "she" does not require 'the woman' in the translation, though the Omahas I worked with liked to put it in in translating examples for me. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 14:22:41 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:22:41 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Bob, As you know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope > I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you > treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': > > mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' > nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' > ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' > uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' There isn't any contrast like this in Omaha. In notice the 'be' form here compounds with e=c^ha in the inclusive. Of course, there really isn't any 'be' usage of an aN in Omaha-Ponca, either, just those various auxiliary uses. > In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has > an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop. Surely glottal stops don't > pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants???? Here's where Dick Carter or Mauricio Mixco might be able to say something, though I wouldn't blame him for not wanting to touch this with a ten foot pole - wouldn't ki(N)-uN be likely to be kuN? ?< k?uN ?< ki(N)?uN in typical Mandan developments? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 14:27:14 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:27:14 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': > > mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' > nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' > ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' > uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' In OP aN is both 'do' (in compounds and as auxiliary) and 'use', as far as I can recall. maN egimaN z^aN egiz^aN aN egaN do, use be so From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Tue Jun 20 14:29:20 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:29:20 -0500 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: Just a tiny request... could people please sign their posts? I've been following this discussion with interest, but it's sometimes hard to tell who is saying what... Thanks, Catherine By the way, I'm not always good at hearing aspiration, but I'm pretty sure I've always heard the Omaha "future" tta=i=the with an aspirated th in the last part. And aren't there examples of tta=i=khe etc. too? It sure looks like potential+evidential instead of double potential to me. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 20 15:06:29 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:06:29 -0600 Subject: Correction in the data Message-ID: Sorry -- I was relying too hard on my memory and my hypotheses when I didn't have references at hand last night. Both 'be' and 'do;use' have a glottalized "k" in the first person dual; so that form is not diagnostic of anything in either verb. uNk?uN 'we use it'; ec^huNk?uN 'we do it' uNk?uN 'we are' David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 20 15:08:48 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:08:48 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry again -- John has found another mistake caused by me trying to do this too late and too fast. the 'we are' form is properly uNk?uN not ec^huNk?un. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > Bob, As you know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope > > I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you > > treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are > > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': > > > > mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' > > nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' > > ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' > > uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' > > There isn't any contrast like this in Omaha. In notice the 'be' form here > compounds with e=c^ha in the inclusive. Of course, there really isn't any > 'be' usage of an aN in Omaha-Ponca, either, just those various auxiliary > uses. > > > In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has > > an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop. Surely glottal stops don't > > pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants???? > > Here's where Dick Carter or Mauricio Mixco might be able to say something, > though I wouldn't blame him for not wanting to touch this with a ten foot > pole - wouldn't ki(N)-uN be likely to be kuN? ?< k?uN ?< ki(N)?uN in > typical Mandan developments? > > From shanwest at uvic.ca Tue Jun 20 15:55:05 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:55:05 -0700 Subject: For web page makers (Unicode vs. SS font) In-Reply-To: <005401bfda90$8f1188a0$87006fd4@default> Message-ID: At 10:20 AM 20/06/00 +0200, you wrote: >on 19 June 2000 Koontz John E wrote > > > There is an alternative, which I have been meaning to look at. The road > > to hell is paved with uncompleted projects. This alternative is a scheme > > put forward by Bitstream and Netscape to support downloadable fonts. > > These fonts slow down the page, because they have to be downloaded, if not > > present in the browser environment, but they do get downloaded and used if > > they are missing. They are secure, so they can't be used locally except > > in conjunction with Web browsing. They are supported natively by Netscape > > browsers, and there is a plugin that gets automatically dowloaded into MS > > Internet Explorer that supports them there. The one glitch I know of so > > far is that making this plugin downloadable requires the support and > > cooperation of the people maintaining the Web server (not just the Web > > pages), at the distributing site. > >I have played with the SS font and tried to use it as downloadable, but I >haven't been successful. It worked with other fonts with special characters >but not wit the SS font. > > > Of course, if you are, say, using a PC browser on a system that has the > > Standard Siouan fonts installed, and browsing pages that are coded in > > these fonts (among others) you should see the pages in Standard Siouan > > characters. At least this is the theory. Jan has discovered some problem > > combinations, though I don't remember the specifics at the moment. > >The problem was that the SS font had to be set in TOOLS/OPTIONS/FONTS (for >MS IE). After this it works just all right. Yet not only the siouan text but >all texts on all sites are displayed in the SS font and since it doesn't >look as "smooth" as other fonts on the screen, it is better to re-set the >TOOLS/OPTIONS/FONTS for, lets say, Times New Roman. Visiting such siouan >site thus requires constant setting and re-setting. >I had some reports that the setting wasn't necessary in Win NT and in >Netscape (although some Netscape users could not see the character at all). That's just it. All these things are good in theory, but often fail in practice. It may not be so in the future, but some people need these things now. > > The advantage of this approach over the approach of representing each > > character as a gif file, which is what Shannon has set up, is that the > > html files use a single character to represent a character, instead of > > using a graphics file download instruction. Also, though I haven't tried > > and don't know the details, I'd think that the downloading might be > > faster. > >Yes, I too am a bit skeptical as concerns the downloading speed of the gif >files in large text sites. And also the convenience of "typing" long texts >with the gif files (but I haven't taken a real close look at it). What I've made wasn't designed for large text sites. However, the gifs I've made are tiny. On a reasonable modem, downloading several hundred of them will take 2 minutes. > > Unicode is missing precomposed combinations for things like vowel plus > > nasal hook plus accent. > >There are other faults of Unicode - sites that use it cannot be searched for >words containing the special siouan characters. You simply can't type the >character into the "find-box". Such a site thus looses one of its most >relevant purposes. Shannon's gif files would not work for this either. But I >think the Standard Siouan font would - if one knows the characters' codes >and types them into the find-box. But at this time, there is *no* alternative. > > The problem with a Unicode web site is the problem with any Web site that > > uses other than the cross-section of standard Unix and Windows characters > > that the Web standard recognizes. People at sites without those > > characters can't see anything. For example, at a Unix site you can't see > > some of the fairly innocent things (s-hacek?) that Wayne Leman uses in his > > Cheyenne site, because those characters aren't available in the usual Unix > > set (in the US). What you see instead is a helpful blank. (Incidentally, > > WL is aware of this, but feels, reasonably, that most of his readers will > > be using Windows systems.) > > The problem is that though the poster of a Web pages gets to see it as > > intended fully populated with local fonts, the receiver can only see it > > that way of the receiver has all the same fonts. Web pages are rendered > > with the aid of browser-local fonts. > >I have been working on a web site with siouan texts. At first I used John's >Standard Siouan font, but it required downloading, instaling and setting in >the browsers options (and even after that it would not work with all >browsers). I thought this number of steps would discourage most visitors. So >I have changed the site into Unicode. You can see the result on >www.inext.cz/siouan . I got reports that the special characters are well >seen by users of MS IE, but not always by those who use Netscape. I would be >interested in reports from your ends of the line. > > >From all that has been said it seems to me that the Standard Siouan font >would be the best solution if it is made automatically downloadable. Yes, I agree, for strictly Siouan purposes, if the technology worked, this would be the best. However, this chart was commissioned to me by people that want to study not Siouan! *gasp* (There's no accounting for some people's taste). Anyway, it seems that there is no approach that will satisfy all parties involved. At least not yet. The linguists of the world just need to get on the Unicode people's case and get them to include more characters. And eventually unicode will be searchable, I'm sure. Shannon From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 18:49:57 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:49:57 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > In OP aN is both 'do' (in compounds and as auxiliary) and 'use', as far as > I can recall. Examples of maN/z^aN/aN/aNaN as 'to use something': (1) AN'kka=z^hi, ppi'=az^i=s^tes^te=waN s^aN' maN'=tta=miNkhe I-NEG even if it is a bad one yet I will use it jod 1890:165.1-2 No, even if it is a bad one I will use it (maN). (2) NaNb=u'dhixdha ga'=dhaN z^aN', dhagdhe'=tte, Ring that (if) you use you will go homeward jod 1890:190.11 If you use (z^aN) that ring, you'll go home. (3) Ha'az^iNga sa'sa=khe e' aN'=bi=ama cord the broken it was he used, they say jod 1890:165.5 It was the broken cord that he used (aN). (4) Kki, hedh=u'baz^aN aNaN'=tte ha And, swing we will use DECm jod 1890:163.5 We'll use the swing. This person looks rearticulated, though with Dorsey it's not possible to be sure. (5) Another verb 'to use' (regular). Smoking is always a good place to look for interesting morphosyntaxes and glottal-stop stems, though this one sort of fails on both counts! Nini' aiN'=tta=miNkhe Tobacco I will use jod 1890:441.6 I will smoke. Examples of maN/z^aN/aN/aNaN as 'to do something' (6) E=a'=thaN a'=maN wi bdha'th e=the'=daN How I do I I eat apt? jod 1890:60.3 What shall I do so that I may eat? (The a= is the indefinite demonstrative.) (7) ga'=maN=tt e'=skaN=bdh=e'=gaN I will do that I expect [that perhaps I am like to think] jod 1890:257.15 I expect that I will do that (what you saw) (8) E=a'=thaN a=z^aN' aN'dhastage a Why you do that you cluck at me QUEST jod 1890:62.2 Why do you cluck at me? (9) ga'=z^aN e=he'=kki=s^ti you do that when I also said jod 1890:583.6 I also said that if you do that I didn't find any third person examples. (10) S^i, e=da'=daN aNaN'=tte a Aagain what will we do QUEST jod 1890:163.4 Again, what will be do? ======= It looks like the overwhelming tendency is for 'to do something' to have a preposed demonstrative. I've used simple examples, but just about any sequence of DEM + g(i) + aN seems to occur. If the gi is present (contracts to gaN with aN alone), the sense is 'to him'. The verbs have readings 'to do this/that/thus (to someone)'. Without a demonstrative gaghe 'to do, to make' is generally substituted. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 19:03:21 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:03:21 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <002F0CD6.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: > By the way, I'm not always good at hearing aspiration, but I'm pretty sure I've > always heard the Omaha "future" tta=i=the with an aspirated th in the last part. > And aren't there examples of tta=i=khe etc. too? It sure looks like > potential+evidential instead of double potential to me. Well, undeniably what you hear would tend to have pretty heavy weight. I've just never heard it. I do find =tta=khe: >>From my letter on "More Evidentials" ==== In Future of Surity The future of surity 'shall surely' consists of tta FUTURE + the EVIDENTIAL usually. Here is an example or two with tta + khe. I looked for tta + dhaN or tta + ge without any luck. e=da'=daN ua'z^i= tta=khe'= s^ti waN'gidhe oN?i'=i: what I plant will surely too all he has given to me: jod 1890:518.3 MaNdhiN'c^hakki iNs^?a'ge t?e'=tta=khe. Manthin tcaki old man will surely die as he reclines jod 1890:765.8 ... === I think the first of these is actually a relative clause ending in a future, with a =khe type subject, now that I look at it. But I still like the others. JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 20 23:47:37 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:47:37 +1000 Subject: (haceks and ogoneks) Message-ID: > Ogonek comes from Polish and it means "little tail" (from ogon - "tail"), > apparently giving the idea of a vowel having a tail. "Fire" is "ogien^" in > Polish. > Russian for fire is ogo'n^ I am not sure what the diminutive would be, but > assume ogo'n^ok. Yes, that's exactly it. Russian writes it "ogonek" and pronounces it [aganyo'k]. It was also the name of a Soviet-era magazine that I used to have to read articles in as language assignments. Thanks for the clarification. Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 00:18:24 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:18:24 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: > The breve itself isn't a mark of > aspiration, but it seems to be a mark of the combined states lax (not > tense) and unstressed. That's entirely possible, but we also know that Dorsey had a diacritic for short vowels rather than long ones (except extra long, which he writes V+++) like everybody else. I tend to suspect that he was marking mostly what he heard as quality differences and never suspected quantity, but the two probably correlate to a degree as in most languages. But you're right that he also tended to adopt "normalized" spellings that might distinguiush what he heard as homophones, etc. > > Plus if it were the future, it would be still off that it were inflected, > prefixally and not with a following article auxiliary, whereas prefixal > inflection like this is not odd for articles, albeit it is for inanimate > articles. That's assuming the a- is indeed the pronominal. By me it should still be thaN or uninflected. Maybe we can get confirmation from the field. Does Osage have this construction? If it's in Quapaw, it must be or have been in KS and OS. I can't remember any KS analog though. > > And, in OP, when it's "taite" or "tate" that's the future of surity > translated 'shall surely'. In these cases it's always -te, so you > don't see the breve, just as with dhiNke, etc., but, I am still pretty > sure it is *the*, for the following reasons. First, it never ablauts > itself. It is invariant. Second, it always conditions ablaut itself > (note "tate", not just "taite", where it's (b)i that conditions the > ablaut), The -i- of ttaitte (or ttaithe, whichever) is not the plural -bi. It is something else, since it appears as accented -i'- in the Quapaw version, and Quapaw never reduces -awe/-awi to just -i-. This -i- is different, tho' I have no idea what it is. If it were nasalized, it would be one of the expected forms of 'potential', but it isn't. > Third, there are a passel of other "modal" > and "evidential" markers with the same structure, all ending in a > non-ablauting "te", so that even when you're still wrestling with what > might be the underlying sense of all these "te" you're still suspicious > that they're possibly connected. Indeed, but this is what comes of our over-using Dorsey 1890. Without confirmation of the phonology, we simply don't know which of JOD's "te" are aspirated and which are tense. > Fourth, the plural follows the first > syllable, never the second or both. Again, unless Omaha has reinterpreted the -i- as 'plural' (or proximate or whatever), it ain't plural. > Fifth, and this is a more recently > argument, it seems that 'shall surely' can easily be analyzed as 'shall > from the evidence, shall evidently, shall seemingly' But that presumes evidentiality, which we can't do until/unless it's confirmed. > Of course, reduplicated future might also express an "intense > future" I think that's more reasonable at this juncture than assuming evidentiality; it is the standard way of intensifying stative verbs, after all. But you may be right -- we really need actual data while there are speakers who can help us learn. > > Naturally, I'd have to be a bit timid about asserting things for Quapaw, > but I'm inclined to think that Dorsey's transcriptions must have enough > wiggle room that your ttaitte is probably a *ttaithe* with a similar > analysis to the OP formation. I'd be the last to disagree with that one -- with the proviso that in QU it really is extremely unlikely that -i- is from *-abi. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 00:25:13 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:25:13 +1000 Subject: Quapaw potential mode. Message-ID: > > wie naN-hi aN-o- ki- ttoN-we tta-i-tte- naN, > > 1sg alone-EMP 1PAT-in-BEN-depend-PL POT-?-POT-as > > Me alone just me they depend would as > > Since they would be depending on just me alone, > > > > wi-tteke o-a-ki-we-bda-bda a-b-di$taN. > > my-mo.bro in-1AGT-BEN-INDF-1AGT-work-1AGT-work on-AGT-stop > > my mother’s brother I work-work I ceased > > I stopped working for my (maternal) uncle. > > I'd read it 'since it appeared that they would be depending on me alone' > or 'since I concluded that they would be depending on me alone'. I'm > assuming that he quit working for his uncle because more immediate > responsibilities developed. This is the autobio of Alphonsus Valliere. I imagine he was pretty sure his sister and mom would need his help, but this really highlights my problem with these evidential meanings -- you can conceivably add them to nearly any sentence the way we say a polite "seems like...." no matter how sure we are, if we don't want to offend. The Quapaws and Omahas could have done that too, of course, but it makes it too easy to assume the analysis. Another argument for sending you to Macy!! :-) Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 00:56:06 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:56:06 +1000 Subject: new track: ?uN Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: Examples of maN/z^aN/aN/aNaN as 'to use something': > (1) > AN'kka=z^hi, ppi'=az^i=s^tes^te=waN s^aN' maN'=tta=miNkhe > I-NEG even if it is a bad one yet I will use it > jod 1890:165.1-2 > > No, even if it is a bad one I will use it (maN). ...etc. "snip" Interesting that Omaha has lost the instrument prefix. Mus' be areal. "Normally" 'use' is 'do with', *i-?uN (BI y-oN, TU i-oN, etc.) Do you find anything at all in Omaha that would suggest the 'be' meaning?? I'm wondering how widespread it is and I have no statistics. I feel that the aspectual or temporal auxiliary meaning of the semi-grammaticalized form of *?uN that we find in all the Dhegiha dialects could be more easily derived from 'be/was' than from 'do/did', although the 'exist' meaning isn't as congenial.. The grammaticalized version is used with stative as well as active verbs, so the active 'do/did' meaning of... m-aN z^-aN dhaN (Quapaw naN) ... doesn't fit so well with the AUX usage. In QU it seems to have the 'imperfective' meaning, but it sees a lot of use in Dorsey's Omaha texts and may have developed into a 'past' or 'perfect' there?? In accordance with Catherine's request, I've added an impressive "signature file". I especially like the "Institute for Advanced Study" line. It makes me look much smarter than I actually am. But alas, it's part of the address.... ;-) Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 04:48:22 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:48:22 +1000 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. Message-ID: I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half my mornings doing email! But... In working up a paper on discourse here I chose the story of "The rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. 557ff.) because I have that story in three different Siouan languages. In it Dorsey has numerous instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented nasal [a]) with the meaning he translates consistently as 'having'. These appear to be essentially perfects in that, in most if not all cases, they signal that some event had *already* taken place when the action or state of the main verb in the sentence does. The particle never appears as naN or dhaN. It is this latter auxiliary that seems to have an imperfective meaning in Quapaw. It is clearly derived from *?uN 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is conjugated, as we have noted several times, m-aN, z^-aN, naN. Do those of you doing Omaha and Ponca think that the aN from the rabbit/turkeys story is the same as the dhaN that Dorsey translates 'past'? or is it something new? Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jun 21 14:28:26 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:28:26 -0600 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. In-Reply-To: <39504915.4507D5D0@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: Bob, that is very clearly a basic meaning for Lakhota k?uN, which is where I started to get into this discussion. Deloria never translates it that way, at least in the glosses (I've never paid much attention to her free translations), but it's clearly the "had" past perfect meaning whenever it's a clause subordinator. It can also be a discourse particle marking a solidly completed past event the speaker is very sure about. So maybe your kV-?uN theory is right after all. DAvid David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've > already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half > my mornings doing email! But... In working up a paper on discourse here > I chose the story of "The rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. > 557ff.) because I have that story in three different Siouan languages. > In it Dorsey has numerous instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented > nasal [a]) with the meaning he translates consistently as 'having'. > These appear to be essentially perfects in that, in most if not all > cases, they signal that some event had *already* taken place when the > action or state of the main verb in the sentence does. The particle > never appears as naN or dhaN. It is this latter auxiliary that seems to > have an imperfective meaning in Quapaw. It is clearly derived from *?uN > 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is conjugated, as we have noted several times, > m-aN, z^-aN, naN. > > Do those of you doing Omaha and Ponca think that the aN from the > rabbit/turkeys story is the same as the dhaN that Dorsey translates > 'past'? or is it something new? > > Bob > > -- > Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor > Research Center for Linguistic Typology > Institute for Advanced Study > La Trobe University > Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia > Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 > Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 > Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 > Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 > > From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Wed Jun 21 15:15:18 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:15:18 -0500 Subject: Siouan Conference Message-ID: John Koontz (I think) wrote: >I wonder if any person or persons who were at the Siouan & Caddoan >Conference this past weekend (June 2-3) would be willing to post a summary >or postmortem? Well... David did ask me (Catherine) if I would summarize the Friday afternoon discussion and I did take a few notes... So I guess I'll volunteer. I'll attempt a short summary of the Dhegiha parasession and the business meeting too, but none of these should be considered the definitive record -- I'm sure other people will have corrections or additions. For the main body of the conference, the agenda that was circulated beforehand is an excellent summary. The only change was that Ardis Eschenberg was unable to attend so her paper was not presented. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1. OPEN DISCUSSION WITH ANADARKO AREA TRIBES ON LANGUAGE ISSUES (6/2/00) This discussion was attended by nearly all the conference participants, as well as some members of the Caddo and Wichita tribes. Two types of issues were discussed: Language learning/preservation and grouping of languages into families. A. Language learning/preservation Alice Anderton spoke about the Wordpath Society, which encourages preservation of Oklahoma languages through its tv show and other means. A Caddo elder described that tribe's language preservation efforts: they have a weekly language class and are working on a dictionary. (Wichita and Ponca elders described their own language teaching programs at other points in the conference.) General discussion of effective language teaching and learning centered around the importance of using the language outside of class settings: parents learning the language and using it in the family, a critical mass of speakers actually using the language in the community, the success of the Hawaiian Punana Leo schools which require family participation, etc. B. Language families A Wichita tribe member raised the question of why Wichita is grouped with Caddo and called Caddoan. David Rood gave a useful introduction to historical/comparative linguistics: how linguists decide languages are related, how one language could evolve into a group of related languages, some other groupings (Germanic includes English) etc. A couple of linguists pointed out Wichita/Caddo/Pawnee cognates. Extensive discussion followed. Some points raised included the psychological and possibly practical/political effects of group names, the (non)correlation between linguistic and cultural groups, differences in usage of terms like "Caddoan" by archeologists and linguists, how language-family names are chosen (based on name of one language within the group, two or more languages at geographical extremes of the group's territory, a common root word, etc.), and possibilities for changing the names of families like Caddoan and Siouan. If all the tribes within either of these groupings would agree on a term they prefer, linguists would willingly adopt that term. Questions were also raised about the relation of South American to North American languages and classification within S. America. 2. DHEGIHA "PARASESSION" A small group of Dhegihanists and interested others got together in the motel restaurant on Thursday afternoon before the conference. Participants were Mark Awakuni-Swetland, John Koontz, Carolyn Quintero, Catherine Rudin, Kathy Shea, Bruce Ingham, and one man whose name I've forgotten (sorry!) There was no set agenda and no formal papers. We discussed several vaguely related things: a. Catherine gave a (hopefully not too garbled) summary of the facts Ardis Eschenberg had planned to present at the conference. Briefly, article choice in Omaha-Ponca does not depend on referential distance (clauses since last mention). We agreed this isn't a surprising result, but it's nice to have it confirmed, given that O-P articles mark (among other things) obviation, and that in some languages obviation markers correlate with ref. distance. It would be a good idea to check for referential distance effects with demonstratives (e, ga, du, dhe, dhu, she, shu, gu, a 'indef', awa 'which of two', etc.) b. This led into a discussion of the status of the various demonstratives, which do not all have the same syntactic properties. For instance, e appears to be a real pronoun; eg. it does not occus with articles, unlike most (all?) of the others. Carolyn Q. has a nice chart of cooccurrence possibilities of the Osage demonstratives in her dissertation. Both syntax and usage of demonstratives are something we could look at more in all the Dhegiha languages ... c. Naturally we discussed (again) that perennial Dhegiha can of worms, the article/auxiliary system. John proposed a classification of aux's and (animate) articles in terms of aspect and obviation: non-progressive progressive (or imperfective) proximate nu'=akha dhata'=i nu'akha dhate'=akha obviative nu'=dhiNkhe dhathe' nu'dhiNkhe dhathe'=dhiNkhe or: nu'=thaN dhathe' nu'=thaN dhathe'dhiNkhe (all sentences meaning 'the man ate') We talked about whether -(b)i is actually an aspect marker, whether akha/ama occur on verbs in the same way/situation/meaning as on NPs, and the various other factors that may be relevant to article choice, including subject/nonsubject, location of the speaker and topic(present/absent/ moving/etc.), plural objects or recurrent events seen as set vs. individuated, etc. We looked at a couple of examples of akha/ama with non-subjects: Egidhe miNkka'=akha=di e'=di ahi'=bi=ama at last raccoon=the=to there arrive=prox=quote 'At last they (the crayfish) arrived at the raccoons' (akha on goal) PpaNkka=ama=di ahi'=bi=ama Ponca=the=to arrive=prox=quote 'They arrived chez the Poncas.' (ama on goal) d. Finally, John gave us a sneak preview of his evidentials paper (presented later at the conference) and we looked through the copious examples on his handout of the inanimate articles (the/khe/dhaN/ge) used as evidentials and as 'when', apparently agreeing with the position of the "evidence" and maybe with some aspectual factors in the 'when' clauses. Various details of the examples led us into various interesting tangents, which I didn't write down. 3. BUSINESS MEETING The only item of business was how to organize future meetings. David Rood has been making sure a meeting got held every year for 20 years or so, and maintaining a mailing list, and generally doing more than his fair share of the organizational work; it seems like time to spread the responsibility around a bit. The following conclusions emerged from discussion: a. We all thank David for his good work over the years!! b. From now on, each year's organizer will be responsible for seeing that the following TWO years' meetings are set. c. S&CC 2001 will meet at U. of Chicago, organized by John Boyle. S&CC 2002 will be hosted by Dick Carter in Spearfish. The place and organizer of S&CC 2003 will be determined at the Chicago meeting. d. John Boyle will take charge of the mailing list for now. e. David Rood will write up some suggestions or a checklist for future conference organizers. f. There was some discussion of money -- do we need a budget, a treasurer, funds carried over from one year to the next? The concensus seemed to be not to bother. What have I forgotten? C. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 21 15:54:54 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:54:54 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <395009CF.2FF28059@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > The breve itself isn't a mark of aspiration, but it seems to be a > > mark of the combined states lax (not tense) and unstressed. > That's entirely possible, but we also know that Dorsey had a diacritic for short > vowels rather than long ones To clarify, the breve is his mark of shortness, only it has nothing to do with shortness, at least in Omaha-Ponca. > > Plus if it were the future, it would be still off that it were inflected, > > prefixally and not with a following article auxiliary, whereas prefixal > > inflection like this is not odd for articles, albeit it is for inanimate > > articles. > That's assuming the a- is indeed the pronominal. By me it should still > be thaN or uninflected. It isn't thaN. If it is, this would be a pair of unique mistakes for Dorsey. > The -i- of ttaitte (or ttaithe, whichever) is not the plural -bi. Ah, true, it would be a unique use of -i as plural Quapaw, but in OP it is definitely the plural/proximate, whether this is reanalysis or separate development in OP, or whether it is an irregular development in Quapaw. > > Fifth, and this is a more recently > > argument, it seems that 'shall surely' can easily be analyzed as 'shall > > from the evidence, shall evidently, shall seemingly' > But that presumes evidentiality, which we can't do until/unless it's > confirmed. If several things confirm the same line of reasoning, it seems reasonable to me. We can't reject each of the arguments individually because the others alone don't quite convince us. We have to decide if the whole set convinces us or not. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 21 16:09:21 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:09:21 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: <395012A6.1B673299@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > Interesting that Omaha has lost the instrument prefix. Mus' be areal. > "Normally" 'use' is 'do with', *i-?uN (BI y-oN, TU i-oN, etc.) No trace of it in Omaha-Ponca. And in Dakotan it is missing, too, of course. The ?uN 'use' verb is actually the instrumental postposition, right? In Omaha-Ponca the analog of that is to put an i-locative on the main verb and make the instrument an argument of that verb. > Do you find anything at all in Omaha that would suggest the 'be' > meaning?? I'm wondering how widespread it is and I have no statistics. No trace of it that I'm aware of. 'To be' with nouns and the occasional verbal quality expression is bdhiN/niN/-- (enclitic). Since this is enclitic often to the demonstrative e, that e often shows up alone in the third person. I don't think I have an dhiN 'to be' examples for the third person, though that's obviously the stem. 'To be there (to be located)' involves using e=di (liek Da e=l ~ e=tu) as a predicate, or e=d(i)=e=di, which I think is actually 'to be there (to be at that place)'. The verb thaN (maybe ttaN (?) as Dorsey's open quote is very unreliable) is 'to exist, to abound'. > I feel that the aspectual or temporal auxiliary meaning of the > semi-grammaticalized form of *?uN that we find in all the Dhegiha > dialects could be more easily derived from 'be/was' than from 'do/did', > although the 'exist' meaning isn't as congenial.. Dorsey often translates this auxiliary as 'do/did', if he translates it at all. > In QU it seems to have the 'imperfective' meaning, but it sees a lot of > use in Dorsey's Omaha texts and may have developed into a 'past' or > 'perfect' there?? Dorsey often renders clause final *dhaN* as 'past'. So far I haven't studied the contexts thoroughly. Of course he often renders clause final *the* in the same way, or as 'the'. But when *dhaN* appears after *the* or in various other places I'm pretty sure it really must mean something like 'past'. I wonder, of course, if some *dhaN* alone might be evidentials. JEK I just have to remember to sign explicitly. Pine puts the signature at the top of the file in replies, and mine's rather out of date anyway. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 21 16:38:13 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:38:13 -0600 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. In-Reply-To: <39504915.4507D5D0@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've > already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half > my mornings doing email! Sorry. I was home yesterday because of getting ready to take the kids to hear N*Sync (I think that's the spelling). > But... In working up a paper on discourse here I chose the story of "The > rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. 557ff.) because I have that > story in three different Siouan languages. In it Dorsey has numerous > instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented nasal [a]) with the meaning he > translates consistently as 'having'. These appear to be essentially > perfects in that, in most if not all cases, they signal that some event > had *already* taken place when the action or state of the main verb in > the sentence does. The particle never appears as naN or dhaN. It is > this latter auxiliary that seems to have an imperfective meaning in > Quapaw. It is clearly derived from *?uN 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is > conjugated, as we have noted several times, m-aN, z^-aN, naN. I'd have to check this particular text, but one or two of the texts simply substitute aN or gaN for egaN in the sense of the 'preceding action subordinate'. I don't know if these things are idiosyncratic, influence of another language, or a dialect. Of course egaN is just e=g(i)-aN, or, maybe better e-g(i)=aN, given where the inflection falls. Another oddity of some speakers is to say "Hau." essentially between paragraphs. And then there are the ones who affricate lots of dentals - I call it little old lady speech, though maybe it's 'speaking to children'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 21 16:58:57 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:58:57 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: > > By the way, I'm not always good at hearing aspiration, but I'm pretty > > sure I've always heard the Omaha "future" tta=i=the with an aspirated > > th in the last part. > Well, undeniably what you hear would tend to have pretty heavy weight. > I've just never heard it. Just in case there was anything obscure about this, I mean only that I've never been fortunate enough to elicit it, but have only seen it in text. I trust Catherine's ear! JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 23:16:05 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:16:05 +1000 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. Message-ID: Hmmm, that's a fascinating and very helpful observation. I think I'd better get out Deloria's version of "Iktomi tricks the pheasants" (same story in Lakota) and see if there is any parallel. I guess there probably wouldn't be since the different versions are really just parallel plots, not "discourse." But thanks for pointing that out. Actually the k- part of k?uN could come from any number of sources, I suppose. I just picked ki(N) because it was also an article. We'll see what the Omaholics have to say about aN in this context. Bob > Bob, that is very clearly a basic meaning for Lakhota k?uN, which is where > I started to get into this discussion. Deloria never translates it that > way, at least in the glosses (I've never paid much attention to her free > translations), but it's clearly the "had" past perfect meaning whenever > it's a clause subordinator. It can also be a discourse particle marking a > solidly completed past event the speaker is very sure about. So maybe > your kV-?uN theory is right after all. > > DAvid > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > > > > I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've > > already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half > > my mornings doing email! But... In working up a paper on discourse here > > I chose the story of "The rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. > > 557ff.) because I have that story in three different Siouan languages. > > In it Dorsey has numerous instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented > > nasal [a]) with the meaning he translates consistently as 'having'. > > These appear to be essentially perfects in that, in most if not all > > cases, they signal that some event had *already* taken place when the > > action or state of the main verb in the sentence does. The particle > > never appears as naN or dhaN. It is this latter auxiliary that seems to > > have an imperfective meaning in Quapaw. It is clearly derived from *?uN > > 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is conjugated, as we have noted several times, > > m-aN, z^-aN, naN. > > > > Do those of you doing Omaha and Ponca think that the aN from the > > rabbit/turkeys story is the same as the dhaN that Dorsey translates > > 'past'? or is it something new? > > > > Bob > > > > -- > > Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor > > Research Center for Linguistic Typology > > Institute for Advanced Study > > La Trobe University > > Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia > > Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 > > Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 > > Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 > > Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 > > > > -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 01:46:38 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:46:38 +1000 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. Message-ID: I think John has discovered the Omaha cognate for Dakotan k?uN 'the past'. It is (e)gaN. The match is nearly perfect. Dhegiha dialects lost a lot (not all!) of the organic glottal stop reflexes. *uN > aN in Omaha and Ponca. The Kansa cognate for Omaha egaN is (denasalized) ego, suggesting that the original nasal vowel in this particle was indeed *uN. The e- on the front is most likely the demonstrative and seems to be removable anyway. And best of all, the semantics match (as David pointed out). A lot of the arguments we have on the list have to do with (lack of) semantic confirmation, but in this case it looks really good. I'll reply to the other stuff later; I have errands to run here at the moment. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 04:16:34 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:16:34 +1000 Subject: Dorsey transcriptions, etc. Message-ID: > > That's entirely possible, but we also know that Dorsey had a diacritic for short > > vowels rather than long ones > > To clarify, the breve is his mark of shortness, only it has nothing to do with shortness, at least in Omaha-Ponca. We simply won't know that unless and until someone (besides Frida Hahn) is willing to transcribe vowel quantity systematically in O-P field notes. I keep hearing that "it's variable" or that "sometimes I hear it but in other contexts not", or "it's just so *hard*". But we also have minimal pairs. I do tend to agree that Dorsey used his diacritics to signal distinctions that we might not ordinarily expect them to signal. This includes his subscript "x" and his backwards apostrophe as well as his breve and occasional macron. But we can't just "interpret" them wholesale without hard evidence. And as the speaker pool shrinks, we don't seem to be acquiring the necessary data to explicate Dorsey fully over the long run. I'd give anything at this point to have more Kansa or Quapaw speakers out there to clarify the issues. > > > That's assuming the a- is indeed the pronominal. By me it should still > > be thaN or uninflected. > > It isn't thaN. If it is, this would be a pair of unique mistakes for > Dorsey. It obviously isn't thaN, but is it the inanimate article "-the" inflected for 1st person singular. And if it is, is that a "mistake" on Dorsey's part, a slip of the tongue, or something more systematic? > > The -i- of ttaitte (or ttaithe, whichever) is not the plural -bi. > Ah, true, it would be a unique use of -i as plural Quapaw, but in OP it is > definitely the plural/proximate, whether this is reanalysis or separate > development in OP, or whether it is an irregular development in Quapaw. I understand that's the assumption, but it's still unclear to me from the evidence. > > > Fifth, and this is a more recently > > > argument, it seems that 'shall surely' can easily be analyzed as 'shall > > > from the evidence, shall evidently, shall seemingly' > > > But that presumes evidentiality, which we can't do until/unless it's > > confirmed. > > If several things confirm the same line of reasoning, it seems reasonable > to me. We can't reject each of the arguments individually because the > others alone don't quite convince us. We have to decide if the whole set > convinces us or not. I agree with reservations. The problem may just be that I didn't get a chance to hear John's talk at the Siouan Conference. It may also involve our interpretations of Dorsey's transcriptions. And it may well involve our relative assumptions about the old homophony vs. polysemy problem. I tend to look upon phonologically similar particles with different semantics and/or different functions as homophones. In Quapaw, for example, there are at least 4 particles with the shape naN. There is (1) -naN the 'sitting' positional particle, (2) naN the 'imperfective' from *?uN, (3) naN a temporal conjunction 'as', and (4) naN 'habitual aspect' as written by Dorsey (really [hnaN]. John's evidential naN may be in there too. For me though, the semantics MUST confirm our analyses. If none of the available sources signals an evidential meaning as distinguishing sentences with and without the (the, dhaN, thaN, ge, etc.) various particles, then "evidential" is just an empty label. I agree that, if the set of things that fit into John's evidential slot correspond exactly with our positionals, then they are to be thought of as derived from positionals. But that still doesn't clarify their function. Nor, in some cases, can we be certain we're not dealing with one of the other, homophonous, post-verbal particles. I guess I need to read the paper. There's obviously a lot of fascinating data out there to be explained. In checking out homophonous particles in the Omaha texts I ran across s^aN maz^aN dhaN dhaN bdhugaxti 'indeed land indeed all over.' Both dhaN's are accented. I assume one is the article. BTW there's still another variant of the story I mentioned that had aN as a 'perfect' in Dorsey 1890. It is "Ictinike, the turkeys, turtle, and elk". I haven't examined it yet. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From STRECHTER at csuchico.edu Thu Jun 22 04:32:52 2000 From: STRECHTER at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:32:52 -0700 Subject: ki + ?un Message-ID: Deloria does actually write these separately and translate them separately in a couple of texts. They seem to have the same composite meaning of k?un. sara ******************************************************* Dr. Sara Trechter Asst. Professor, Linguistics and English CSU, Chico, CA 95929-0830 (530) 898-5447 (office) (530) 898-5540 (fax) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 04:45:09 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:45:09 -0600 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > But... In working up a paper on discourse here I chose the story of "The > > rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. 557ff.) because I have that It's 577ff. There's another version pp. 65-66 for Is^tiNnikhe, and this is part of the standard Winnebago/Omaha/etc. Trickster cycle elaborated by Radin in his Trickstger study. > > story in three different Siouan languages. In it Dorsey has numerous > > instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented nasal [a]) with the meaning he > > translates consistently as 'having'. These appear to be essentially > > perfects in that, in most if not all cases, they signal that some event > > had *already* taken place when the action or state of the main verb in > > the sentence does. ... > > I'd have to check this particular text, but one or two of the texts simply > substitute aN or gaN for egaN in the sense of the 'preceding action > subordinate'. I don't know if these things are idiosyncratic, influence > of another language, or a dialect. Of course egaN is just e=g(i)-aN, or, > maybe better e-g(i)=aN, given where the inflection falls. Yes. This is a substitute in this story for standard egaN. Note that it takes the =bi grade of the plural/proximate before it, as does egaN. The speaker, George Miller, was, as far a I know, a very standard speaker, hired by Dorsey to consult with him in Washington. With a few others he defines the standard in the sense of the usage found in Dorsey's work. I'd have to conclude that he did the aN substitution deliberately, in immitation of some model that is not explained. JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 04:56:03 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:56:03 +1000 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. Message-ID: > I'd have to check this particular text, but one or two of the texts simply > substitute aN or gaN for egaN in the sense of the 'preceding action > subordinate'. I don't know if these things are idiosyncratic, influence > of another language, or a dialect. Of course egaN is just e=g(i)-aN, or, > maybe better e-g(i)=aN, given where the inflection falls. If I'm right, that would make the -gi- part cognate with Dakotan (and Tutelo) ki(N) 'def. article'. Does that make sense? The particle is certainly -gi- since the conjugation is egimaN, egiz^aN, egaN, isn't it? And thanks to Sara for another interesting tid bit from Deloria. When there's time, it would be good to have a page reference for her treatment of ki+?uN as separate particles with the semantics of k?uN. But there's no hurry. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 04:59:50 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:59:50 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: <39516FFE.DBED8751@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > I think John has discovered the Omaha cognate for Dakotan k?uN 'the > past'. It is (e)gaN. The match is nearly perfect. Dhegiha dialects > lost a lot (not all!) of the organic glottal stop reflexes. *uN > aN in > Omaha and Ponca. The Kansa cognate for Omaha egaN is (denasalized) ego, > suggesting that the original nasal vowel in this particle was indeed > *uN. The e- on the front is most likely the demonstrative and seems to > be removable anyway. And best of all, the semantics match (as David > pointed out). A lot of the arguments we have on the list have to do > with (lack of) semantic confirmation, but in this case it looks really > good. I'd have to say that I thought Bob's own explanation in terms of a contraction of ki and *(r)uN 'past' made good sense to me. I do think that OP aN is from PS *(?)uN, cf. one or more of the Dakotan forms under discussion. But I'm not sure that the evidence for the uNK form with ?-stems, leading to inclusive persons cf. Da uNk?uN 'it exists for us' extends outside of Dakotan, and without that sort of form evidence for ?-initials per se (as opposed to vowle-initials) is rather limited. In any event Dakotan does have them, and we'd expect perhaps DEM=k?uN for the dative of DEM=?uN, true enough. I think that egaN as a 'preceding event subordinator' is restricted to Omaha-Ponca in Dhegiha. Though Dakotan has the ?uN stem, it seems to prefer kha ~ c^ha as an alaog of uN in all the morphological sequences where Dhegiha so loves *uN. So you get ec^ha, etc., and even e=c^h(a)=uN 'to do'. Forms like ga=kha and to=kha show that it's underlying =kha here. JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 05:10:05 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:10:05 +1000 Subject: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan. Message-ID: If we still have differences on the precise function of post-verbal positionals in Dhegiha, we at least are making real progress on understanding tense (such as it is) and aspectual relationships in several languages. It looks to me as though there may be a perfect and an imperfect, both derived from *?uN 'do' ultimately. It may be that only one of the two is found in a given language, or we may yet discover both throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan (tho' with all the work that's been done on Dakotan, I tend to doubt that, since someone would have probably spotted it). And on an earlier matter. The CSD files show the following cognate set for 'use', demonstrating, I think, that it is 'do with'. LA ?uN 'use' CH inu WI hi?uN 'use' OP iN ~ aN ~ aaN 'use' KS weaN 'eat with' QU iaN 'use' BI yoN 'do with' TU ioN 'use' The 'be' meaning for *?uN is also found at least in Winnebago ?u:N 'do, make be, wear'. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 05:19:41 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:19:41 +1000 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. Message-ID: > > > rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. 557ff.) because I have that > > It's 577ff. Sorry. My spell checker didn't catch that!! > There's another version pp. 65-66 for Is^tiNnikhe, and this > is part of the standard Winnebago/Omaha/etc. Trickster cycle elaborated by > Radin in his Trickstger study. > I have it in Kansa too. As usual in a somewhat truncated version. > > I'd have to conclude that he (Geo. Miller) did the aN substitution > deliberately, in > immitation of some model that is not explained. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Jun 22 12:48:37 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:48:37 -0600 Subject: ki + ?un In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sara, can you point out those spots to me? I would have expected ki + ?uN to be translated 'because' or something similar. Thanks. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Trechter, Sara wrote: > Deloria does actually write these separately and translate them separately > in a couple of texts. They seem to have the same composite meaning of k?un. > > sara > ******************************************************* > Dr. Sara Trechter > Asst. Professor, Linguistics and English > CSU, Chico, CA 95929-0830 > (530) 898-5447 (office) > (530) 898-5540 (fax) > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Jun 22 13:13:36 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:13:36 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>From David Rood > > I do think that OP aN is from PS *(?)uN, cf. one or more of the Dakotan > forms under discussion. But I'm not sure that the evidence for the uNK > form with ?-stems, leading to inclusive persons cf. Da uNk?uN 'it exists > for us' Sorry, I'm not sure where you get this one. uNk?uN means 'we are', not 'it exists for us'. If you're trying to get a dative or suus form, I don't think I've ever heard or seen one for this verb. > > In any event Dakotan does have them, and we'd expect perhaps DEM=k?uN for > the dative of DEM=?uN, true enough. You're right as long as ?uN is still a verb or a postposition, but in its article function, k?uN always precedes DEM, never follows. Perhaps that's a later development. DSR From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Jun 22 13:24:06 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:24:06 -0600 Subject: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan. In-Reply-To: <39519FAD.2117DA61@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: from David Rood: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > It looks to me as though there may be a perfect and > an imperfect, both derived from *?uN 'do' ultimately. It may be that > only one of the two is found in a given language, or we may yet discover > both throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan (tho' with all the work that's > been done on Dakotan, I tend to doubt that, since someone would have > probably spotted it). You give us too much credit, I fear -- we all tend to revere Boas and Deloria enough to fail to ask questions they didn't answer already, and real discourse studies are scarce. Also, I think the fact that the distinction is likely marked by particles makes it probable that the marking is optional -- if the meaning is clear from context, don't mention it. Another topic to put in the "things we really ought to look at " list. This suggestion takes me back to the observation that k?uN and ?uN are sometimes in apparent free variation as clause-finals. I don't believe there is any such thing as free variation between particles like that, just opaque linguists; maybe this is a clue we could follow to try to elucidate the difference here. I'm intrigued by the gaN/aN variation in Omaha now, too. David From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 15:43:54 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:43:54 -0600 Subject: Dorsey transcriptions, etc. In-Reply-To: <39519322.70CC26D@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: Rankin: > In checking out homophonous particles in the Omaha texts I ran across > > s^aN maz^aN dhaN dhaN bdhugaxti 'indeed land indeed all over.' Both > dhaN's are accented. I assume one is the article. Assuming this might come from the Siouan Archives version of the texts, my first impulse is to check to see if the second dhaN ( a in the original) might be a mistyped or even misprinted s^aN (c a in the original). Most such errors are typing errors in preparing the SA, but I have seen a few in the original, too. There is, however, a distributive -dhaNdhaN suffix or enclitic! JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 15:50:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:50:35 -0600 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. In-Reply-To: <39519C63.DA2CF806@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > If I'm right, that would make the -gi- part cognate with Dakotan (and Tutelo) > ki(N) 'def. article'. Does that make sense? The particle is certainly -gi- > since the conjugation is egimaN, egiz^aN, egaN, isn't it? Yes, it's definitely gi, per the logic Bob presents. This parallels e=gi=...he 'to say to'. But given the (sometimes omitted in translation) 'to him/her' implied by the gi in e=gi=...he 'to say to one' and in e=gi=...aN 'to be thus to one (be like one)', I've always made this the dative, in spite of its weird pre-pronominal position. I don't have the examples at hand, but there are bi-personal cases like 'I am thus to you, I am like you'. I'd expect 'I say to you', too, but don't remember at the moment if the texts have examples. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 15:53:11 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:53:11 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates (gloss) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Koontz John E babbled: > Though Dakotan has the ?uN stem, it seems to prefer kha ~ c^ha as an alaog > of uN in all the morphological sequences where Dhegiha so loves *uN. So > you get ec^ha, etc., and even e=c^h(a)=uN 'to do'. Forms like ga=kha and > to=kha show that it's underlying =kha here. alaog, hapax legomenon for analog JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 15:59:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:59:35 -0600 Subject: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan. In-Reply-To: <39519FAD.2117DA61@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > OP iN ~ aN ~ aaN 'use' The first iN would be the 'use (tobacco)' example. > The 'be' meaning for *?uN is also found at least in Winnebago ?u:N 'do, > make be, wear'. Ah, this reminds me that there are several cases where Omaha-Ponca uses the idiom 'to make' as 'to consider as'. One is the causative-based possessive with kinshiop terms, which also occurs in Dakotan and in Winnebago. The other uses gaghe as far as I can recall. The example was literally something like 'why do you make me a fool?'. This is something like 'make out as/make out to be' in English. From 'to be considered as' to 'to be' is not a long stretch. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 16:07:31 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:07:31 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > >From JEKoontz > > > > I do think that OP aN is from PS *(?)uN, cf. one or more of the Dakotan > > forms under discussion. But I'm not sure that the evidence for the uNK > > form with ?-stems, leading to inclusive persons cf. Da uNk?uN 'it exists > > for us' > > Sorry, I'm not sure where you get this one. uNk?uN means 'we > are', not 'it exists for us'. I think I copied the translation from Boas & Deloria. > If you're trying to get a dative or suus > form, I don't think I've ever heard or seen one for this verb. Actually, I was, though I wasn't taking this as a dative, just taking the translation offered. I was looking for an analog of e=g(i)=...aN (egaN) in Omaha-Ponca, just to see if I could find out what dative k(i) did with ?-stems, to compare it with the development of uNk + ? with ? stems, and to see if k?uN as a dative of ?uN made sense. > You're right as long as ?uN is still a verb or a postposition, but > in its article function, k?uN always precedes DEM, never follows. Perhaps > that's a later development. Do articles always precede demonstratives in Dakotan? In Dhegiha it's the other way around! JEK From STRECHTER at csuchico.edu Thu Jun 22 20:46:36 2000 From: STRECHTER at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:46:36 -0700 Subject: k?un Message-ID: I have all of my notes packed for move, but I thought I knew exactly where Deloria referred to k?un in a note. Wrong! 1. There are numerous instances of what she translates as /the-past/, {k?un} in the Autobiographies. 2. And there are also numerous instances of what David is talking about where {kin} is written as a separate word from {un}. These all get translated as "the/ on account of" or "the/therefore" in accordance with what David suspected. 3. In line 38 (page 59) of Emma Vlandry's narrative of the Sundance, Deloria's note to the page says that c?un should be "the-by" There, we have three different accounts, and is possible that I read the 'by' in account #3 as "be." I don't think this is true, but I'm going to have to wait until I that reference to 'the-be' jumps out at me. Even if it does jump, it doesn't mean that Deloria knew what she was talking about. BTW, these narratives would be great for discourse analysis because of all the shifts of perspective and time. sara Dr. Sara Trechter Asst. Professor Linguistics/English CSU, Chico Chico, CA 95929-0830 (530) 898-5447 (office) (530) 898-4450 (fax) From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Fri Jun 23 00:02:58 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:02:58 +1000 Subject: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan. Message-ID: > > It looks to me as though there may be a perfect and > > an imperfect, both derived from *?uN 'do' ultimately. It may be that > > only one of the two is found in a given language, It certainly looks now as tho' both are found in Omaha-Ponca at least. I think John may be right that egaN as a clause final perfect marker is only found there and not in QU, OS or KS, but I'll have to check when I get home. There is the very widespread egaN/ekaN meaning 'like'. John: do you derive that particle from the same source? Semantically it "sort of" fits. > Also, I think the fact that the > distinction is likely marked by particles makes it probable that the > marking is optional That's certainly the case with both dhaN and (eg)aN in OP and naN in QU. It's interesting that in the OP story of the trickster and the turkeys, which has the perfect marker at a number of points, there are about 80% fewer time adverbials than in my QU story, which has no perfect morphology. There may be differences in genre that explain some of that tho'. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Fri Jun 23 00:09:35 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:09:35 +1000 Subject: Dorsey transcriptions, etc. Message-ID: > Assuming this might come from the Siouan Archives version of the texts, my > first impulse is to check to see if the second dhaN ( a > in the original) might be a mistyped or even misprinted s^aN (c > a in the original). Most such errors are typing errors in > preparing the SA, but I have seen a few in the original, too. > Yes indeed. I have to rely 100% on the CeSNALPS computerized version. There's probably not a copy of CNAE6 on the entire continent of Oz. > There is, however, a distributive -dhaNdhaN suffix or enclitic! That would certainly fit the semantics in this instance. Another homophone. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jun 23 15:15:33 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:15:33 -0600 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) In-Reply-To: <3952A932.AD0384C2@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > There is the very widespread egaN/ekaN meaning 'like'. John: do you derive > that particle from the same source? Semantically it "sort of" fits. Ardis seems to be off-line at the moment, or she could join me in our shared pastime of egaN-counting: egaN 'to be thus to one; to be like something' egaN 'yes; agreeement' egaN ~ gaN ~ aN (use one or other: egaN very common, gaN rare, aN unusual) 'having' conjunction (temporally, etc., preceding clause marker) egaN 'in order to' (with following clause, different accentuation) egaN required particle with e=..dh(e)=e=gaN 'to think' egaN 'sort of' (more general post verbal use) I think this isn't the full list, but it's a start. You can't speak Omaha-Ponca without egaN. From shanwest at uvic.ca Fri Jun 23 22:50:03 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:50:03 -0700 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 09:55 AM 19/06/2000 -0600, John Koontz wrote: >On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > > Aha! That's what that thing is called! Hmm, so each vowel would need one > > of those? Or just the basic a e i o u? > >Maybe it means 'flame'? I think I got it from a reputable source, but >it's well known on the Web that my Slavic etymologies are weak. > >Anyway, for most Siouan languages, aiou suffice, but e occurs in various >primary sources for various reasons. For Tanoan you need ae and open o, >too, I think, plus all the other vowels, in combination with acute, grave, >and circumflex. Also with capitals you ever plan to work with texts of >any size. The Tanoanists, of course, are on their own as far as this list >is concerned :-) but I keep having to worry about them personally, and >I can report that their vowel systems are a real nuisance. You can't even >fit them into the "wastage" in a standard-sized font, at least if you want >capitals. I'm nowhere near putting in capitals, as this is not supposed to be for writing systems, but for transcription. Eventually I'd like to put in the vowels in combination with the accents, but that's not in the near future either, unfortunately. I put in a e i o u with ogoneks though. I hope someone will find it useful. It's being used here by several different people. I realized that I may have sounded sarcastic the other day when I was saying that I was commissioned to do this by someone studying 'not Siouan'. I intended to be funny, but realized later, that in the print medium, emotions aren't always interpreted the way one wants. Hope no one misinterpreted me. Must start using more emoticons. :) Shannon, who's off to see if someone has done a serious study of emoticons. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Jun 24 19:39:08 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:39:08 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu > > Do articles always precede demonstratives in Dakotan? In Dhegiha it's the > other way around! > The demonstrative may begin the NP, or follow the article at the end of the NP; the latter is more common: he/hena wiNyaN ki/k?uN 'the/those/ woma/en' or wiNyAn ki/k?uN he/hena. But of course there are lots of compounds with initial demonstrative roots. David From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 24 22:31:40 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:31:40 -0600 Subject: Siouan Conference In-Reply-To: <002F14A6.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: (A very nice summary of the SACC Meeting) Thanks, Catherine! That's exactly what I had in mind and more or less accords with my recollections. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 24 22:26:45 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:26:45 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > Do articles always precede demonstratives in Dakotan? In Dhegiha it's the > > other way around! > > > The demonstrative may begin the NP, or follow the article at the end of > the NP; the latter is more common: > > he/hena wiNyaN ki/k?uN 'the/those/ woma/en' > > or wiNyAn ki/k?uN he/hena. > > But of course there are lots of compounds with initial > demonstrative roots. Omaha-Ponca patterns, which are, I think entirely typical of Dhegiha, are that demonstratives follow nouns and articles follow demonstratives. It is possible to get reinforced structures with a demonstrative or demonstrative + article preceding. There's no plural of the demonstrative, but the -na morpheme that does this in Dakotan is used after demonstratives like a postposition in the sense of 'be so many', so a=naN 'how many', e=naN 'that many', dhe=naN 'this many', etc. wa?u=akha 'the woman' wa?u s^e=akha 'that woman (near you)' wa?u s^e 'that woman' s^e wa?u 'that woman' (rare) s^e=akha wa?u=akha 'that woman' or maybe 'that one, the woman' It's dangerous to see syntactic order as historical order, but I wonder if this doesn't suggest that the Dakotan articles, which are not obviously of positional origin like the Dhegiha ones (as described by Robert Rankin in his 1970s MALC paper on positionals), are something older retained in Dakotan and lost in Dhegiha. I wonder if the -gi in wakkaNdagi might not actually be a fossil remnant of something like the Dakotan article. The articles in Chiwere and Winnebago, of course, are something else again. t occurs to me that I have no idea what the relative orders are of articles and demonstratives in these languages. JE Koontz From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 26 00:26:05 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:26:05 +1000 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Message-ID: > > There is the very widespread egaN/ekaN meaning 'like'. John: do you derive > > that particle from the same source? Semantically it "sort of" fits. > > 1. egaN 'to be thus to one; to be like something' > 2. egaN 'yes; agreeement' > 3. egaN ~ gaN ~ aN (use one or other: egaN very common, gaN rare, aN > unusual) 'having' conjunction (temporally, etc., preceding clause marker) > 4. egaN 'in order to' (with following clause, different accentuation) > 5. egaN required particle with e=..dh(e)=e=gaN 'to think' > 6. egaN 'sort of' (more general post verbal use) I guess one could lump 1, 2, and 6 as divergent meanings. 3 is from *?uN and 5 I can't place or quite picture. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 26 00:37:30 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:37:30 +1000 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. Message-ID: > Omaha-Ponca patterns, which are, I think entirely typical of Dhegiha, are > that demonstratives follow nouns and articles follow demonstratives. > > It's dangerous to see syntactic order as historical order, but I wonder if > this doesn't suggest that the Dakotan articles, which are not obviously of > positional origin like the Dhegiha ones (as described by Robert Rankin in > his 1970s MALC paper on positionals), are something older retained in > Dakotan and lost in Dhegiha. While it may be dangerous in the case of pronominals and in the case of languages that force all their affixes into pre- of suf- position, it's still worth considering most of the time. I suspect the Dhegiha article order is a reflection of their more recent addition to the grammar. You might check Giulia Oliverio's Tutelo grammar. I think a good reflex of -ki(N) is preserved there (although apparently not in the languages in between). So it's old, but may not always have been an article. > I wonder if the -gi in wakkaNdagi might not > actually be a fossil remnant of something like the Dakotan article. Certainly could be. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 26 04:18:59 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:18:59 -0600 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) In-Reply-To: <3956A31C.1AF85C2F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > 5. egaN required particle with e=..dh(e)=e=gaN 'to think' > > 5 I can't place or quite picture. The inflection of 'to think' is: ebdhe'gaN e(s^)ne'gaN edhe'gaN ?eaNdhe'gaN cf. Da DEM=pc^e 'I think' (first person only), Wi hi=..re, suggesting *DEM=...ye. So, in OP it's e=...dhe (inflected like an dh- (or *r-) stem) + e=gaN. The e=gaN can't be omitted. It's sorta like having to say 'I sorta think' instead of *'I think'. JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 26 04:39:02 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:39:02 +1000 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Message-ID: OK, I'm sorry, I was thinking of the other verb: *aya-?iN 1 az^a-m- iN 2 az^a-z^-iN 3 az^ iN 1p ??? > ebdhe'gaN > e(s^)ne'gaN > edhe'gaN > ?eaNdhe'gaN > > cf. Da DEM=pc^e 'I think' (first person only), Wi hi=..re, suggesting > *DEM=...ye. > > So, in OP it's e=...dhe (inflected like an dh- (or *r-) stem) + e=gaN. > The e=gaN can't be omitted. > > It's sorta like having to say 'I sorta think' instead of *'I think'. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 26 04:47:55 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:47:55 +1000 Subject: "to wound" Message-ID: Speaking of peculiar verbs, we still do not have a Dhegiha conjugated set for *?o: 'to wound' or 'to shoot at and hit'. Dorsey 1890 pretty consistently puts the glottal stop in this one in Omaha: ?uu-biama (24.6) 'he wounded him, they say.' maN naNba i?u-biama (46.8) 'wounded with two arrows' kki wiN ?ui the (189.9) 'and one wounded it' wi u dhiNgexti (439.8) 'I wound no one' this last example should have given us the 1st person allomorph used with "glottal" stems having oral vowels, but unfortunately it appears as though Dorsey wrote the independent pronoun instead. My recollection is that Dakotan has promoted the verb analogically into the regular (wa-, ya-) paradigm, but there should have been an older irregular form in b- probably. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Mon Jun 26 14:07:59 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:07:59 -0500 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Message-ID: I don't doubt your historical analysis, John, but surely something this fossilized isn't to be analyzed as part of present-day Omaha grammar. In the modern language e=dhegaN is simply the verb "to think", so this really isn't "another egaN". Actually all or at least most of the "other egaN's" are clearly related semantically; I'd tend to assume they are the same item, just taking on different shades of meaning in different contexts. So there's just one egaN (maybe 2?), with various uses. Are you(all) really suggesting there are 6 or more homophonous items here? Catherine ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Author: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Date: 6/25/00 10:18 PM On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > 5. egaN required particle with e=..dh(e)=e=gaN 'to think' > > 5 I can't place or quite picture. The inflection of 'to think' is: ebdhe'gaN e(s^)ne'gaN edhe'gaN ?eaNdhe'gaN cf. Da DEM=pc^e 'I think' (first person only), Wi hi=..re, suggesting *DEM=...ye. So, in OP it's e=...dhe (inflected like an dh- (or *r-) stem) + e=gaN. The e=gaN can't be omitted. It's sorta like having to say 'I sorta think' instead of *'I think'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 26 15:49:17 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:49:17 -0600 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) In-Reply-To: <3956DE66.88EE89E4@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > OK, I'm sorry, I was thinking of the other verb: > > *aya-?iN > 1 az^a-m- iN > 2 az^a-z^-iN > 3 az^ iN > 1p ??? > > > > ebdhe'gaN > > e(s^)ne'gaN > > edhe'gaN > > ?eaNdhe'gaN The first is rendered 'suspect' by Dorsey, mostly. One difference is that the first takes a complement clause, whereas the second takes a quotation. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 26 15:56:06 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:56:06 -0600 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) In-Reply-To: <002F2CA6.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: > I don't doubt your historical analysis, John, but surely something this > fossilized isn't to be analyzed as part of present-day Omaha grammar. In the > modern language e=dhegaN is simply the verb "to think", so this really isn't > "another egaN". I agree that it's lexicalized. I haven't had a chance to examine the pitch contours, though, and I wonder if it doesn't accent as it does because the syllable marked as accented is actually the second accented syllable. > Actually all or at least most of the "other egaN's" are clearly related > semantically; I'd tend to assume they are the same item, just taking on > different shades of meaning in different contexts. So there's just one egaN > (maybe 2?), with various uses. Are you(all) really suggesting there are 6 or > more homophonous items here? I think I must have phrased this poorly. I mean that these are essentially 6 different syntactic/lexical contexts of egaN use. I agree it's all one stem, though I'm not sure that the two clause markers (or the use in 'to think') preceived as related to each other or to the rest of the uses. JEK From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jun 29 01:13:01 2000 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:13:01 -0500 Subject: Arikara (for the Caddoanists) Message-ID: W. Clark 12 Oct. 1804 in Jrnls. of Lewis & Clark Exped. II.161: The Ricaras Are about 500 men...Their language is So corrupted that many lodges of the Same village with dificuelty under Stand all that each other Say. From cqcq at compuserve.com Fri Jun 30 18:19:29 2000 From: cqcq at compuserve.com (Carolyn) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:19:29 -0400 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Message-ID: I have most all those ékoN uses in Osage, too, but don't remember any koN alone. Also there is koNzékoN "to be alike, same", and of course the series with the indefinite ha- instead of e: hákoN - for whatever, however, etc. Carolyn Carolyn Quintero cqcq at compuserve.com From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 5 16:10:52 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:10:52 -0600 Subject: Siouan Conference Message-ID: I wonder if any person or persons who were at the Siouan & Caddoan Conference this past weekend (June 2-3) would be willing to post a summary or postmortem? The same would be desirable for the informal Dhegiha para-session held the afternoon of June 1st. It would also be nice to see a summary and list of action items with regard to the future management of the meeting. I will say for myself that the Wichita Tribe were very kind hosts with a beautiful Tribal Center and this was a very pleasant conference. Though it was demonstrated that linguists as a whole are not particularly good at the handgame, the north side covered itself with glory with the aid of Mark Swetland, Jimm Good Tracks, and Louanna Furbee and her husband, as well quite a number of local people whose names I do not know, apart from one, Jimmy Reeder, who was singing on that side of the drum. I played on the south side and was guessed immediately at every trial, even dropping the bead several times. I'd like to thank the Wichita Language Class for putting up the handgame and taking my ineptitude with with such good grace. Ahau! From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Jun 5 16:22:59 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:22:59 -0700 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Everyone, Here's the address for a little tool that we developed at the University of Victoria to help linguists use phonetic script easily on web pages: http://web.uvic.ca/lancenrd/ipa/ I thought it might be of use to some fellow Siouanists. Let me know if there are any characters that aren't there that you would find useful. However, at this time, we can't accomodate all the diacritic combinations. Hope you like it, Shannon West P.S. I know I promised copies of my colloquium paper to several of you about 5 months ago, and as soon as I get it in PDF format, I'll put it on my website for download by anyone that wants it. Fair warning, it's a work in progress. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 6 06:17:13 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:17:13 -0600 Subject: More Dhegiha Evidentials Message-ID: Naturally, these examples will please Dhegiha students more than others, but I thought they might be interesting to anyone who was at the Conference as a supplement to the paper I presented there. Example of ge as evidential. Kansas e=di'=ge= s^te=aN. Kansas they must be in some places. (of winter hides) there EVID(scattered) so-ever jod 1891:19.3 The translation in 'must be' is Dorsey's. More use of 'must be' Dhe'=the e'=the= a'na, e=dh=e'=gaN=bi=ama nu'=akha. This it must be ! thought they say the man jod 1890:149.10-11 Note first person inflection of article *the* as *athe* in next set. Na! agdha'the athe', e'= ama. Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say. Na! agdha'sniN=kki az^aN' athe', e'= ama. Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say jod 1890:63.5-6 In Future of Surity The future of surity 'shall surely' consists of tta FUTURE + the EVIDENTIAL usually. Here is an example or two with tta + khe. I looked for tta + dhaN or tta + ge without any luck. e=da'=daN ua'z^i= tta=khe'= s^ti waN'gidhe oN?i'=i: what I plant will surely too all he has given to me: jod 1890:518.3 MaNdhiN'c^hakki iNs^?a'ge t?e'=tta=khe. Manthin tcaki old man will surely die as he reclines jod 1890:765.8 Dhi'daNbe gaN'=dha=xti e'=de a'?aNz^i To see you she had a strong desire but she, being unsuccessful t?e'=tta=khe. she will surely die as she reclines. jod 1890:775.6 With Presentative, both *khe* and *the* in parallel Si wac^hi's^ka wiN ed=e=di'=khe', ama; Again creek one there it was, they say; s^i tti' wiN' ed=e=di'=the'=ama. again tent one it was there, they say. jod 1890:150.5-6 MaNc^hu'=khe idha=bi=ama. Grizzly bear he found, they say. Ga=the=di MaNc^hu' e=d=e=di'=khe. In that place Grizzly bear there he is lying. jod 1890:287.5 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 8 01:14:51 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:14:51 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: I was just looking at the ways Quapaw handles temporal relationships (since it lacks morphological tense) and ran across this sentence in a Dorsey text c. 1890. The baffling thing about the sentence is that /-khe/ ?LYING.CONTINUATIVE AUXILIARY? should agree with the subject, ?they? (the people bringing the step father home), not the step father, who is the grammatical object here, and who is presumably the one lying down. di-?tte-z^?ka ?yow?-ttaN akd?niN kd? your-father-little V1-wound-?-as V1-SUUS-bring VERT-come your stepfather as X shot him, (they) are taking him back to his own home Since your stepfather has been shot, (they) are taking him home -khe, pp?kkaNkka tta-thaN. LYING.CONTIN.AUX, nose-crooked LOC-from nose-crooked from from Crooked-Nose?s (a trading post). At the April meeting we had discussed the possible use of the article -khe 'lying' in a few contexts where it seemed actually to carry a 'past' connotation (or denotation?). Someone suggested that this might be because a person referred to in the past might be considered 'dead' and therefore horizontal. If the above sentence is not just speaker error, then it may be that -khe has been extended analogically from deceased animates to past events generally. I mentioned in April that I had a few instances of that in Kansa but that I thought then that they represented "speaker error". Now I'm not as sure. Comments welcome. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 8 05:07:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:07:35 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <393EF38B.F0EA46DA@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: I'm having trouble reading the quotation marks in the first paragraph, and the vowels in the example. I think they may not have been fully ASCII-n-ized. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 8 05:38:26 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:38:26 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <393EF38B.F0EA46DA@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > di-?tte-z^?ka ?yow?-ttaN akd?niN kd? ? di-a'tte-z^iNka e'yowe'-ttaN akda'niN kde' > your-father-little V1-wound-?-as V1-SUUS-bring VERT-come > your stepfather as X shot him, (they) are taking him back to his own > home > Since your stepfather has been shot, (they) are taking him home > > -khe, pp?kkaNkka tta-thaN. ? -khe, ppa'kkaNkka tta-thaN > LYING.CONTIN.AUX, nose-crooked LOC-from > nose-crooked from > from Crooked-Nose?s (a trading post). I make this the equivalent of OP "Dhi-a'de-z^iNga" kkiu'=egaN your stepfather wounded having been agdha'dhiN gdhe'= khe having theirs they are going home it seems Ppa'kkaNkka= tta=thaN Crooked-Nose from I'm not sure of idhadi z^iNga as 'stepfather', and I've substituted kkiu' 'wounded' for what looks like a-(g)i-u(e?). OP does have iu 'wounded with' and giu 'wounded for one'. Coming to the point, I'd argue that this is a khe 'evidential' (in the sense of 'evidently'), and that it agrees in gender with the evidence, i.e., the body of the wounded or killed man. As Dorsey conceived of the ~ khe ~ dhaN ~ ge (in order of increasing rarity) as past in such sentence-final contexts, that may explain the gloss. Here's an equivalent OP example from Dorsey: E=di ahi=bi=ama=kki, t?e=dha=bi=khe=ama. There they arrived, they say when, he lay killed, they say. jod 1890:178.5 This isn't a continuative, for example, because it co=occurs with bi. It also co-occurs with the quotative. The whole is something like: 'They say that when they arrived evidently he was dead.' I'm not sure about the second quotative within the when clause. I think it's just extra, or otherwise it's 'They say that when they say that ...' Incidentally, the =ttaN 'when' is cognate with OP =daN CONTINGENT or maybe =daN DURING. I think =taN occurs as 'when' in Osage, too. I was at first a bit puzzled as to how to explain the agreement pattern of the evidentials, but I'm now operating on the theory (which seems to work) that they agree with the evidence underlying (no pun) the conclusion. Sometimes that's a constituent of the sentence (object, subject, or something else). Sometimes it's merely implicit. From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 8 07:04:12 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:04:12 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: > > di-?tte-z^?ka ?yow?-ttaN akd?niN kd? > > ? di-a'tte-z^iNka e'yowe'-ttaN akda'niN kde' > Just z^ka, no nasality here. iyowi and kdi. It looks fine on my screen. I have Netscape configured to show all the accented vowels and the Siouan font though. > > Coming to the point, I'd argue that this is a khe 'evidential' (in the > sense of 'evidently'), and that it agrees in gender with the evidence, > i.e., the body of the wounded or killed man. As Dorsey conceived of the ~ > khe ~ dhaN ~ ge (in order of increasing rarity) as past in such > sentence-final contexts, that may explain the gloss. > Since you were discussing this earlier, I figured that what this was. What I find strange is the part about agreeing with "the evidence". I think I need to understand that a little better. > > E=di ahi=bi=ama=kki, t?e=dha=bi=khe=ama. > There they arrived, they say when, he lay killed, they say. > jod 1890:178.5 But it isn't an exact equivalent since the person in the horizontal position is subject of the clause in the Omaha example, but not in the Quapaw one. > > Incidentally, the =ttaN 'when' is cognate with OP =daN CONTINGENT or maybe > =daN DURING. I think =taN occurs as 'when' in Osage, too. Possibly, but that would depend on Quapaw accent. Simple *t > tt only following an accented vowel. I suspect the Quapaw cognate is -naN 'as, time when' (implying near simultaneity of events in the 2 clauses). There's also a Quapaw -taN 'when, if'. > > I was at first a bit puzzled as to how to explain the agreement pattern of > the evidentials, but I'm now operating on the theory (which seems to work) > that they agree with the evidence underlying (no pun) the conclusion. > Sometimes that's a constituent of the sentence (object, subject, or > something else). Sometimes it's merely implicit. I hope we can pin it down better than that. See this is what happens when we get off into discourse. I still hope it will turn out to be more grammatical than "merely implicit." Too much wiggle room there. Bob From John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU Fri Jun 9 05:19:07 2000 From: John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:19:07 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <393F456C.57C6383C@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > Since you were discussing this earlier, I figured that what this was. What I > find strange is the part about agreeing with "the evidence". I think I need > to understand that a little better. > > E=di ahi=bi=ama=kki, t?e=dha=bi=khe=ama. > > There they arrived, they say when, he lay killed, they say. > > jod 1890:178.5 > > But it isn't an exact equivalent since the person in the horizontal position > is subject of the clause in the Omaha example, but not in the Quapaw one. > > I was at first a bit puzzled as to how to explain the agreement pattern of > > the evidentials, but I'm now operating on the theory (which seems to work) > > that they agree with the evidence underlying (no pun) the conclusion. > > Sometimes that's a constituent of the sentence (object, subject, or > > something else). Sometimes it's merely implicit. > > I hope we can pin it down better than that. See this is what happens when we > get off into discourse. I still hope it will turn out to be more grammatical > than "merely implicit." Too much wiggle room there. Perhaps if there were any question whether such things existed, but the numerous *the* examples show they do. Flexibility can be a fault in an analysis, but I'm not sure it's a fault in a grammar. Difficult to learn, maybe! In these examples I've stuck with khe or dhaN. The more numerous *the* examples are coniderably harder to analyze. For one thing, *the* seems to be a favored or default choice. For another, it's very hard to tell what *the* might be referring to, even if there's an NP with a *the* article in the context. It may refer simply to "punctual" events, while "*khe* might refer to durative events. Of course, *khe* often does refer to a constituent NP or some aspect of the verbal action not represented as an NP, and I suppose *the* must often do so, too. The problem is that *the* and *dhaN* are not very "marked" articles, though *khe* and *ge* are, referring here to frequency of occurrence. Subject agreement: jod 1890:35.3 si=khe snede'=axti=hnaN=i=khe the foot(print) was always very long jod 1890:32.1 ppa'hewadhahuni wiN e=di=khe=ama a man-eating hill was lying there An object: jod 1890:222.4 ihe'=dha=bi=khe=ama it {an arrow] had been placed (or mounted) [on a wall], they say [*ihe'* also refers to the arrow's shape.] Probably a reference to the implicit action of the verb jod 1890:379.7 ni'as^iNga j^u'ba sigdha'=bi=khe=ama some persons left a trail in a long line, they say [shape attributed to the trail] jod 1890:148.5 du'ba z^aN'=bi=khe=ama four it as sleeps (days), they say [or perhaps to the set of four?] Perhaps a reference to the trail/path evidencing the departure? jod 1890:58.19-59.1 a'khi=a'gdha=i=khe they [group of people at a dance] have gone home [khe because of the set?] jod 1890:149:7-8 agdha'=bi=khe=ama they say he had gone homeward [but not here] Clearly a reference to the feather, but NP perhaps an object. jod 1890:52.6 hiNxpe' wiN udhi'xpadha=bi=khe=ama a feather had fallen (he had discarded it by hand) To a distant subject: jod 1890:116.3-4 waba'gdheze z^iN'ga ... "..." a'=bi=dhaN=ama manual [when clause] [quotation] it said, they say "When he had read the manual, it told him he would get a gun." Who knows? jod 1890:17.14 wasa'be ghage'=xti=hnaN naNz^iN'=bi=khe=ama black bear just crying hard he stood there, they say [perhaps the duration of time?] When we have parallel examples of =bi=the=ama and =bi=khe=ama and =bi=dhaN=ama, I think we can take it that they are doing similar things, but differ somehow by "gender." There are also parallel =tta=the and =tta=khe as 'futures of surity', and parallel uses of =(i)=the=(di) and =(i)=khe=(di) as 'when', and parallel uses of =the and =khe and =ge with locative predicates. This inclines me to understand =(i)=the and =(i)=khe as parallel, too. From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 13 04:17:10 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:17:10 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > Perhaps if there were any question whether such things existed, but the > numerous *the* examples show they do. Flexibility can be a fault in an > analysis, but I'm not sure it's a fault in a grammar. I'm not suggesting that. I'm not even sure that at the stage we're at one can even fault the analysis. You've demonstrated clearly that these constructions exist. What I find unclear is still whether or not they are evidentials. If we already have an evidential construction with approximately the shape {-abiama}, then what does the addition of the positional {-the, -khe, -dhaN, -ge} in the middle add to that? It is clear that {-the}is the unmarked positional, in that it's the one that occurs with nominalized verbs, subordinated clauses and so forth. But what's its function in these present cases? Evidential, incipient tense, classification, what? {-khe} is the one I remember getting from Mrs. Rowe when I changed a present tense English sentence into a past tense equivalent. At the time I thought she might be forcing a grammatical distinction that didn't really exist in Siouan. I think we should be looking at/for distinctions beyond that of "evidential". > It may refer simply to "punctual" events, while "*khe* might refer to durative > events. That's the general sort of thing I'm thinking about. > jod 1890:17.14 > wasa'be ghage'=xti=hnaN naNz^iN'=bi=khe=ama > black bear just crying hard he stood there, they say > [perhaps the duration of time?] > That's a baffling one, certainly. > When we have parallel examples of =bi=the=ama and =bi=khe=ama and > =bi=dhaN=ama, I think we can take it that they are doing similar things, > but differ somehow by "gender." Right, but probably not as evidentials, unless there are "by sight", "by sound" etc. evidentials, something I don't think is the case in Dhegiha. BTW, are these connected to the conjugated auxiliaries, mikhe, nikhe, athaNhe, adhiNhe, etc.? They don't seem to be to me (following -abi as they do), but my Kaw and Quapaw data are a lot sparser. Thanks again for the many examples. At least no one can say there's no more to do in Dhegiha grammar! Bob From Ogalala2 at aol.com Tue Jun 13 18:02:18 2000 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:02:18 EDT Subject: 20th Conference in Anandarko, Proto-Siouan /r/ & /y/ Message-ID: Based on cognates for dung, little/young, to sing, to sleep, and to stab, add zh > y to Chiwere (Ch) in Table IV, p. 11 under Proto-Siouan *y. Thus, "r" splits into two phonemes "r, zh > y." The Degihans have pointed out my erroneous use of ch and dh in Osage. Remove the v over c and j for Osage. Please let me know if my Osage orthography needs other modifications. Thanks for your inputs, your comments are much appreciated. Ted Grimm From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Fri Jun 16 17:18:20 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:18:20 -0500 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: Fascinating stuff on evidentials, both John's additional examples of ge etc. and Bob's Quapaw sentence! I haven't had a chance to think about them much (just got home yesterday and after 2 weeks of driving around Texas laundry is a higher priority than grammar) so this is entirely off the top of my head. John's ideas that the/khe/etc. agree with the "evidence" and/or have some aspectual function(marking punctual vs nonpunctual?) seem to work nicely for a lot of the examples. The existence of person inflection (first person athe) looks more like grammatical agreement -- and also makes the look more verbal than I'd have guessed. Maybe we're actually looking at something approaching serial verb constructions or even a separate superordinate clause. Bob's question is important: "What I find unclear is still whether or not they are evidentials. If we already have an evidential construction with approximately the shape {-abiama}, then what does the addition of the positional {-the, -khe, -dhaN, -ge} in the middle add to that? ... Evidential, incipient tense, classification, what? " We've been calling (bi)-ama "quotative", but it doesn't always mark an actual quote. I've always taken it as more like what Balkanists call the "admirative" or "renarrated mood" or "non-witnessed" or "hearsay" form; that is, it seems to mean the speaker isn't personally vouching for the truth of the utterance. (Is this right?) If ama means the speaker is NOT claiming to have specific evidence, and if the/khe/dhaN/ge indicate (and agree with) the presence of specific evidence it's downright weird for the two to cooccur, so maybe I'm completely wrong... in any case, the question of what exactly all these little bits of stuff at the ends of clauses are and how they interact needs more work! I'm still worried about how all this relates to the bits of stuff on Noun Phrases (aka articles) too... John's copious examples of all of the positional articles (the/khe/dhaN/ge) as evidentials and also as "when" are making it look more and more like the article series and these other things are actually all identical. Homophony gets less attractive as an explanation the more the whole set of forms is seen to fill all three roles. Maybe we should just chuck the whole article/evidential/conjunction problem out the window and simply call these words "positionals" wherever they occur? (Or for a wordier terminology, "deictic elements specifying spatial, temporal, and/or discourse position" or some such??) But this kind of semantic label leaves totally unsolved the part of the puzzle I'm most interested in, namely their syntactic status. I once tried to defend the position that these words are articles, period, and that clauses they attach to are nominalized. But maybe they are in fact always verbal elements of some sort (auxiliaries?) and the nouns they attach to are clausal? (Siouan languages have plenty of precedent for treating nouns as verbs/clauses, eg inflecting them for person...) Or perhaps they are some kind of abstract agreement that can show up on either nominal or verbal projections? Or, as I suggested a paragraph or two back, they could be a separate, higher predicate which takes various kinds of projections as argument? I can think of any number of potentially plausible analyses, but at the moment, no good way of deciding among them. Ah, well -- plenty of fun stuff to keep us busy. And this is without even bringing up the animate article forms..... Enough for now, Catherine From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jun 16 20:17:05 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:17:05 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <002EFCF4.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: > We've been calling (bi)-ama "quotative", but it doesn't always mark an > actual quote. I've always taken it as more like what Balkanists call > the "admirative" or "renarrated mood" or "non-witnessed" or "hearsay" > form; that is, it seems to mean the speaker isn't personally vouching > for the truth of the utterance. (Is this right?) If ama means the > speaker is NOT claiming to have specific evidence, and if > the/khe/dhaN/ge indicate (and agree with) the presence of specific > evidence it's downright weird for the two to cooccur, so maybe I'm > completely wrong... in any case, the question of what exactly all these > little bits of stuff at the ends of clauses are and how they interact > needs more work! The Balkan sense is the one that Siouanists intend, I think. Anyway, it's the one I understand: information that is supported by general repetition and acceptance, not by personal experience. If you think of ama in this sense as a sort of higher predicate, then it's not too surprising that it can occur above the other evidential, the one that works somewhat like a Turkish perfect. That in itself is a sort of higher predicate, and they're just nested: "They say that it seemed that ..." What's a bit surprising is that I don't think that the declarative (personal experience) is nested within the quotative - though now I'll have to check seriously, i.e., no "They say that he asserted personally that ..." > I'm still worried about how all this relates to the bits of stuff on > Noun Phrases (aka articles) too... John's copious examples of all of > the positional articles (the/khe/dhaN/ge) as evidentials and also as > "when" are making it look more and more like the article series and > these other things are actually all identical. Homophony gets less > attractive as an explanation the more the whole set of forms is seen to > fill all three roles. I think we have to have both a general name, for which positionals might do, and a functional name, for uses in particular contexts. The contexts for the the/khe/dhaN/ge set that I know of are: - simple evidential with independent (?) sentence: [ ... verb-(PLUR)-EVID ...] - future of surity (shall surely ...): [... verb tta-(PLUR)-EVID ...] - when clauses: [... verb EVID]-(POSTPOSITION) - articles (NP)-(DEM)-EVID-(POSTPOSITION) - INDEFINITE/INTERROGATIVE-EVID-POSTPOSITION as 'where?' - e-the 'may' and e-the-gaN 'maybe' "modals" Note that last night I also noticed that there are instances of =the=di=hi 'when' combined with kki 'when' with something like future hypothetical meaning. > I once tried to defend the position that these words are articles, > period, and that clauses they attach to are nominalized. But maybe they > are in fact always verbal elements of some sort (auxiliaries?) and the > nouns they attach to are clausal? I think these are not all that different, for Siouan purposes. > Or perhaps they are some kind of abstract agreement that can show up on > either nominal or verbal projections? Or, as I suggested a paragraph or > two back, they could be a separate, higher predicate which takes various > kinds of projections as argument? I can think of any number of > potentially plausible analyses, but at the moment, no good way of > deciding among them. Anyway, they seem to agree with something about the noun or clause. The only way I can get at it presently is by looking at examples in Dorsey. It's usually clear why khe, dhaN or ge might be used, but unless *the* also has personal agreement, it's hard to know what it might be agreeing with. Regina Pustet said at the Caddoan & Siouan Conference (I guess we can call it that this time), that Dakotan articles are used in similar ways. They wouldn't agree in gender, of course, but is there any literature on this? ---- Returning to terminology, we might call akha/ama 'animate [something] positionals', and dhiNkhe/thaN/dhiN/ma 'animate [un-something] positionals', and the/khe/gdhaN/ge 'inanimate positionals'. Of course, khe tends to show up in at least the 'animate [un-something] positionals' list, too. '(Un)something' here would be either proximate/obviative or marked/unmarked, as possibilities. There is a fourth set of positionals, namely the/gdhe/he/khe/dhaN/gdhaN that occur in 'suddenly/inceptive/iterative' auxiliaries and in verbs of placement and a few other less clear contexts. Also, the regular verbs of posture naz^iN/a...gdhiN/z^aN/maN...dhiN have some grammatical uses. These several classes could be referred to as definite articles, conjunctions, auxiliaries, etc., of various sorts in context. I haven't thought out the details yet. JEK From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Jun 16 20:50:00 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:50:00 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just a tidbit about the Lakhota articles. Yes, they too can function as clause-finals, but I've never studied them systematically in that role. The ordinarly definite article, ki, can be translated 'if' in clause final position, and generally marks a future or non-real clause. The other one which we gloss as 'the aforesaid', k7uN, marks either a past-before-the-past clause (English aux. "had" + past ppl) or a strong assertion of truth. When kids are having the kind of argument that in English goes "did not." "did so." "did not." "did so." the Lakhota equivalent is "s^ni." "k7uN." "s^ni". "k7uN." I know these aren't quite the same as what we usually refer to as evidentials, but they do constitute a use of the articles to indicate the degree of confidence the speaker has in the reality of the clause. There is little doubt in my mind that the article and the particle are the same morpheme, but I would need to muse a long time, I think, before coming up with either a semantic or a functional description that covers what seems to me as an English speaker to be "both" of those roles. I do think it's related to the fact that the difference between nouns and verbs is very slippery in these languages, at least in the lexicon. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jun 16 22:27:30 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:27:30 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Just a tidbit about the Lakhota articles. Yes, they too can function as > clause-finals, but I've never studied them systematically in that role. > The ordinarly definite article, ki, can be translated 'if' in clause final > position, and generally marks a future or non-real clause. This sounds an awful lot like Omaha-Ponca =kki 'if, when', although the sound correspondence is wrong, i.e., OP kki should correspond to Da *khi, and Dakota ki should correspond to OP *gi. Perhaps OP has an underlying cluster of some origin in =kki: ??kki < -X-ki. As an aside, there are a couple of OP words with final -gi of obscure provenance, e.g., wakkaNda 'god, powerful spirit' vs. wakkaNdagi 'watermonster' and in some Dhegiha languages, if I recall, 'doctor, magician'. There's at least one other -gi word sort of like this, that I forget. > The other one which we gloss as 'the aforesaid', k7uN, marks either a > past-before-the-past clause (English aux. "had" + past ppl) or a strong > assertion of truth. This reminds me of the development of 'been' as 'long since, already, definitely' in AAVE. > I know these aren't quite the same as what we usually refer to as > evidentials, but they do constitute a use of the articles to indicate > the degree of confidence the speaker has in the reality of the clause. > There is little doubt in my mind that the article and the particle are > the same morpheme, but I would need to muse a long time, I think, before > coming up with either a semantic or a functional description that covers > what seems to me as an English speaker to be "both" of those roles. Well, an article and a conjunction like *when* or *if* both express information status. *The* in English tags something as a reference previously made, or clear from the context, 'the man I mentioned' or 'the bathroom', 'the steering wheel', etc. And *if* definitely covers the ground 'grant me that something might be true or might exist', while *when* essentially refers to a definite event, pre-existing, or unquestioned, if not previously mentioned. 'The man I mentioned' is more like a *when* situation and 'the steering wheel' is more like an *if* situation. Exx. If I can find time, I'll come visit. The time/occasion being found, I'll come visit. If there are footprints, they must have gone that way. There being footprints/the footprints being (there), they must have gone that way. The first of these is a *the* situation, I think, while the second is a *khe* situation. The first of these is also a future situation (a 'shall surely' situation?), whereas if it were past: If he found the time, he visited you. The time being found, he visited you. => It seems that he found the (*the*) time. (The evidence is the visit.) Or from the footprint example. It seems that there were some (*khe*) footprints. (They could be seen.) By extension (maybe): It seems that they went that way (*khe*) (The evidence is the implicit line of footprints.) ---- I wonder if there's any parallel here to the Algonquian conjunct order? My recollection is that these tend to occur in subordinated clauses, but in some languages in some narratives most clauses are conjunct. In some languages the conjunct replaces the independent, in fact. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 17 02:42:31 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:42:31 -0600 Subject: Another Patient-Subject Verb Message-ID: Here's an interesting Omaha-Ponca patient subject example that I found in Dorsey's 1891 Omaha and Ponka Letters collection, p. 78, in a the Notes to a letter from Gihaz^i (Samuel White) to Cornelius Rickman. Gihaz^i delivered an English preface to his letter in which he stated that he had been having problems with sore eyes, but "Now my eyes are well, and I am in good health." Dorsey offers as the Omaha equivalent: Is^ta'=dhaN aNgi'gdhaska, iN'udaN. eyes the my own are well it's good for me The form aNgi'gdhaska agrees with the speaker using the patient marker aN, though is^ta'=dhaN 'the eyes' is in patient form, too, to judge by the article. (It might also be an obviative subject, I guess, though the verb doesn't take an plural marking.) The verb stem is a suus gigdhaska 'one's own to be clear', from gaska 'to strike clear', probably here 'to become clear', following partially the pattern of u-ga-X stems meaning 'to become X colored'. Dorsey renders the form literally as 'mine is white again', primarily refering to the cornea and secondarily to the sight. Compare 1890:690.8 Wi' naNxi'de aN'ska=xti I hearing it is very good for me I have excellent hearing JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 17 03:12:22 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:12:22 -0600 Subject: Dorsey's Footnotes Message-ID: As in the preceding posting, Dorsey's footnotes can be very interesting. For example, in the Omaha and Ponka Letters, p. 93: "The style is not that of the usual Ponka, e.g., ittaNge wiwitta t?e, instead of wittaNge iNt?e; ...; wa?u witta t?e, instead of wa?u=s^ti iNt?e; though both forms are used, fide G[eorge Miller], an Omaha." Here we see an early use of the possessive pronoun instead of the inalienable possessive prefix and a dative sibject verb. Or, p. 101-2: "Hexaka-mani's mother was an Omaha. He is the chief of a Yankton gens. When the author met him at the Omaha Agency in 1878, he found that H-m coul read and write his native tongue, the Yankton dialect of the Dakota. In the course of an hour H-m learned the aditional characters required for writing Omaha, and after his return home he sent the accompanying Omaha letter written in detached syllables. Being a Yankton he is used to writing k before d, so in writing Omaha he retained the k (instead of using g) before the [cent sign] (=dh)." (Here dh is actually Dorsey's spelling. P. 105 "The two letters dictated by this Indian [Ttenuga-zi] are peculiar (i.e., unique) in the number of English words adopted." (The words seem to be used to further specify more generic Omaha equivalents like IttigaNdhai Commissioner" 'the Commissioner grandfather (senior or non-local official)' or unaN's^taN depot 'the stopping place depot'. P. 109 Points out an instance of 'you see' as dhas^taNbe, i.e., doubly inflected, which is today the norm, but then noteworthy. P. 116-117 IhaN=khe e=da'=daN iz^a'z^e adhiN e'=iN=the gmo the what name she had perhaps "IhaN=khe [the reclining grandmother] is used because the old woman's mother's body was laid in the grave years ago, and is regarded as still reclining." And notice that khe is here used with a subject, abeit apparently an obviative one. P. 95 "S^ahiedha was a Yankton by birth. He married a Ponka woman and was adopted into the tribe." In Cheyenne's letter occurs makhaN "maka'" 'medicine', in Dakota form, which Dorsey notes would be makkaN "maka" in usual usage. The letter is otherwise in OP form, and it's not clear if there are other trace of a Dakota "accent" that Dorsey (or I) may have missed. Note that Dorsey's printed orthography is different from his usage in his fieldnotes, which was a sort of extended Riggs system, so it's not clear to me what he wrote that he latter rendered as "k." Probably just that, but I'm not sure. I haven't really begun to touch on the significance of the notes (and the letters) to historical issues, or matters of sociolinguistics, except perhaps in mentioning some examples of intermarriage and mutual influence of languages. Dorsey often comments on the degree of facility of the individual in English or other languages, as well as relationships, name changes, and the like. In regard to the last, he often seems to have updated names to reflect the time of publication as opposed to the time of recording, something I discovered in examining some of his fieldnotes (thanks to Dr. Archambault of the NAA). JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 17 22:52:37 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:52:37 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > I think we have to have both a general name, for which positionals might > do, and a functional name, for uses in particular contexts. The contexts > for the the/khe/dhaN/ge set that I know of are: > > - simple evidential with independent (?) sentence: [ ... verb-(PLUR)-EVID > ...] > - future of surity (shall surely ...): [... verb tta-(PLUR)-EVID ...] > - when clauses: [... verb EVID]-(POSTPOSITION) > - articles (NP)-(DEM)-EVID-(POSTPOSITION) > - INDEFINITE/INTERROGATIVE-EVID-POSTPOSITION as 'where?' > - e-the 'may' and e-the-gaN 'maybe' "modals" I omitted here one more modal: - e-iN-the 'perhaps' Note that I think that the iN in this form may be the OP reflex of the iN that occurs as part of the Dakota future/irrealis -iNkt- (or -ktA conditioning iN, in a more traditional analysis). It would be nice if this were e-iN-tte, but I'm pretty sure it's eiNthe. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 17 22:57:57 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:57:57 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > If he found the time, he visited you. > The time being found, he visited you. > > => > > It seems that he found the (*the*) time. (The evidence is the visit.) > > Or from the footprint example. > > It seems that there were some (*khe*) footprints. (They could be seen.) > > By extension (maybe): > > It seems that they went that way (*khe*) (The evidence is the implicit > line of footprints.) The main problem with this sort of analysis is that in the 'when' uses the order is [reason]=when, consequence, but in the evidential uses the order is [consequence]=EVID, where the set of 'when' and EVID markers are the same. The "evidence" may appear in the consequence clause, or be implicit, but it seems strange that the development isn't more like DEM=when [consequence]. That is, how does the EVID marker hop to the end of the main clause? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jun 18 02:12:03 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:12:03 -0600 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000605091431.00b01468@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > Here's the address for a little tool that we developed at the University of > Victoria to help linguists use phonetic script easily on web > pages: http://web.uvic.ca/lancenrd/ipa/ I thought it might be of use to > some fellow Siouanists. Let me know if there are any characters that > aren't there that you would find useful. However, at this time, we can't > accomodate all the diacritic combinations. I finally got around to checking this out, and it is certainly something anyone planning to use IPA might want to look at. I suspect that it might be a good idea to move the character gif files to a local location and revise the HTML to point to this local location. Otherwise UVIC's site might receive quite a pounding if this approach became widespread. I suppose that froma Siouanist point of view, the characters I miss are the ones that Siouanists use that come out of the Americanist tradition, as opposed to the IPA, e.g., things with haceks and ogoneks. From shanwest at uvic.ca Sun Jun 18 06:08:05 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:08:05 -0700 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 08:12 PM 17/06/00 -0600, you wrote: >On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > > Here's the address for a little tool that we developed at the > University of > > Victoria to help linguists use phonetic script easily on web > > pages: http://web.uvic.ca/lancenrd/ipa/ I thought it might be of use to > > some fellow Siouanists. Let me know if there are any characters that > > aren't there that you would find useful. However, at this time, we can't > > accomodate all the diacritic combinations. > >I finally got around to checking this out, and it is certainly something >anyone planning to use IPA might want to look at. I suspect that it might >be a good idea to move the character gif files to a local location and >revise the HTML to point to this local location. Otherwise UVIC's site >might receive quite a pounding if this approach became widespread. Yes. That is in the plan. We want to let people download the gifs and then change the 'path to graphics' box. (That's why it's there). When it's changed, the html changes as well. >I suppose that froma Siouanist point of view, the characters I miss are >the ones that Siouanists use that come out of the Americanist tradition, >as opposed to the IPA, e.g., things with haceks and ogoneks. I made c, j, s, and z with haceks. What else would you like to see? It's basically my project, so I can add some if you think you'd use it. And what are ogoneks? Shannon West From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Sun Jun 18 23:59:03 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:59:03 +1000 Subject: For web page makers Message-ID: > I made c, j, s, and z with haceks. What else would you like to see? It's > basically my project, so I can add some if you think you'd use it. And > what are ogoneks? Ogonek is what I think John calls the little subscript hook that goes in the opposite direction to a cedilla. They're used for the nasal vowels of Polish (and by Americanists for nasal V's also). Ogonek may be Polish. It always seemed strange to me since in Slavic it should mean "little fire" and in Russian it's always been the name of a variety/humor/satire magazine. Those are all the hacek-ed charx I need, although the Coloradans use h-hacek for [x] and, I think, g-hacek for [gamma] and maybe n-hacek for the velar nasal. Bob From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Jun 19 00:21:13 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:21:13 -0700 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <394D6247.1F70D6F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: At 09:59 AM 19/06/00 +1000, you wrote: > > I made c, j, s, and z with haceks. What else would you like to see? It's > > basically my project, so I can add some if you think you'd use it. And > > what are ogoneks? > >Ogonek is what I think John calls the little subscript hook that goes in the >opposite direction to a cedilla. They're used for the nasal vowels of Polish >(and by Americanists for nasal V's also). Ogonek may be Polish. It always >seemed strange to me since in Slavic it should mean "little fire" and in >Russian >it's always been the name of a variety/humor/satire magazine. Aha! That's what that thing is called! Hmm, so each vowel would need one of those? Or just the basic a e i o u? >Those are all the hacek-ed charx I need, although the Coloradans use >h-hacek for >[x] and, I think, g-hacek for [gamma] and maybe n-hacek for the velar nasal. Those I could definitely add if people want them. I don't want to do a lot of work if no one is interested, but I'd be happy to do it if people will use it. Shannon From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 00:38:09 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:38:09 +1000 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. Message-ID: ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Just a tidbit about the Lakhota articles. Yes, they too can function as > clause-finals, but I've never studied them systematically in that role. > The ordinarly definite article, ki, can be translated 'if' in clause final > position, and generally marks a future or non-real clause. We use nominalized verbs in Englsh with the "if" meaning. "No 'nays' heard, the 'ayes' have it." = "If/since there are no 'nays', the 'ayes' win." Or, "no water (being) available, we'll just have to drink beer." I think that's what's happening in Lakota. The nominalized verb form simply carries with it a variety of additional meanings depending on the verb inflection in the main clause. It can be uncertainty, causation, etc., depending on circimstances. > The other one > which we gloss as 'the aforesaid', k7uN, marks either a > past-before-the-past clause (English aux. "had" + past ppl) or a strong > assertion of truth. When kids are having the kind of argument that in > English goes "did not." "did so." "did not." "did so." the Lakhota > equivalent is "s^ni." "k7uN." "s^ni". "k7uN." I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like a nearly exact equivalent. Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 00:54:41 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:54:41 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: > John's ideas that the/khe/etc. agree with the "evidence" and/or have some > aspectual function(marking punctual vs nonpunctual?) seem to work nicely for a > lot of the examples. The existence of person inflection (first person athe) > looks more like grammatical agreement -- and also makes the look more verbal > than I'd have guessed. Maybe we're actually looking at something approaching > serial verb constructions or even a separate superordinate clause. All the animate positionals now have conjugated forms. a-nihe, a-thaN, m-iNkhe, and presumably either a-khe or mi-khe (the latter for sure in Quapaw for -khe). So they've gone from being Proto-Siouan verb roots 'sit, stand, lie' to classificatory demonstratives in Mandan, classifiers in Dakotan, classificatory articles in Dhegiha and then back to being conjugated verbs in Dhegiha. Full circle. I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms. > > "What I find unclear is still whether or not they are evidentials." I'm still asking that question. This is something that really begs for fresh field work. Maybe Kathy can try contrasting the forms with -abiama and -abi-{positional}-ama (if I got the syntax right there) to see what differences in meaning there are. She could start with John's examples from the JOD texts. It's clear that the positionals have undergone massive amounts of additional grammaticalization in Dhegiha and that we're only beginning to understand some of them. I agree with Catherine that -abiama, to use the Omaha form, is similar to Balkan hearsay. I'm a lot less clear on the function of the positionals in the same complex. Turkish -ti/-mi$ is just the Turkish way of rendering the Balkan hearsay distinction. And it's probably the origin of it. Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 02:08:39 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:08:39 +1000 Subject: For web page makers Message-ID: Shannon West wrote: > Aha! That's what that thing is called! Hmm, so each vowel would need one > of those? Or just the basic a e i o u? For me, just the five. People like Iroquoianists might need more. Like maybe a turned [v] with a hook and an epsilon or ae=digraph with the hook. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 15:25:12 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:25:12 -0600 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000617230002.00e1ea90@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > I made c, j, s, and z with haceks. What else would you like to see? It's Oops, sorry! I didn't have the list in front of me by the time I got to writing the response and assumed it was pure IPA, based on the forms I'd focussed on. But,,, apart from this set, I've seen hacek used with n (for a nasalized r in Winnebago, by Ken Miner), and with g (for gamma, by the Colorado Lakhota Project). > basically my project, so I can add some if you think you'd use it. And > what are ogoneks? Ogonek is nasal hook. I noticed tildes, but not hooks. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 15:49:15 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:49:15 -0600 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <394D6247.1F70D6F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > ... the Coloradans use h-hacek for [x] ... Oops, yes, I forgot. Sorry, David (and Eli and Neva and Allan)! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 15:55:43 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:55:43 -0600 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000618170438.00aa5120@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > Aha! That's what that thing is called! Hmm, so each vowel would need one > of those? Or just the basic a e i o u? Maybe it means 'flame'? I think I got it from a reputable source, but it's well known on the Web that my Slavic etymologies are weak. Anyway, for most Siouan languages, aiou suffice, but e occurs in various primary sources for various reasons. For Tanoan you need ae and open o, too, I think, plus all the other vowels, in combination with acute, grave, and circumflex. Also with capitals you ever plan to work with texts of any size. The Tanoanists, of course, are on their own as far as this list is concerned :-) but I keep having to worry about them personally, and I can report that their vowel systems are a real nuisance. You can't even fit them into the "wastage" in a standard-sized font, at least if you want capitals. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 15:58:27 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:27 -0600 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. In-Reply-To: <394D6B71.98B5B8F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > a nearly exact equivalent. How about that little dhaN 'past' auxiliary in Dhegiha, cf. OP =the=dhaN EVID (or whatever)-in the past? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 16:03:43 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:03:43 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <394D6F51.C61E0F19@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the > inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms. I had't either, so I was pretty surprised at the following. I can't think what that a- is if not first person. Note first person inflection of article *the* as *athe* in next set. Na! agdha'the athe', e'= ama. Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say. Na! agdha'sniN=kki az^aN' athe', e'= ama. Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say jod 1890:63.5-6 I posted these before, but I realize some of my posts must get long enough that they get skipped over with glazed eyes. These are also interesting in being (some of the) examples in which the evidential is glossed with 'must have' in what is clearly the evidential sense for English. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 16:11:03 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:11:03 -0600 Subject: For web page makers (fwd) Message-ID: Here's something I sent aside in response to a query on using Unicode for Web sites: Unicode is missing precomposed combinations for things like vowel plus nasal hook plus accent. They only offer precomposed combinations with diacritics for things that occur in (mostly) European(-originating) languages. Doing so was part of the compromise that got them together with the European ISO committee. Their original scheme, on which linguists must still rely is to provide sequences of base character symbols and diacritics symbols, I think with the diacritics preceding, but I forget. Unfortunately, most early implementations that I have seen blythely ignore this, and one that didn't that I looked at produced grossly inferior looking results for combinations, sort of like what WP (for DOS or early Windows?) used to do, with spidery lines for the diacritics. ---- The problem with a Unicode web site is the problem with any Web site that uses other than the cross-section of standard Unix and Windows characters that the Web standard recognizes. People at sites without those characters can't see anything. For example, at a Unix site you can't see some of the fairly innocent things (s-hacek?) that Wayne Leman uses in his Cheyenne site, because those characters aren't available in the usual Unix set (in the US). What you see instead is a helpful blank. (Incidentally, WL is aware of this, but feels, reasonably, that most of his readers will be using Windows systems.) The problem is that though the poster of a Web pages gets to see it as intended fully populated with local fonts, the receiver can only see it that way of the receiver has all the same fonts. Web pages are rendered with the aid of browser-local fonts. So, until all sites support Unicode, which means until all Unix and Windows (and Mac. etc.) sites support Unicode in at least their Web browsers, Unicode is not going to help at the receiving end. Moreover, for our purposes they have to support not just precomposition, but composition of combinations by local rendering, so that when they see a sequence ogonek acute a they render it as an accented a with a nasal hook. --- There is an alternative, which I have been meaning to look at. The road to hell is paved with uncompleted projects. This alternative is a scheme put forward by Bitstream and Netscape to support downloadable fonts. These fonts slow down the page, because they have to be downloaded, if not present in the browser environment, but they do get downloaded and used if they are missing. They are secure, so they can't be used locally except in conjunction with Web browsing. They are supported natively by Netscape browsers, and there is a plugin that gets automatically dowloaded into MS Internet Explorer that supports them there. The one glitch I know of so far is that making this plugin downloadable requires the support and cooperation of the people maintaining the Web server (not just the Web pages), at the distributing site. The other glitch (of sorts) is that the tool that makes the fonts from regular TrueType fonts costs c. $200.00. It is possible to download a trial version of it that will make one or two fonts. It has been my intention to test this out on the Standard Siouan fonts, but I haven't gotten around to it. Of course, if you are, say, using a PC browser on a system that has the Standard Siouan fonts installed, and browsing pages that are coded in these fonts (among others) you should see the pages in Standard Siouan characters. At least this is the theory. Jan has discovered some problem combinations, though I don't remember the specifics at the moment. The advantage of this approach over the approach of representing each character as a gif file, which is what Shannon has set up, is that the html files use a single character to represent a character, instead of using a graphics file download instruction. Also, though I haven't tried and don't know the details, I'd think that the downloading might be faster. Note: MS also has a downloadable fonts scheme, but it doesn't work with Netscape, and may not work with all versions of MSIE, e.g., the Unix one, though the Mac version of MSIE is also supposed to be somewhat impoverished, feature-wise (incipient case suffix in English!). From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Mon Jun 19 16:20:07 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:20:07 -0600 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. In-Reply-To: <394D6B71.98B5B8F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: > > > > The other one > > which we gloss as 'the aforesaid', k7uN, marks either a > > past-before-the-past clause (English aux. "had" + past ppl) or a strong > > assertion of truth. When kids are having the kind of argument that in > > English goes "did not." "did so." "did not." "did so." the Lakhota > > equivalent is "s^ni." "k7uN." "s^ni". "k7uN." > > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > a nearly exact equivalent. That seems very far-fetched semantically to me for the article meaning. Perhaps you should also know that plain ?uN is apparently in free variation with k?uN. If you're looking for compounding, I'd look instead at the postposition ?uN 'with; because", but even that doesnt' make semantic sense to me. David From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 19 18:10:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:10:35 -0600 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > > a nearly exact equivalent. > > How about that little dhaN 'past' auxiliary in Dhegiha, cf. OP =the=dhaN > EVID (or whatever)-in the past? If I recall correctly, Bob Rankin reports this in Quapaw in an inflected form something like 1/2/3 maN, z^aN, naN (???) with the reading 'used to'. In OP there are just those sporadic -dhaN 'past' glosses by Dorsey. It doesn't always occur after the evidential, as far as I can recollect. The Quapaw form also reminds me of the 1/2/3 maN/z^aN/(aN) auxiliary that must follow post-verbal =xti 'truely, very' and =s^naN ~ =hnaN ~ =naN (progressive phonological developments) 'only, exclusively, habitually', which may be connected with the aN that appears as maN in the first person only of =(a)z^i NEGATIVE: =m=az^i (=maN=z^i?) 'I + NEG'. The only -aN wandering around unclaimed that I can recall is the one in =(s^te)s^te(w(aN)) 'soever'. From BARudes at aol.com Mon Jun 19 23:15:45 2000 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:15:45 EDT Subject: For web page makers Message-ID: No, just a, e, o, u with nasal hook will suffice for Iroquoianists; however, we use a lot of other special characters that I won't even mention here (unless asked). Blair From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 23:33:52 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:33:52 +1000 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. Message-ID: > > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > > a nearly exact equivalent. > > How about that little dhaN 'past' auxiliary in Dhegiha, cf. OP =the=dhaN > EVID (or whatever)-in the past? That's the doublet of the Omaha-Ponca reflex of *?uN: 'do' It is conjugated as an auxiliary still in Quapaw, and, I suspect, the other dialects. m-aN 'I do/did' z^-aN 'you do/did' naN 's/he does/did' with the epenthetic n/dh/y in the 3rd person. The epenthetic glide in the 3rd person is the only thing that distinguishes the AUX from the main verb as far as I can tell. That, plus it's syntactic function, of course. In Quapaw texts it nearly always has an "imperfective" meaning, i.e., is best translated 'used to'. In OP it would be homophonous with the sitting inanimate dhaN. In Quapaw it is homophonous with the habitual naN but this is only because Dorsey didn't transcribe initial voiceless nasals. Habitual is really hnaN in QU < *shnaN. These all occupy different enclitic slots. Habitual precedes -abe/i 'pl' and what I've called 'imperfective' here is nearly always in the rightmost slot, following 'pl.' Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 23:42:41 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:42:41 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: > > I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the > > inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms. > > I had't either, so I was pretty surprised at the following. I can't think > what that a- is if not first person. > Na! agdha'the athe', e'= ama. > Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say. > ------------ > Na! agdha'sniN=kki az^aN' athe', e'= ama. > Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say > jod 1890:63.5-6 I was thinking of those as examples of -tte/-tta 'potential mode' with the confusion of th/tt that Dorsey evinced early on. Quapaw has similar usages, but they're all transcribed with the symbol JOD used for tt in that language (around 1890). Quapaw doubles up the tte sometimes, and you find ttaitte and the like. They always get some sort of conditional or modal translation. I was assuming it was the same morpheme as what we erroniously call 'future tense' in other words. I think we agreed a long time ago that it's some sort of irrealis or potential mode marker derived from 'want' (which meaning it still has in Hidatsa and Biloxi as I recall). How confident are you of Dorsey's transcription here? Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 19 23:50:02 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:50:02 +1000 Subject: Strange use Dakota kiN. Message-ID: > > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the > > usual initial syllable syncope operating. So "does so" or "did so" looks like > > a nearly exact equivalent. > > That seems very far-fetched semantically to me for the article > meaning. Perhaps you should also know that plain ?uN is apparently in free > variation with k?uN. If you're looking for compounding, I'd look instead > at the postposition ?uN 'with; because", but even that doesnt' make > semantic sense to me. *?uN has been grammaticalized or seim-grammaticalized with these 'past' (or perfect/imperfect) notions in a number of languages, often leaving doublets. I just posted a note on this construction in the Dhegiha languages, but there are similar usages in Biloxi. As I recall Winnebago also uses it (ut I wouldn't want to be held to that without checking). There's also the peculiar translations of ?uN as 'be' rather than 'do' in a number of languages. I've never tried to sort those out, but they exist. I certainly don't find it any more far fetched than "do support" in English. Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 20 00:45:37 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:45:37 +1000 Subject: Quapaw potential mode. Message-ID: wie naN-hi aN-o- ki- ttoN-we tta-i-tte- naN, 1sg alone-EMP 1PAT-in-BEN-depend-PL POT-?-POT-as Me alone just me they depend would as Since they would be depending on just me alone, wi-tteke o-a-ki-we-bda-bda a-b-di$taN. my-mo.bro in-1AGT-BEN-INDF-1AGT-work-1AGT-work on-AGT-stop my mother?s brother I work-work I ceased I stopped working for my (maternal) uncle. The exact structure and meaning of the compounded potential particles, tta-?-tte is unclear, unless maybe the second -tte is perhaps -the, your 'evidential'. For Dorsey, the meaning resulted in the meaning ?would?. Even a single instance of POTENTIAL ASPECT used in this past scenario yields ?would? as the best English translation, since reference is to the future in the past. (see next eg.) The next sentence occurs earlier in the same autobiography. ko???tt? witt?ke w?kiw?bdabd? tte. at that point in time, my mother?s brother I for him work-work would At that point in time I would go to work for my (maternal) uncle. POTENTIAL MODE used in this past scenario yields ?would? as the best English translation, since reference is to the future in the past. From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 20 00:54:25 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:54:25 +1000 Subject: Corrected Quapaw. Message-ID: Sorry, I forgot to alter the font on my second example of Quapaw potential mode. koi$oNttaN, wi-tteke o-a-ki-we-bda-bda tte. at that point in time, my mother?s brother I for him work-work would At that point in time I would go to work for my (maternal) uncle. that should be more readable. I hope. Bob From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 20 01:38:55 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:38:55 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: <394EB1AA.6018693@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: Bob, As you know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop. Surely glottal stops don't pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants???? That makes it even more unlikely that this is the second element of k?uN 'the aforementioned; past completed', since the /?/ doesn't belong there. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 20 06:03:58 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:03:58 +1000 Subject: new track: ?uN Message-ID: I'm afraid it's Dakotan that's out of step on this one. As far as I can tell (and I could easily be corrected), in the languages that have both, 'do' and 'be' should behave exactly the same and may well be the same verb in a pan-Siouan context. Dakotan is peculiar in that it seems to have mixed up reflexes of 'be' and 'use'. It "should" have the mu, nu, etc. conjugation for 'be' (and *perhaps* use the regular wa-, ya- allomorphs with 'use'. At least 'use' should be different because it has a prefix historically.) 'Use' is really *i-?uN 'to do with'. Most of the other languages have clear reflexes of the expected *i- 'instrument', and I've never been able to figure out why Dakotan doesn't. By the way, I still can't account for the fact that 'be' and 'do' seem to be the same. It bothers me semantically, but I think the conjugations are the same. > Bob, As you know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope > I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you > treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': > > mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' > nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' > ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' > uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' > > In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has > an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop. Surely glottal stops don't > pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants???? > > That makes it even more unlikely that this is the second element of k?uN > 'the aforementioned; past completed', since the /?/ doesn't belong there. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu From soup at vm.inext.cz Tue Jun 20 06:59:57 2000 From: soup at vm.inext.cz (SOUP) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:59:57 +0200 Subject: For web page makers (haceks and ogoneks) Message-ID: Just if you are interested in the etymologies of ogonek and hacek: on 19 June 2000 Bob wrote > Ogonek is what I think John calls the little subscript hook that > goes in the opposite direction to a cedilla. > They're used for the nasal vowels of Polish > (and by Americanists for nasal V's also). Ogonek may be Polish. > It always seemed strange to me since in Slavic it should > mean "little fire" and in Russian > it's always been the name of a variety/humor/satire magazine. on 18 June 2000 John wrote > Maybe it means 'flame'? I think I got it from a reputable source, but Ogonek comes from Polish and it means "little tail" (from ogon - "tail"), apparently giving the idea of a vowel having a tail. "Fire" is "ogien^" in Polish. Russian for fire is ogo'n^ I am not sure what the diminutive would be, but assume ogo'n^ok. Hacek (originally ha'c^ek) comes from Czech and it means "little hook" (from ha'k - hook). Haceks were invented by a Czech priest and scholar by the name of Jan Hus hwo was burned at a stake as a heretic in July 1415. By haceks he wanted to simplify the Czech transcription that used digraphs untill then (cz for c^, sz for s^, rz for r^ etc.). He also invented the stress mark and thus changed "aa" for a' an so on. It did simplify the transcription, but in the age of computers, fonts and Internet one wonders whether it would have been better to keep the digraphs. Hopefully Unicode will solve this soon. Jan From soup at vm.inext.cz Tue Jun 20 08:20:34 2000 From: soup at vm.inext.cz (SOUP) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:20:34 +0200 Subject: For web page makers (Unicode vs. SS font) Message-ID: on 19 June 2000 Koontz John E wrote > There is an alternative, which I have been meaning to look at. The road > to hell is paved with uncompleted projects. This alternative is a scheme > put forward by Bitstream and Netscape to support downloadable fonts. > These fonts slow down the page, because they have to be downloaded, if not > present in the browser environment, but they do get downloaded and used if > they are missing. They are secure, so they can't be used locally except > in conjunction with Web browsing. They are supported natively by Netscape > browsers, and there is a plugin that gets automatically dowloaded into MS > Internet Explorer that supports them there. The one glitch I know of so > far is that making this plugin downloadable requires the support and > cooperation of the people maintaining the Web server (not just the Web > pages), at the distributing site. I have played with the SS font and tried to use it as downloadable, but I haven't been successful. It worked with other fonts with special characters but not wit the SS font. > Of course, if you are, say, using a PC browser on a system that has the > Standard Siouan fonts installed, and browsing pages that are coded in > these fonts (among others) you should see the pages in Standard Siouan > characters. At least this is the theory. Jan has discovered some problem > combinations, though I don't remember the specifics at the moment. The problem was that the SS font had to be set in TOOLS/OPTIONS/FONTS (for MS IE). After this it works just all right. Yet not only the siouan text but all texts on all sites are displayed in the SS font and since it doesn't look as "smooth" as other fonts on the screen, it is better to re-set the TOOLS/OPTIONS/FONTS for, lets say, Times New Roman. Visiting such siouan site thus requires constant setting and re-setting. I had some reports that the setting wasn't necessary in Win NT and in Netscape (although some Netscape users could not see the character at all). > The advantage of this approach over the approach of representing each > character as a gif file, which is what Shannon has set up, is that the > html files use a single character to represent a character, instead of > using a graphics file download instruction. Also, though I haven't tried > and don't know the details, I'd think that the downloading might be > faster. Yes, I too am a bit skeptical as concerns the downloading speed of the gif files in large text sites. And also the convenience of "typing" long texts with the gif files (but I haven't taken a real close look at it). > Unicode is missing precomposed combinations for things like vowel plus > nasal hook plus accent. There are other faults of Unicode - sites that use it cannot be searched for words containing the special siouan characters. You simply can't type the character into the "find-box". Such a site thus looses one of its most relevant purposes. Shannon's gif files would not work for this either. But I think the Standard Siouan font would - if one knows the characters' codes and types them into the find-box. > The problem with a Unicode web site is the problem with any Web site that > uses other than the cross-section of standard Unix and Windows characters > that the Web standard recognizes. People at sites without those > characters can't see anything. For example, at a Unix site you can't see > some of the fairly innocent things (s-hacek?) that Wayne Leman uses in his > Cheyenne site, because those characters aren't available in the usual Unix > set (in the US). What you see instead is a helpful blank. (Incidentally, > WL is aware of this, but feels, reasonably, that most of his readers will > be using Windows systems.) > The problem is that though the poster of a Web pages gets to see it as > intended fully populated with local fonts, the receiver can only see it > that way of the receiver has all the same fonts. Web pages are rendered > with the aid of browser-local fonts. I have been working on a web site with siouan texts. At first I used John's Standard Siouan font, but it required downloading, instaling and setting in the browsers options (and even after that it would not work with all browsers). I thought this number of steps would discourage most visitors. So I have changed the site into Unicode. You can see the result on www.inext.cz/siouan . I got reports that the special characters are well seen by users of MS IE, but not always by those who use Netscape. I would be interested in reports from your ends of the line. >>From all that has been said it seems to me that the Standard Siouan font would be the best solution if it is made automatically downloadable. Jan F. Ullrich From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 20 13:52:17 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:52:17 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: <394F094E.E40390C1@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: A couple of things I need to point out in case people reading this exchange don't know Dakotan very well. First, the mu, nu 'use' set is NOT using the stative prefix set -- you can say ma?uN 'he used me'; so historically these prefixes are active, but show the reduced form of the pronoun (which would be /b/ beofre a /y/ or an oral vowel), nasalized because of the following nasal vowel. Second, the meaning 'be' is not a copula (you all knew that, of course), but 'exist', and in language after language which has an active/stative intransitive verb distinction, the 'exist' verb is always active, contrary to my English-speaking expectations. Now as to the semantics of "be" and "do" in the same verb, I can see some kind of connection though a path like do>act>active>lively>living>exist; cf. Latin ago and English 'agitated', perhaps. where "lively" might even be unnecessary. Note also that there is an auxiliary use of ?uN 'be' in Lakhota similar to that of haN but with a different set of verbs -- a student of mine started to investigate this once, but didn't get very far and I've forgotten just what he did find out. I don't know whether the auxiliary use is connected or not, but there's another spot where 'be' and 'do' could overlap. I better quit. I'm usually the one to object to any kind of speculative semantic path suggestions....must have been something odd in the coffee this morning. I'm still not at all content with deriving k?uN 'the aforementioned' from ki+?uN. The syntax of finding a verb in that position is weird, and those semantic suggestions don't fit my intuitions at all. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 14:04:27 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:04:27 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <394EAFF1.78CFB38@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > > I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the > > > inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms. > > > > I had't either, so I was pretty surprised at the following. I can't think > > what that a- is if not first person. > > Na! agdha'the athe', e'= ama. > > Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say. > > ------------ > > Na! agdha'sniN=kki az^aN' athe', e'= ama. > > Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say > > jod 1890:63.5-6 > > I was thinking of those as examples of -tte/-tta 'potential mode' with the > confusion of th/tt that Dorsey evinced early on. Quapaw has similar usages, > but they're all transcribed with the symbol JOD used for tt in that language > (around 1890). Quapaw doubles up the tte sometimes, and you find ttaitte and > the like. They always get some sort of conditional or modal translation. I > was assuming it was the same morpheme as what we erroniously call 'future > tense' in other words. I think we agreed a long time ago that it's some sort > of irrealis or potential mode marker derived from 'want' (which meaning it > still has in Hidatsa and Biloxi as I recall). > > How confident are you of Dorsey's transcription here? Pretty confident. The give away of the aspirate is the breve above the e, i.e., this is ate in both cases. The articles "te" and "ke", and the whens "te" and "ke"0 and the "evidential" "te" as Dorsey spells them for OP are essentially always breved. The breve itself isn't a mark of aspiration, but it seems to be a mark of the combined states lax (not tense) and unstressed. Plus if it were the future, it would be still off that it were inflected, prefixally and not with a following article auxiliary, whereas prefixal inflection like this is not odd for articles, albeit it is for inanimate articles. And, in OP, when it's "taite" or "tate" that's the future of surity translated 'shall surely'. In these cases it's always -te, so you don't see the breve, just as with dhiNke, etc., but, I am still pretty sure it is *the*, for the following reasons. First, it never ablauts itself. It is invariant. Second, it always conditions ablaut itself (note "tate", not just "taite", where it's (b)i that conditions the ablaut), and the grade of ablaut it conditions is not the grade that the future conditions, which is e. Third, there are a passel of other "modal" and "evidential" markers with the same structure, all ending in a non-ablauting "te", so that even when you're still wrestling with what might be the underlying sense of all these "te" you're still suspicious that they're possibly connected. Fourth, the plural follows the first syllable, never the second or both. Fifth, and this is a more recently argument, it seems that 'shall surely' can easily be analyzed as 'shall from the evidence, shall evidently, shall seemingly' instead of regular 'shall (by intent or unsupported prediction or polite suggestion), can, irrealis'. Of course, reduplicated future might also express an "intense future" and this was a factor I considered before finally rejecting that notion and settling on the analysis *tta(=i)=the* for these sequences. Naturally, I'd have to be a bit timid about asserting things for Quapaw, but I'm inclined to think that Dorsey's transcriptions must have enough wiggle room that your ttaitte is probably a *ttaithe* with a similar analysis to the OP formation. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 14:15:43 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:15:43 -0600 Subject: Quapaw potential mode. In-Reply-To: <394EBEB1.D220D20D@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > wie naN-hi aN-o- ki- ttoN-we tta-i-tte- naN, > 1sg alone-EMP 1PAT-in-BEN-depend-PL POT-?-POT-as > Me alone just me they depend would as > Since they would be depending on just me alone, > > wi-tteke o-a-ki-we-bda-bda a-b-di$taN. > my-mo.bro in-1AGT-BEN-INDF-1AGT-work-1AGT-work on-AGT-stop > my mother?s brother I work-work I ceased > I stopped working for my (maternal) uncle. > > The exact structure and meaning of the compounded potential particles, > tta-?-tte is unclear, unless maybe the second -tte is perhaps -the, your > 'evidential'. For Dorsey, the meaning resulted in the meaning ?would?. I'd read it 'since it appeared that they would be depending on me alone' or 'since I concluded that they would be depending on me alone'. I'm assuming that he quit working for his uncle because more immediate responsibilities developed. In other words, what is presumably the analog of OP *the* here adds something more than the potential. Of course, focussing on the evidential sense heavily in the translation might not be appropriate for literary purposes, any more than rendering a gender marker as 'the male/female' would be in translating from a gender language like English into a Dhegiha language, e.g., "she" does not require 'the woman' in the translation, though the Omahas I worked with liked to put it in in translating examples for me. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 14:22:41 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:22:41 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Bob, As you know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope > I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you > treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': > > mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' > nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' > ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' > uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' There isn't any contrast like this in Omaha. In notice the 'be' form here compounds with e=c^ha in the inclusive. Of course, there really isn't any 'be' usage of an aN in Omaha-Ponca, either, just those various auxiliary uses. > In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has > an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop. Surely glottal stops don't > pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants???? Here's where Dick Carter or Mauricio Mixco might be able to say something, though I wouldn't blame him for not wanting to touch this with a ten foot pole - wouldn't ki(N)-uN be likely to be kuN? ?< k?uN ?< ki(N)?uN in typical Mandan developments? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 14:27:14 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:27:14 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': > > mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' > nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' > ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' > uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' In OP aN is both 'do' (in compounds and as auxiliary) and 'use', as far as I can recall. maN egimaN z^aN egiz^aN aN egaN do, use be so From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Tue Jun 20 14:29:20 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:29:20 -0500 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: Just a tiny request... could people please sign their posts? I've been following this discussion with interest, but it's sometimes hard to tell who is saying what... Thanks, Catherine By the way, I'm not always good at hearing aspiration, but I'm pretty sure I've always heard the Omaha "future" tta=i=the with an aspirated th in the last part. And aren't there examples of tta=i=khe etc. too? It sure looks like potential+evidential instead of double potential to me. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 20 15:06:29 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:06:29 -0600 Subject: Correction in the data Message-ID: Sorry -- I was relying too hard on my memory and my hypotheses when I didn't have references at hand last night. Both 'be' and 'do;use' have a glottalized "k" in the first person dual; so that form is not diagnostic of anything in either verb. uNk?uN 'we use it'; ec^huNk?uN 'we do it' uNk?uN 'we are' David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 20 15:08:48 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:08:48 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry again -- John has found another mistake caused by me trying to do this too late and too fast. the 'we are' form is properly uNk?uN not ec^huNk?un. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > Bob, As you know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope > > I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you > > treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are > > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota. 'do' looks related to 'use': > > > > mu 'I use' ec^hamu 'I do' wa?uN 'I am' > > nu 'you use' ec^hanu 'you do' ya?uN 'you are' > > ?uN '3 uses' ec^huN '3 does' ?uN '3 is' > > uNkuN 'we' ec^huNkuN 'we...' ec^unk?uN 'we are' > > There isn't any contrast like this in Omaha. In notice the 'be' form here > compounds with e=c^ha in the inclusive. Of course, there really isn't any > 'be' usage of an aN in Omaha-Ponca, either, just those various auxiliary > uses. > > > In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has > > an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop. Surely glottal stops don't > > pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants???? > > Here's where Dick Carter or Mauricio Mixco might be able to say something, > though I wouldn't blame him for not wanting to touch this with a ten foot > pole - wouldn't ki(N)-uN be likely to be kuN? ?< k?uN ?< ki(N)?uN in > typical Mandan developments? > > From shanwest at uvic.ca Tue Jun 20 15:55:05 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:55:05 -0700 Subject: For web page makers (Unicode vs. SS font) In-Reply-To: <005401bfda90$8f1188a0$87006fd4@default> Message-ID: At 10:20 AM 20/06/00 +0200, you wrote: >on 19 June 2000 Koontz John E wrote > > > There is an alternative, which I have been meaning to look at. The road > > to hell is paved with uncompleted projects. This alternative is a scheme > > put forward by Bitstream and Netscape to support downloadable fonts. > > These fonts slow down the page, because they have to be downloaded, if not > > present in the browser environment, but they do get downloaded and used if > > they are missing. They are secure, so they can't be used locally except > > in conjunction with Web browsing. They are supported natively by Netscape > > browsers, and there is a plugin that gets automatically dowloaded into MS > > Internet Explorer that supports them there. The one glitch I know of so > > far is that making this plugin downloadable requires the support and > > cooperation of the people maintaining the Web server (not just the Web > > pages), at the distributing site. > >I have played with the SS font and tried to use it as downloadable, but I >haven't been successful. It worked with other fonts with special characters >but not wit the SS font. > > > Of course, if you are, say, using a PC browser on a system that has the > > Standard Siouan fonts installed, and browsing pages that are coded in > > these fonts (among others) you should see the pages in Standard Siouan > > characters. At least this is the theory. Jan has discovered some problem > > combinations, though I don't remember the specifics at the moment. > >The problem was that the SS font had to be set in TOOLS/OPTIONS/FONTS (for >MS IE). After this it works just all right. Yet not only the siouan text but >all texts on all sites are displayed in the SS font and since it doesn't >look as "smooth" as other fonts on the screen, it is better to re-set the >TOOLS/OPTIONS/FONTS for, lets say, Times New Roman. Visiting such siouan >site thus requires constant setting and re-setting. >I had some reports that the setting wasn't necessary in Win NT and in >Netscape (although some Netscape users could not see the character at all). That's just it. All these things are good in theory, but often fail in practice. It may not be so in the future, but some people need these things now. > > The advantage of this approach over the approach of representing each > > character as a gif file, which is what Shannon has set up, is that the > > html files use a single character to represent a character, instead of > > using a graphics file download instruction. Also, though I haven't tried > > and don't know the details, I'd think that the downloading might be > > faster. > >Yes, I too am a bit skeptical as concerns the downloading speed of the gif >files in large text sites. And also the convenience of "typing" long texts >with the gif files (but I haven't taken a real close look at it). What I've made wasn't designed for large text sites. However, the gifs I've made are tiny. On a reasonable modem, downloading several hundred of them will take 2 minutes. > > Unicode is missing precomposed combinations for things like vowel plus > > nasal hook plus accent. > >There are other faults of Unicode - sites that use it cannot be searched for >words containing the special siouan characters. You simply can't type the >character into the "find-box". Such a site thus looses one of its most >relevant purposes. Shannon's gif files would not work for this either. But I >think the Standard Siouan font would - if one knows the characters' codes >and types them into the find-box. But at this time, there is *no* alternative. > > The problem with a Unicode web site is the problem with any Web site that > > uses other than the cross-section of standard Unix and Windows characters > > that the Web standard recognizes. People at sites without those > > characters can't see anything. For example, at a Unix site you can't see > > some of the fairly innocent things (s-hacek?) that Wayne Leman uses in his > > Cheyenne site, because those characters aren't available in the usual Unix > > set (in the US). What you see instead is a helpful blank. (Incidentally, > > WL is aware of this, but feels, reasonably, that most of his readers will > > be using Windows systems.) > > The problem is that though the poster of a Web pages gets to see it as > > intended fully populated with local fonts, the receiver can only see it > > that way of the receiver has all the same fonts. Web pages are rendered > > with the aid of browser-local fonts. > >I have been working on a web site with siouan texts. At first I used John's >Standard Siouan font, but it required downloading, instaling and setting in >the browsers options (and even after that it would not work with all >browsers). I thought this number of steps would discourage most visitors. So >I have changed the site into Unicode. You can see the result on >www.inext.cz/siouan . I got reports that the special characters are well >seen by users of MS IE, but not always by those who use Netscape. I would be >interested in reports from your ends of the line. > > >From all that has been said it seems to me that the Standard Siouan font >would be the best solution if it is made automatically downloadable. Yes, I agree, for strictly Siouan purposes, if the technology worked, this would be the best. However, this chart was commissioned to me by people that want to study not Siouan! *gasp* (There's no accounting for some people's taste). Anyway, it seems that there is no approach that will satisfy all parties involved. At least not yet. The linguists of the world just need to get on the Unicode people's case and get them to include more characters. And eventually unicode will be searchable, I'm sure. Shannon From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 18:49:57 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:49:57 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > In OP aN is both 'do' (in compounds and as auxiliary) and 'use', as far as > I can recall. Examples of maN/z^aN/aN/aNaN as 'to use something': (1) AN'kka=z^hi, ppi'=az^i=s^tes^te=waN s^aN' maN'=tta=miNkhe I-NEG even if it is a bad one yet I will use it jod 1890:165.1-2 No, even if it is a bad one I will use it (maN). (2) NaNb=u'dhixdha ga'=dhaN z^aN', dhagdhe'=tte, Ring that (if) you use you will go homeward jod 1890:190.11 If you use (z^aN) that ring, you'll go home. (3) Ha'az^iNga sa'sa=khe e' aN'=bi=ama cord the broken it was he used, they say jod 1890:165.5 It was the broken cord that he used (aN). (4) Kki, hedh=u'baz^aN aNaN'=tte ha And, swing we will use DECm jod 1890:163.5 We'll use the swing. This person looks rearticulated, though with Dorsey it's not possible to be sure. (5) Another verb 'to use' (regular). Smoking is always a good place to look for interesting morphosyntaxes and glottal-stop stems, though this one sort of fails on both counts! Nini' aiN'=tta=miNkhe Tobacco I will use jod 1890:441.6 I will smoke. Examples of maN/z^aN/aN/aNaN as 'to do something' (6) E=a'=thaN a'=maN wi bdha'th e=the'=daN How I do I I eat apt? jod 1890:60.3 What shall I do so that I may eat? (The a= is the indefinite demonstrative.) (7) ga'=maN=tt e'=skaN=bdh=e'=gaN I will do that I expect [that perhaps I am like to think] jod 1890:257.15 I expect that I will do that (what you saw) (8) E=a'=thaN a=z^aN' aN'dhastage a Why you do that you cluck at me QUEST jod 1890:62.2 Why do you cluck at me? (9) ga'=z^aN e=he'=kki=s^ti you do that when I also said jod 1890:583.6 I also said that if you do that I didn't find any third person examples. (10) S^i, e=da'=daN aNaN'=tte a Aagain what will we do QUEST jod 1890:163.4 Again, what will be do? ======= It looks like the overwhelming tendency is for 'to do something' to have a preposed demonstrative. I've used simple examples, but just about any sequence of DEM + g(i) + aN seems to occur. If the gi is present (contracts to gaN with aN alone), the sense is 'to him'. The verbs have readings 'to do this/that/thus (to someone)'. Without a demonstrative gaghe 'to do, to make' is generally substituted. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 20 19:03:21 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:03:21 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <002F0CD6.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: > By the way, I'm not always good at hearing aspiration, but I'm pretty sure I've > always heard the Omaha "future" tta=i=the with an aspirated th in the last part. > And aren't there examples of tta=i=khe etc. too? It sure looks like > potential+evidential instead of double potential to me. Well, undeniably what you hear would tend to have pretty heavy weight. I've just never heard it. I do find =tta=khe: >>From my letter on "More Evidentials" ==== In Future of Surity The future of surity 'shall surely' consists of tta FUTURE + the EVIDENTIAL usually. Here is an example or two with tta + khe. I looked for tta + dhaN or tta + ge without any luck. e=da'=daN ua'z^i= tta=khe'= s^ti waN'gidhe oN?i'=i: what I plant will surely too all he has given to me: jod 1890:518.3 MaNdhiN'c^hakki iNs^?a'ge t?e'=tta=khe. Manthin tcaki old man will surely die as he reclines jod 1890:765.8 ... === I think the first of these is actually a relative clause ending in a future, with a =khe type subject, now that I look at it. But I still like the others. JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Jun 20 23:47:37 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:47:37 +1000 Subject: (haceks and ogoneks) Message-ID: > Ogonek comes from Polish and it means "little tail" (from ogon - "tail"), > apparently giving the idea of a vowel having a tail. "Fire" is "ogien^" in > Polish. > Russian for fire is ogo'n^ I am not sure what the diminutive would be, but > assume ogo'n^ok. Yes, that's exactly it. Russian writes it "ogonek" and pronounces it [aganyo'k]. It was also the name of a Soviet-era magazine that I used to have to read articles in as language assignments. Thanks for the clarification. Bob From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 00:18:24 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:18:24 +1000 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. Message-ID: > The breve itself isn't a mark of > aspiration, but it seems to be a mark of the combined states lax (not > tense) and unstressed. That's entirely possible, but we also know that Dorsey had a diacritic for short vowels rather than long ones (except extra long, which he writes V+++) like everybody else. I tend to suspect that he was marking mostly what he heard as quality differences and never suspected quantity, but the two probably correlate to a degree as in most languages. But you're right that he also tended to adopt "normalized" spellings that might distinguiush what he heard as homophones, etc. > > Plus if it were the future, it would be still off that it were inflected, > prefixally and not with a following article auxiliary, whereas prefixal > inflection like this is not odd for articles, albeit it is for inanimate > articles. That's assuming the a- is indeed the pronominal. By me it should still be thaN or uninflected. Maybe we can get confirmation from the field. Does Osage have this construction? If it's in Quapaw, it must be or have been in KS and OS. I can't remember any KS analog though. > > And, in OP, when it's "taite" or "tate" that's the future of surity > translated 'shall surely'. In these cases it's always -te, so you > don't see the breve, just as with dhiNke, etc., but, I am still pretty > sure it is *the*, for the following reasons. First, it never ablauts > itself. It is invariant. Second, it always conditions ablaut itself > (note "tate", not just "taite", where it's (b)i that conditions the > ablaut), The -i- of ttaitte (or ttaithe, whichever) is not the plural -bi. It is something else, since it appears as accented -i'- in the Quapaw version, and Quapaw never reduces -awe/-awi to just -i-. This -i- is different, tho' I have no idea what it is. If it were nasalized, it would be one of the expected forms of 'potential', but it isn't. > Third, there are a passel of other "modal" > and "evidential" markers with the same structure, all ending in a > non-ablauting "te", so that even when you're still wrestling with what > might be the underlying sense of all these "te" you're still suspicious > that they're possibly connected. Indeed, but this is what comes of our over-using Dorsey 1890. Without confirmation of the phonology, we simply don't know which of JOD's "te" are aspirated and which are tense. > Fourth, the plural follows the first > syllable, never the second or both. Again, unless Omaha has reinterpreted the -i- as 'plural' (or proximate or whatever), it ain't plural. > Fifth, and this is a more recently > argument, it seems that 'shall surely' can easily be analyzed as 'shall > from the evidence, shall evidently, shall seemingly' But that presumes evidentiality, which we can't do until/unless it's confirmed. > Of course, reduplicated future might also express an "intense > future" I think that's more reasonable at this juncture than assuming evidentiality; it is the standard way of intensifying stative verbs, after all. But you may be right -- we really need actual data while there are speakers who can help us learn. > > Naturally, I'd have to be a bit timid about asserting things for Quapaw, > but I'm inclined to think that Dorsey's transcriptions must have enough > wiggle room that your ttaitte is probably a *ttaithe* with a similar > analysis to the OP formation. I'd be the last to disagree with that one -- with the proviso that in QU it really is extremely unlikely that -i- is from *-abi. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 00:25:13 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:25:13 +1000 Subject: Quapaw potential mode. Message-ID: > > wie naN-hi aN-o- ki- ttoN-we tta-i-tte- naN, > > 1sg alone-EMP 1PAT-in-BEN-depend-PL POT-?-POT-as > > Me alone just me they depend would as > > Since they would be depending on just me alone, > > > > wi-tteke o-a-ki-we-bda-bda a-b-di$taN. > > my-mo.bro in-1AGT-BEN-INDF-1AGT-work-1AGT-work on-AGT-stop > > my mother?s brother I work-work I ceased > > I stopped working for my (maternal) uncle. > > I'd read it 'since it appeared that they would be depending on me alone' > or 'since I concluded that they would be depending on me alone'. I'm > assuming that he quit working for his uncle because more immediate > responsibilities developed. This is the autobio of Alphonsus Valliere. I imagine he was pretty sure his sister and mom would need his help, but this really highlights my problem with these evidential meanings -- you can conceivably add them to nearly any sentence the way we say a polite "seems like...." no matter how sure we are, if we don't want to offend. The Quapaws and Omahas could have done that too, of course, but it makes it too easy to assume the analysis. Another argument for sending you to Macy!! :-) Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 00:56:06 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:56:06 +1000 Subject: new track: ?uN Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: Examples of maN/z^aN/aN/aNaN as 'to use something': > (1) > AN'kka=z^hi, ppi'=az^i=s^tes^te=waN s^aN' maN'=tta=miNkhe > I-NEG even if it is a bad one yet I will use it > jod 1890:165.1-2 > > No, even if it is a bad one I will use it (maN). ...etc. "snip" Interesting that Omaha has lost the instrument prefix. Mus' be areal. "Normally" 'use' is 'do with', *i-?uN (BI y-oN, TU i-oN, etc.) Do you find anything at all in Omaha that would suggest the 'be' meaning?? I'm wondering how widespread it is and I have no statistics. I feel that the aspectual or temporal auxiliary meaning of the semi-grammaticalized form of *?uN that we find in all the Dhegiha dialects could be more easily derived from 'be/was' than from 'do/did', although the 'exist' meaning isn't as congenial.. The grammaticalized version is used with stative as well as active verbs, so the active 'do/did' meaning of... m-aN z^-aN dhaN (Quapaw naN) ... doesn't fit so well with the AUX usage. In QU it seems to have the 'imperfective' meaning, but it sees a lot of use in Dorsey's Omaha texts and may have developed into a 'past' or 'perfect' there?? In accordance with Catherine's request, I've added an impressive "signature file". I especially like the "Institute for Advanced Study" line. It makes me look much smarter than I actually am. But alas, it's part of the address.... ;-) Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 04:48:22 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:48:22 +1000 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. Message-ID: I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half my mornings doing email! But... In working up a paper on discourse here I chose the story of "The rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. 557ff.) because I have that story in three different Siouan languages. In it Dorsey has numerous instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented nasal [a]) with the meaning he translates consistently as 'having'. These appear to be essentially perfects in that, in most if not all cases, they signal that some event had *already* taken place when the action or state of the main verb in the sentence does. The particle never appears as naN or dhaN. It is this latter auxiliary that seems to have an imperfective meaning in Quapaw. It is clearly derived from *?uN 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is conjugated, as we have noted several times, m-aN, z^-aN, naN. Do those of you doing Omaha and Ponca think that the aN from the rabbit/turkeys story is the same as the dhaN that Dorsey translates 'past'? or is it something new? Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jun 21 14:28:26 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:28:26 -0600 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. In-Reply-To: <39504915.4507D5D0@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: Bob, that is very clearly a basic meaning for Lakhota k?uN, which is where I started to get into this discussion. Deloria never translates it that way, at least in the glosses (I've never paid much attention to her free translations), but it's clearly the "had" past perfect meaning whenever it's a clause subordinator. It can also be a discourse particle marking a solidly completed past event the speaker is very sure about. So maybe your kV-?uN theory is right after all. DAvid David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've > already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half > my mornings doing email! But... In working up a paper on discourse here > I chose the story of "The rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. > 557ff.) because I have that story in three different Siouan languages. > In it Dorsey has numerous instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented > nasal [a]) with the meaning he translates consistently as 'having'. > These appear to be essentially perfects in that, in most if not all > cases, they signal that some event had *already* taken place when the > action or state of the main verb in the sentence does. The particle > never appears as naN or dhaN. It is this latter auxiliary that seems to > have an imperfective meaning in Quapaw. It is clearly derived from *?uN > 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is conjugated, as we have noted several times, > m-aN, z^-aN, naN. > > Do those of you doing Omaha and Ponca think that the aN from the > rabbit/turkeys story is the same as the dhaN that Dorsey translates > 'past'? or is it something new? > > Bob > > -- > Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor > Research Center for Linguistic Typology > Institute for Advanced Study > La Trobe University > Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia > Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 > Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 > Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 > Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 > > From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Wed Jun 21 15:15:18 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:15:18 -0500 Subject: Siouan Conference Message-ID: John Koontz (I think) wrote: >I wonder if any person or persons who were at the Siouan & Caddoan >Conference this past weekend (June 2-3) would be willing to post a summary >or postmortem? Well... David did ask me (Catherine) if I would summarize the Friday afternoon discussion and I did take a few notes... So I guess I'll volunteer. I'll attempt a short summary of the Dhegiha parasession and the business meeting too, but none of these should be considered the definitive record -- I'm sure other people will have corrections or additions. For the main body of the conference, the agenda that was circulated beforehand is an excellent summary. The only change was that Ardis Eschenberg was unable to attend so her paper was not presented. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1. OPEN DISCUSSION WITH ANADARKO AREA TRIBES ON LANGUAGE ISSUES (6/2/00) This discussion was attended by nearly all the conference participants, as well as some members of the Caddo and Wichita tribes. Two types of issues were discussed: Language learning/preservation and grouping of languages into families. A. Language learning/preservation Alice Anderton spoke about the Wordpath Society, which encourages preservation of Oklahoma languages through its tv show and other means. A Caddo elder described that tribe's language preservation efforts: they have a weekly language class and are working on a dictionary. (Wichita and Ponca elders described their own language teaching programs at other points in the conference.) General discussion of effective language teaching and learning centered around the importance of using the language outside of class settings: parents learning the language and using it in the family, a critical mass of speakers actually using the language in the community, the success of the Hawaiian Punana Leo schools which require family participation, etc. B. Language families A Wichita tribe member raised the question of why Wichita is grouped with Caddo and called Caddoan. David Rood gave a useful introduction to historical/comparative linguistics: how linguists decide languages are related, how one language could evolve into a group of related languages, some other groupings (Germanic includes English) etc. A couple of linguists pointed out Wichita/Caddo/Pawnee cognates. Extensive discussion followed. Some points raised included the psychological and possibly practical/political effects of group names, the (non)correlation between linguistic and cultural groups, differences in usage of terms like "Caddoan" by archeologists and linguists, how language-family names are chosen (based on name of one language within the group, two or more languages at geographical extremes of the group's territory, a common root word, etc.), and possibilities for changing the names of families like Caddoan and Siouan. If all the tribes within either of these groupings would agree on a term they prefer, linguists would willingly adopt that term. Questions were also raised about the relation of South American to North American languages and classification within S. America. 2. DHEGIHA "PARASESSION" A small group of Dhegihanists and interested others got together in the motel restaurant on Thursday afternoon before the conference. Participants were Mark Awakuni-Swetland, John Koontz, Carolyn Quintero, Catherine Rudin, Kathy Shea, Bruce Ingham, and one man whose name I've forgotten (sorry!) There was no set agenda and no formal papers. We discussed several vaguely related things: a. Catherine gave a (hopefully not too garbled) summary of the facts Ardis Eschenberg had planned to present at the conference. Briefly, article choice in Omaha-Ponca does not depend on referential distance (clauses since last mention). We agreed this isn't a surprising result, but it's nice to have it confirmed, given that O-P articles mark (among other things) obviation, and that in some languages obviation markers correlate with ref. distance. It would be a good idea to check for referential distance effects with demonstratives (e, ga, du, dhe, dhu, she, shu, gu, a 'indef', awa 'which of two', etc.) b. This led into a discussion of the status of the various demonstratives, which do not all have the same syntactic properties. For instance, e appears to be a real pronoun; eg. it does not occus with articles, unlike most (all?) of the others. Carolyn Q. has a nice chart of cooccurrence possibilities of the Osage demonstratives in her dissertation. Both syntax and usage of demonstratives are something we could look at more in all the Dhegiha languages ... c. Naturally we discussed (again) that perennial Dhegiha can of worms, the article/auxiliary system. John proposed a classification of aux's and (animate) articles in terms of aspect and obviation: non-progressive progressive (or imperfective) proximate nu'=akha dhata'=i nu'akha dhate'=akha obviative nu'=dhiNkhe dhathe' nu'dhiNkhe dhathe'=dhiNkhe or: nu'=thaN dhathe' nu'=thaN dhathe'dhiNkhe (all sentences meaning 'the man ate') We talked about whether -(b)i is actually an aspect marker, whether akha/ama occur on verbs in the same way/situation/meaning as on NPs, and the various other factors that may be relevant to article choice, including subject/nonsubject, location of the speaker and topic(present/absent/ moving/etc.), plural objects or recurrent events seen as set vs. individuated, etc. We looked at a couple of examples of akha/ama with non-subjects: Egidhe miNkka'=akha=di e'=di ahi'=bi=ama at last raccoon=the=to there arrive=prox=quote 'At last they (the crayfish) arrived at the raccoons' (akha on goal) PpaNkka=ama=di ahi'=bi=ama Ponca=the=to arrive=prox=quote 'They arrived chez the Poncas.' (ama on goal) d. Finally, John gave us a sneak preview of his evidentials paper (presented later at the conference) and we looked through the copious examples on his handout of the inanimate articles (the/khe/dhaN/ge) used as evidentials and as 'when', apparently agreeing with the position of the "evidence" and maybe with some aspectual factors in the 'when' clauses. Various details of the examples led us into various interesting tangents, which I didn't write down. 3. BUSINESS MEETING The only item of business was how to organize future meetings. David Rood has been making sure a meeting got held every year for 20 years or so, and maintaining a mailing list, and generally doing more than his fair share of the organizational work; it seems like time to spread the responsibility around a bit. The following conclusions emerged from discussion: a. We all thank David for his good work over the years!! b. From now on, each year's organizer will be responsible for seeing that the following TWO years' meetings are set. c. S&CC 2001 will meet at U. of Chicago, organized by John Boyle. S&CC 2002 will be hosted by Dick Carter in Spearfish. The place and organizer of S&CC 2003 will be determined at the Chicago meeting. d. John Boyle will take charge of the mailing list for now. e. David Rood will write up some suggestions or a checklist for future conference organizers. f. There was some discussion of money -- do we need a budget, a treasurer, funds carried over from one year to the next? The concensus seemed to be not to bother. What have I forgotten? C. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 21 15:54:54 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:54:54 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: <395009CF.2FF28059@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > The breve itself isn't a mark of aspiration, but it seems to be a > > mark of the combined states lax (not tense) and unstressed. > That's entirely possible, but we also know that Dorsey had a diacritic for short > vowels rather than long ones To clarify, the breve is his mark of shortness, only it has nothing to do with shortness, at least in Omaha-Ponca. > > Plus if it were the future, it would be still off that it were inflected, > > prefixally and not with a following article auxiliary, whereas prefixal > > inflection like this is not odd for articles, albeit it is for inanimate > > articles. > That's assuming the a- is indeed the pronominal. By me it should still > be thaN or uninflected. It isn't thaN. If it is, this would be a pair of unique mistakes for Dorsey. > The -i- of ttaitte (or ttaithe, whichever) is not the plural -bi. Ah, true, it would be a unique use of -i as plural Quapaw, but in OP it is definitely the plural/proximate, whether this is reanalysis or separate development in OP, or whether it is an irregular development in Quapaw. > > Fifth, and this is a more recently > > argument, it seems that 'shall surely' can easily be analyzed as 'shall > > from the evidence, shall evidently, shall seemingly' > But that presumes evidentiality, which we can't do until/unless it's > confirmed. If several things confirm the same line of reasoning, it seems reasonable to me. We can't reject each of the arguments individually because the others alone don't quite convince us. We have to decide if the whole set convinces us or not. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 21 16:09:21 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:09:21 -0600 Subject: new track: ?uN In-Reply-To: <395012A6.1B673299@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > Interesting that Omaha has lost the instrument prefix. Mus' be areal. > "Normally" 'use' is 'do with', *i-?uN (BI y-oN, TU i-oN, etc.) No trace of it in Omaha-Ponca. And in Dakotan it is missing, too, of course. The ?uN 'use' verb is actually the instrumental postposition, right? In Omaha-Ponca the analog of that is to put an i-locative on the main verb and make the instrument an argument of that verb. > Do you find anything at all in Omaha that would suggest the 'be' > meaning?? I'm wondering how widespread it is and I have no statistics. No trace of it that I'm aware of. 'To be' with nouns and the occasional verbal quality expression is bdhiN/niN/-- (enclitic). Since this is enclitic often to the demonstrative e, that e often shows up alone in the third person. I don't think I have an dhiN 'to be' examples for the third person, though that's obviously the stem. 'To be there (to be located)' involves using e=di (liek Da e=l ~ e=tu) as a predicate, or e=d(i)=e=di, which I think is actually 'to be there (to be at that place)'. The verb thaN (maybe ttaN (?) as Dorsey's open quote is very unreliable) is 'to exist, to abound'. > I feel that the aspectual or temporal auxiliary meaning of the > semi-grammaticalized form of *?uN that we find in all the Dhegiha > dialects could be more easily derived from 'be/was' than from 'do/did', > although the 'exist' meaning isn't as congenial.. Dorsey often translates this auxiliary as 'do/did', if he translates it at all. > In QU it seems to have the 'imperfective' meaning, but it sees a lot of > use in Dorsey's Omaha texts and may have developed into a 'past' or > 'perfect' there?? Dorsey often renders clause final *dhaN* as 'past'. So far I haven't studied the contexts thoroughly. Of course he often renders clause final *the* in the same way, or as 'the'. But when *dhaN* appears after *the* or in various other places I'm pretty sure it really must mean something like 'past'. I wonder, of course, if some *dhaN* alone might be evidentials. JEK I just have to remember to sign explicitly. Pine puts the signature at the top of the file in replies, and mine's rather out of date anyway. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 21 16:38:13 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:38:13 -0600 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. In-Reply-To: <39504915.4507D5D0@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've > already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half > my mornings doing email! Sorry. I was home yesterday because of getting ready to take the kids to hear N*Sync (I think that's the spelling). > But... In working up a paper on discourse here I chose the story of "The > rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. 557ff.) because I have that > story in three different Siouan languages. In it Dorsey has numerous > instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented nasal [a]) with the meaning he > translates consistently as 'having'. These appear to be essentially > perfects in that, in most if not all cases, they signal that some event > had *already* taken place when the action or state of the main verb in > the sentence does. The particle never appears as naN or dhaN. It is > this latter auxiliary that seems to have an imperfective meaning in > Quapaw. It is clearly derived from *?uN 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is > conjugated, as we have noted several times, m-aN, z^-aN, naN. I'd have to check this particular text, but one or two of the texts simply substitute aN or gaN for egaN in the sense of the 'preceding action subordinate'. I don't know if these things are idiosyncratic, influence of another language, or a dialect. Of course egaN is just e=g(i)-aN, or, maybe better e-g(i)=aN, given where the inflection falls. Another oddity of some speakers is to say "Hau." essentially between paragraphs. And then there are the ones who affricate lots of dentals - I call it little old lady speech, though maybe it's 'speaking to children'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 21 16:58:57 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:58:57 -0600 Subject: Strange use of Quapaw article/aux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: > > By the way, I'm not always good at hearing aspiration, but I'm pretty > > sure I've always heard the Omaha "future" tta=i=the with an aspirated > > th in the last part. > Well, undeniably what you hear would tend to have pretty heavy weight. > I've just never heard it. Just in case there was anything obscure about this, I mean only that I've never been fortunate enough to elicit it, but have only seen it in text. I trust Catherine's ear! JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Wed Jun 21 23:16:05 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:16:05 +1000 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. Message-ID: Hmmm, that's a fascinating and very helpful observation. I think I'd better get out Deloria's version of "Iktomi tricks the pheasants" (same story in Lakota) and see if there is any parallel. I guess there probably wouldn't be since the different versions are really just parallel plots, not "discourse." But thanks for pointing that out. Actually the k- part of k?uN could come from any number of sources, I suppose. I just picked ki(N) because it was also an article. We'll see what the Omaholics have to say about aN in this context. Bob > Bob, that is very clearly a basic meaning for Lakhota k?uN, which is where > I started to get into this discussion. Deloria never translates it that > way, at least in the glosses (I've never paid much attention to her free > translations), but it's clearly the "had" past perfect meaning whenever > it's a clause subordinator. It can also be a discourse particle marking a > solidly completed past event the speaker is very sure about. So maybe > your kV-?uN theory is right after all. > > DAvid > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > Campus Box 295 > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > > > > I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've > > already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half > > my mornings doing email! But... In working up a paper on discourse here > > I chose the story of "The rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. > > 557ff.) because I have that story in three different Siouan languages. > > In it Dorsey has numerous instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented > > nasal [a]) with the meaning he translates consistently as 'having'. > > These appear to be essentially perfects in that, in most if not all > > cases, they signal that some event had *already* taken place when the > > action or state of the main verb in the sentence does. The particle > > never appears as naN or dhaN. It is this latter auxiliary that seems to > > have an imperfective meaning in Quapaw. It is clearly derived from *?uN > > 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is conjugated, as we have noted several times, > > m-aN, z^-aN, naN. > > > > Do those of you doing Omaha and Ponca think that the aN from the > > rabbit/turkeys story is the same as the dhaN that Dorsey translates > > 'past'? or is it something new? > > > > Bob > > > > -- > > Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor > > Research Center for Linguistic Typology > > Institute for Advanced Study > > La Trobe University > > Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia > > Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 > > Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 > > Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 > > Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 > > > > -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 01:46:38 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:46:38 +1000 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. Message-ID: I think John has discovered the Omaha cognate for Dakotan k?uN 'the past'. It is (e)gaN. The match is nearly perfect. Dhegiha dialects lost a lot (not all!) of the organic glottal stop reflexes. *uN > aN in Omaha and Ponca. The Kansa cognate for Omaha egaN is (denasalized) ego, suggesting that the original nasal vowel in this particle was indeed *uN. The e- on the front is most likely the demonstrative and seems to be removable anyway. And best of all, the semantics match (as David pointed out). A lot of the arguments we have on the list have to do with (lack of) semantic confirmation, but in this case it looks really good. I'll reply to the other stuff later; I have errands to run here at the moment. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 04:16:34 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:16:34 +1000 Subject: Dorsey transcriptions, etc. Message-ID: > > That's entirely possible, but we also know that Dorsey had a diacritic for short > > vowels rather than long ones > > To clarify, the breve is his mark of shortness, only it has nothing to do with shortness, at least in Omaha-Ponca. We simply won't know that unless and until someone (besides Frida Hahn) is willing to transcribe vowel quantity systematically in O-P field notes. I keep hearing that "it's variable" or that "sometimes I hear it but in other contexts not", or "it's just so *hard*". But we also have minimal pairs. I do tend to agree that Dorsey used his diacritics to signal distinctions that we might not ordinarily expect them to signal. This includes his subscript "x" and his backwards apostrophe as well as his breve and occasional macron. But we can't just "interpret" them wholesale without hard evidence. And as the speaker pool shrinks, we don't seem to be acquiring the necessary data to explicate Dorsey fully over the long run. I'd give anything at this point to have more Kansa or Quapaw speakers out there to clarify the issues. > > > That's assuming the a- is indeed the pronominal. By me it should still > > be thaN or uninflected. > > It isn't thaN. If it is, this would be a pair of unique mistakes for > Dorsey. It obviously isn't thaN, but is it the inanimate article "-the" inflected for 1st person singular. And if it is, is that a "mistake" on Dorsey's part, a slip of the tongue, or something more systematic? > > The -i- of ttaitte (or ttaithe, whichever) is not the plural -bi. > Ah, true, it would be a unique use of -i as plural Quapaw, but in OP it is > definitely the plural/proximate, whether this is reanalysis or separate > development in OP, or whether it is an irregular development in Quapaw. I understand that's the assumption, but it's still unclear to me from the evidence. > > > Fifth, and this is a more recently > > > argument, it seems that 'shall surely' can easily be analyzed as 'shall > > > from the evidence, shall evidently, shall seemingly' > > > But that presumes evidentiality, which we can't do until/unless it's > > confirmed. > > If several things confirm the same line of reasoning, it seems reasonable > to me. We can't reject each of the arguments individually because the > others alone don't quite convince us. We have to decide if the whole set > convinces us or not. I agree with reservations. The problem may just be that I didn't get a chance to hear John's talk at the Siouan Conference. It may also involve our interpretations of Dorsey's transcriptions. And it may well involve our relative assumptions about the old homophony vs. polysemy problem. I tend to look upon phonologically similar particles with different semantics and/or different functions as homophones. In Quapaw, for example, there are at least 4 particles with the shape naN. There is (1) -naN the 'sitting' positional particle, (2) naN the 'imperfective' from *?uN, (3) naN a temporal conjunction 'as', and (4) naN 'habitual aspect' as written by Dorsey (really [hnaN]. John's evidential naN may be in there too. For me though, the semantics MUST confirm our analyses. If none of the available sources signals an evidential meaning as distinguishing sentences with and without the (the, dhaN, thaN, ge, etc.) various particles, then "evidential" is just an empty label. I agree that, if the set of things that fit into John's evidential slot correspond exactly with our positionals, then they are to be thought of as derived from positionals. But that still doesn't clarify their function. Nor, in some cases, can we be certain we're not dealing with one of the other, homophonous, post-verbal particles. I guess I need to read the paper. There's obviously a lot of fascinating data out there to be explained. In checking out homophonous particles in the Omaha texts I ran across s^aN maz^aN dhaN dhaN bdhugaxti 'indeed land indeed all over.' Both dhaN's are accented. I assume one is the article. BTW there's still another variant of the story I mentioned that had aN as a 'perfect' in Dorsey 1890. It is "Ictinike, the turkeys, turtle, and elk". I haven't examined it yet. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From STRECHTER at csuchico.edu Thu Jun 22 04:32:52 2000 From: STRECHTER at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:32:52 -0700 Subject: ki + ?un Message-ID: Deloria does actually write these separately and translate them separately in a couple of texts. They seem to have the same composite meaning of k?un. sara ******************************************************* Dr. Sara Trechter Asst. Professor, Linguistics and English CSU, Chico, CA 95929-0830 (530) 898-5447 (office) (530) 898-5540 (fax) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 04:45:09 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:45:09 -0600 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > But... In working up a paper on discourse here I chose the story of "The > > rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. 557ff.) because I have that It's 577ff. There's another version pp. 65-66 for Is^tiNnikhe, and this is part of the standard Winnebago/Omaha/etc. Trickster cycle elaborated by Radin in his Trickstger study. > > story in three different Siouan languages. In it Dorsey has numerous > > instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented nasal [a]) with the meaning he > > translates consistently as 'having'. These appear to be essentially > > perfects in that, in most if not all cases, they signal that some event > > had *already* taken place when the action or state of the main verb in > > the sentence does. ... > > I'd have to check this particular text, but one or two of the texts simply > substitute aN or gaN for egaN in the sense of the 'preceding action > subordinate'. I don't know if these things are idiosyncratic, influence > of another language, or a dialect. Of course egaN is just e=g(i)-aN, or, > maybe better e-g(i)=aN, given where the inflection falls. Yes. This is a substitute in this story for standard egaN. Note that it takes the =bi grade of the plural/proximate before it, as does egaN. The speaker, George Miller, was, as far a I know, a very standard speaker, hired by Dorsey to consult with him in Washington. With a few others he defines the standard in the sense of the usage found in Dorsey's work. I'd have to conclude that he did the aN substitution deliberately, in immitation of some model that is not explained. JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 04:56:03 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:56:03 +1000 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. Message-ID: > I'd have to check this particular text, but one or two of the texts simply > substitute aN or gaN for egaN in the sense of the 'preceding action > subordinate'. I don't know if these things are idiosyncratic, influence > of another language, or a dialect. Of course egaN is just e=g(i)-aN, or, > maybe better e-g(i)=aN, given where the inflection falls. If I'm right, that would make the -gi- part cognate with Dakotan (and Tutelo) ki(N) 'def. article'. Does that make sense? The particle is certainly -gi- since the conjugation is egimaN, egiz^aN, egaN, isn't it? And thanks to Sara for another interesting tid bit from Deloria. When there's time, it would be good to have a page reference for her treatment of ki+?uN as separate particles with the semantics of k?uN. But there's no hurry. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 04:59:50 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:59:50 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: <39516FFE.DBED8751@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > I think John has discovered the Omaha cognate for Dakotan k?uN 'the > past'. It is (e)gaN. The match is nearly perfect. Dhegiha dialects > lost a lot (not all!) of the organic glottal stop reflexes. *uN > aN in > Omaha and Ponca. The Kansa cognate for Omaha egaN is (denasalized) ego, > suggesting that the original nasal vowel in this particle was indeed > *uN. The e- on the front is most likely the demonstrative and seems to > be removable anyway. And best of all, the semantics match (as David > pointed out). A lot of the arguments we have on the list have to do > with (lack of) semantic confirmation, but in this case it looks really > good. I'd have to say that I thought Bob's own explanation in terms of a contraction of ki and *(r)uN 'past' made good sense to me. I do think that OP aN is from PS *(?)uN, cf. one or more of the Dakotan forms under discussion. But I'm not sure that the evidence for the uNK form with ?-stems, leading to inclusive persons cf. Da uNk?uN 'it exists for us' extends outside of Dakotan, and without that sort of form evidence for ?-initials per se (as opposed to vowle-initials) is rather limited. In any event Dakotan does have them, and we'd expect perhaps DEM=k?uN for the dative of DEM=?uN, true enough. I think that egaN as a 'preceding event subordinator' is restricted to Omaha-Ponca in Dhegiha. Though Dakotan has the ?uN stem, it seems to prefer kha ~ c^ha as an alaog of uN in all the morphological sequences where Dhegiha so loves *uN. So you get ec^ha, etc., and even e=c^h(a)=uN 'to do'. Forms like ga=kha and to=kha show that it's underlying =kha here. JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 05:10:05 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:10:05 +1000 Subject: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan. Message-ID: If we still have differences on the precise function of post-verbal positionals in Dhegiha, we at least are making real progress on understanding tense (such as it is) and aspectual relationships in several languages. It looks to me as though there may be a perfect and an imperfect, both derived from *?uN 'do' ultimately. It may be that only one of the two is found in a given language, or we may yet discover both throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan (tho' with all the work that's been done on Dakotan, I tend to doubt that, since someone would have probably spotted it). And on an earlier matter. The CSD files show the following cognate set for 'use', demonstrating, I think, that it is 'do with'. LA ?uN 'use' CH inu WI hi?uN 'use' OP iN ~ aN ~ aaN 'use' KS weaN 'eat with' QU iaN 'use' BI yoN 'do with' TU ioN 'use' The 'be' meaning for *?uN is also found at least in Winnebago ?u:N 'do, make be, wear'. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Jun 22 05:19:41 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:19:41 +1000 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. Message-ID: > > > rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp. 557ff.) because I have that > > It's 577ff. Sorry. My spell checker didn't catch that!! > There's another version pp. 65-66 for Is^tiNnikhe, and this > is part of the standard Winnebago/Omaha/etc. Trickster cycle elaborated by > Radin in his Trickstger study. > I have it in Kansa too. As usual in a somewhat truncated version. > > I'd have to conclude that he (Geo. Miller) did the aN substitution > deliberately, in > immitation of some model that is not explained. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Jun 22 12:48:37 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:48:37 -0600 Subject: ki + ?un In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sara, can you point out those spots to me? I would have expected ki + ?uN to be translated 'because' or something similar. Thanks. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Trechter, Sara wrote: > Deloria does actually write these separately and translate them separately > in a couple of texts. They seem to have the same composite meaning of k?un. > > sara > ******************************************************* > Dr. Sara Trechter > Asst. Professor, Linguistics and English > CSU, Chico, CA 95929-0830 > (530) 898-5447 (office) > (530) 898-5540 (fax) > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Jun 22 13:13:36 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:13:36 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>From David Rood > > I do think that OP aN is from PS *(?)uN, cf. one or more of the Dakotan > forms under discussion. But I'm not sure that the evidence for the uNK > form with ?-stems, leading to inclusive persons cf. Da uNk?uN 'it exists > for us' Sorry, I'm not sure where you get this one. uNk?uN means 'we are', not 'it exists for us'. If you're trying to get a dative or suus form, I don't think I've ever heard or seen one for this verb. > > In any event Dakotan does have them, and we'd expect perhaps DEM=k?uN for > the dative of DEM=?uN, true enough. You're right as long as ?uN is still a verb or a postposition, but in its article function, k?uN always precedes DEM, never follows. Perhaps that's a later development. DSR From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Jun 22 13:24:06 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:24:06 -0600 Subject: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan. In-Reply-To: <39519FAD.2117DA61@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: from David Rood: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > It looks to me as though there may be a perfect and > an imperfect, both derived from *?uN 'do' ultimately. It may be that > only one of the two is found in a given language, or we may yet discover > both throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan (tho' with all the work that's > been done on Dakotan, I tend to doubt that, since someone would have > probably spotted it). You give us too much credit, I fear -- we all tend to revere Boas and Deloria enough to fail to ask questions they didn't answer already, and real discourse studies are scarce. Also, I think the fact that the distinction is likely marked by particles makes it probable that the marking is optional -- if the meaning is clear from context, don't mention it. Another topic to put in the "things we really ought to look at " list. This suggestion takes me back to the observation that k?uN and ?uN are sometimes in apparent free variation as clause-finals. I don't believe there is any such thing as free variation between particles like that, just opaque linguists; maybe this is a clue we could follow to try to elucidate the difference here. I'm intrigued by the gaN/aN variation in Omaha now, too. David From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 15:43:54 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:43:54 -0600 Subject: Dorsey transcriptions, etc. In-Reply-To: <39519322.70CC26D@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: Rankin: > In checking out homophonous particles in the Omaha texts I ran across > > s^aN maz^aN dhaN dhaN bdhugaxti 'indeed land indeed all over.' Both > dhaN's are accented. I assume one is the article. Assuming this might come from the Siouan Archives version of the texts, my first impulse is to check to see if the second dhaN ( a in the original) might be a mistyped or even misprinted s^aN (c a in the original). Most such errors are typing errors in preparing the SA, but I have seen a few in the original, too. There is, however, a distributive -dhaNdhaN suffix or enclitic! JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 15:50:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:50:35 -0600 Subject: Another (?) Omaha particle. In-Reply-To: <39519C63.DA2CF806@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > If I'm right, that would make the -gi- part cognate with Dakotan (and Tutelo) > ki(N) 'def. article'. Does that make sense? The particle is certainly -gi- > since the conjugation is egimaN, egiz^aN, egaN, isn't it? Yes, it's definitely gi, per the logic Bob presents. This parallels e=gi=...he 'to say to'. But given the (sometimes omitted in translation) 'to him/her' implied by the gi in e=gi=...he 'to say to one' and in e=gi=...aN 'to be thus to one (be like one)', I've always made this the dative, in spite of its weird pre-pronominal position. I don't have the examples at hand, but there are bi-personal cases like 'I am thus to you, I am like you'. I'd expect 'I say to you', too, but don't remember at the moment if the texts have examples. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 15:53:11 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:53:11 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates (gloss) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Koontz John E babbled: > Though Dakotan has the ?uN stem, it seems to prefer kha ~ c^ha as an alaog > of uN in all the morphological sequences where Dhegiha so loves *uN. So > you get ec^ha, etc., and even e=c^h(a)=uN 'to do'. Forms like ga=kha and > to=kha show that it's underlying =kha here. alaog, hapax legomenon for analog JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 15:59:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:59:35 -0600 Subject: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan. In-Reply-To: <39519FAD.2117DA61@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > OP iN ~ aN ~ aaN 'use' The first iN would be the 'use (tobacco)' example. > The 'be' meaning for *?uN is also found at least in Winnebago ?u:N 'do, > make be, wear'. Ah, this reminds me that there are several cases where Omaha-Ponca uses the idiom 'to make' as 'to consider as'. One is the causative-based possessive with kinshiop terms, which also occurs in Dakotan and in Winnebago. The other uses gaghe as far as I can recall. The example was literally something like 'why do you make me a fool?'. This is something like 'make out as/make out to be' in English. From 'to be considered as' to 'to be' is not a long stretch. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 22 16:07:31 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:07:31 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > >From JEKoontz > > > > I do think that OP aN is from PS *(?)uN, cf. one or more of the Dakotan > > forms under discussion. But I'm not sure that the evidence for the uNK > > form with ?-stems, leading to inclusive persons cf. Da uNk?uN 'it exists > > for us' > > Sorry, I'm not sure where you get this one. uNk?uN means 'we > are', not 'it exists for us'. I think I copied the translation from Boas & Deloria. > If you're trying to get a dative or suus > form, I don't think I've ever heard or seen one for this verb. Actually, I was, though I wasn't taking this as a dative, just taking the translation offered. I was looking for an analog of e=g(i)=...aN (egaN) in Omaha-Ponca, just to see if I could find out what dative k(i) did with ?-stems, to compare it with the development of uNk + ? with ? stems, and to see if k?uN as a dative of ?uN made sense. > You're right as long as ?uN is still a verb or a postposition, but > in its article function, k?uN always precedes DEM, never follows. Perhaps > that's a later development. Do articles always precede demonstratives in Dakotan? In Dhegiha it's the other way around! JEK From STRECHTER at csuchico.edu Thu Jun 22 20:46:36 2000 From: STRECHTER at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:46:36 -0700 Subject: k?un Message-ID: I have all of my notes packed for move, but I thought I knew exactly where Deloria referred to k?un in a note. Wrong! 1. There are numerous instances of what she translates as /the-past/, {k?un} in the Autobiographies. 2. And there are also numerous instances of what David is talking about where {kin} is written as a separate word from {un}. These all get translated as "the/ on account of" or "the/therefore" in accordance with what David suspected. 3. In line 38 (page 59) of Emma Vlandry's narrative of the Sundance, Deloria's note to the page says that c?un should be "the-by" There, we have three different accounts, and is possible that I read the 'by' in account #3 as "be." I don't think this is true, but I'm going to have to wait until I that reference to 'the-be' jumps out at me. Even if it does jump, it doesn't mean that Deloria knew what she was talking about. BTW, these narratives would be great for discourse analysis because of all the shifts of perspective and time. sara Dr. Sara Trechter Asst. Professor Linguistics/English CSU, Chico Chico, CA 95929-0830 (530) 898-5447 (office) (530) 898-4450 (fax) From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Fri Jun 23 00:02:58 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:02:58 +1000 Subject: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan. Message-ID: > > It looks to me as though there may be a perfect and > > an imperfect, both derived from *?uN 'do' ultimately. It may be that > > only one of the two is found in a given language, It certainly looks now as tho' both are found in Omaha-Ponca at least. I think John may be right that egaN as a clause final perfect marker is only found there and not in QU, OS or KS, but I'll have to check when I get home. There is the very widespread egaN/ekaN meaning 'like'. John: do you derive that particle from the same source? Semantically it "sort of" fits. > Also, I think the fact that the > distinction is likely marked by particles makes it probable that the > marking is optional That's certainly the case with both dhaN and (eg)aN in OP and naN in QU. It's interesting that in the OP story of the trickster and the turkeys, which has the perfect marker at a number of points, there are about 80% fewer time adverbials than in my QU story, which has no perfect morphology. There may be differences in genre that explain some of that tho'. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Fri Jun 23 00:09:35 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:09:35 +1000 Subject: Dorsey transcriptions, etc. Message-ID: > Assuming this might come from the Siouan Archives version of the texts, my > first impulse is to check to see if the second dhaN ( a > in the original) might be a mistyped or even misprinted s^aN (c > a in the original). Most such errors are typing errors in > preparing the SA, but I have seen a few in the original, too. > Yes indeed. I have to rely 100% on the CeSNALPS computerized version. There's probably not a copy of CNAE6 on the entire continent of Oz. > There is, however, a distributive -dhaNdhaN suffix or enclitic! That would certainly fit the semantics in this instance. Another homophone. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jun 23 15:15:33 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:15:33 -0600 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) In-Reply-To: <3952A932.AD0384C2@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > There is the very widespread egaN/ekaN meaning 'like'. John: do you derive > that particle from the same source? Semantically it "sort of" fits. Ardis seems to be off-line at the moment, or she could join me in our shared pastime of egaN-counting: egaN 'to be thus to one; to be like something' egaN 'yes; agreeement' egaN ~ gaN ~ aN (use one or other: egaN very common, gaN rare, aN unusual) 'having' conjunction (temporally, etc., preceding clause marker) egaN 'in order to' (with following clause, different accentuation) egaN required particle with e=..dh(e)=e=gaN 'to think' egaN 'sort of' (more general post verbal use) I think this isn't the full list, but it's a start. You can't speak Omaha-Ponca without egaN. From shanwest at uvic.ca Fri Jun 23 22:50:03 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:50:03 -0700 Subject: For web page makers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 09:55 AM 19/06/2000 -0600, John Koontz wrote: >On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Shannon West wrote: > > Aha! That's what that thing is called! Hmm, so each vowel would need one > > of those? Or just the basic a e i o u? > >Maybe it means 'flame'? I think I got it from a reputable source, but >it's well known on the Web that my Slavic etymologies are weak. > >Anyway, for most Siouan languages, aiou suffice, but e occurs in various >primary sources for various reasons. For Tanoan you need ae and open o, >too, I think, plus all the other vowels, in combination with acute, grave, >and circumflex. Also with capitals you ever plan to work with texts of >any size. The Tanoanists, of course, are on their own as far as this list >is concerned :-) but I keep having to worry about them personally, and >I can report that their vowel systems are a real nuisance. You can't even >fit them into the "wastage" in a standard-sized font, at least if you want >capitals. I'm nowhere near putting in capitals, as this is not supposed to be for writing systems, but for transcription. Eventually I'd like to put in the vowels in combination with the accents, but that's not in the near future either, unfortunately. I put in a e i o u with ogoneks though. I hope someone will find it useful. It's being used here by several different people. I realized that I may have sounded sarcastic the other day when I was saying that I was commissioned to do this by someone studying 'not Siouan'. I intended to be funny, but realized later, that in the print medium, emotions aren't always interpreted the way one wants. Hope no one misinterpreted me. Must start using more emoticons. :) Shannon, who's off to see if someone has done a serious study of emoticons. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Jun 24 19:39:08 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:39:08 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado Campus Box 295 Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu > > Do articles always precede demonstratives in Dakotan? In Dhegiha it's the > other way around! > The demonstrative may begin the NP, or follow the article at the end of the NP; the latter is more common: he/hena wiNyaN ki/k?uN 'the/those/ woma/en' or wiNyAn ki/k?uN he/hena. But of course there are lots of compounds with initial demonstrative roots. David From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 24 22:31:40 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:31:40 -0600 Subject: Siouan Conference In-Reply-To: <002F14A6.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: (A very nice summary of the SACC Meeting) Thanks, Catherine! That's exactly what I had in mind and more or less accords with my recollections. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jun 24 22:26:45 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:26:45 -0600 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > Do articles always precede demonstratives in Dakotan? In Dhegiha it's the > > other way around! > > > The demonstrative may begin the NP, or follow the article at the end of > the NP; the latter is more common: > > he/hena wiNyaN ki/k?uN 'the/those/ woma/en' > > or wiNyAn ki/k?uN he/hena. > > But of course there are lots of compounds with initial > demonstrative roots. Omaha-Ponca patterns, which are, I think entirely typical of Dhegiha, are that demonstratives follow nouns and articles follow demonstratives. It is possible to get reinforced structures with a demonstrative or demonstrative + article preceding. There's no plural of the demonstrative, but the -na morpheme that does this in Dakotan is used after demonstratives like a postposition in the sense of 'be so many', so a=naN 'how many', e=naN 'that many', dhe=naN 'this many', etc. wa?u=akha 'the woman' wa?u s^e=akha 'that woman (near you)' wa?u s^e 'that woman' s^e wa?u 'that woman' (rare) s^e=akha wa?u=akha 'that woman' or maybe 'that one, the woman' It's dangerous to see syntactic order as historical order, but I wonder if this doesn't suggest that the Dakotan articles, which are not obviously of positional origin like the Dhegiha ones (as described by Robert Rankin in his 1970s MALC paper on positionals), are something older retained in Dakotan and lost in Dhegiha. I wonder if the -gi in wakkaNdagi might not actually be a fossil remnant of something like the Dakotan article. The articles in Chiwere and Winnebago, of course, are something else again. t occurs to me that I have no idea what the relative orders are of articles and demonstratives in these languages. JE Koontz From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 26 00:26:05 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:26:05 +1000 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Message-ID: > > There is the very widespread egaN/ekaN meaning 'like'. John: do you derive > > that particle from the same source? Semantically it "sort of" fits. > > 1. egaN 'to be thus to one; to be like something' > 2. egaN 'yes; agreeement' > 3. egaN ~ gaN ~ aN (use one or other: egaN very common, gaN rare, aN > unusual) 'having' conjunction (temporally, etc., preceding clause marker) > 4. egaN 'in order to' (with following clause, different accentuation) > 5. egaN required particle with e=..dh(e)=e=gaN 'to think' > 6. egaN 'sort of' (more general post verbal use) I guess one could lump 1, 2, and 6 as divergent meanings. 3 is from *?uN and 5 I can't place or quite picture. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 26 00:37:30 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:37:30 +1000 Subject: Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates. Message-ID: > Omaha-Ponca patterns, which are, I think entirely typical of Dhegiha, are > that demonstratives follow nouns and articles follow demonstratives. > > It's dangerous to see syntactic order as historical order, but I wonder if > this doesn't suggest that the Dakotan articles, which are not obviously of > positional origin like the Dhegiha ones (as described by Robert Rankin in > his 1970s MALC paper on positionals), are something older retained in > Dakotan and lost in Dhegiha. While it may be dangerous in the case of pronominals and in the case of languages that force all their affixes into pre- of suf- position, it's still worth considering most of the time. I suspect the Dhegiha article order is a reflection of their more recent addition to the grammar. You might check Giulia Oliverio's Tutelo grammar. I think a good reflex of -ki(N) is preserved there (although apparently not in the languages in between). So it's old, but may not always have been an article. > I wonder if the -gi in wakkaNdagi might not > actually be a fossil remnant of something like the Dakotan article. Certainly could be. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 26 04:18:59 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:18:59 -0600 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) In-Reply-To: <3956A31C.1AF85C2F@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > 5. egaN required particle with e=..dh(e)=e=gaN 'to think' > > 5 I can't place or quite picture. The inflection of 'to think' is: ebdhe'gaN e(s^)ne'gaN edhe'gaN ?eaNdhe'gaN cf. Da DEM=pc^e 'I think' (first person only), Wi hi=..re, suggesting *DEM=...ye. So, in OP it's e=...dhe (inflected like an dh- (or *r-) stem) + e=gaN. The e=gaN can't be omitted. It's sorta like having to say 'I sorta think' instead of *'I think'. JEK From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 26 04:39:02 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:39:02 +1000 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Message-ID: OK, I'm sorry, I was thinking of the other verb: *aya-?iN 1 az^a-m- iN 2 az^a-z^-iN 3 az^ iN 1p ??? > ebdhe'gaN > e(s^)ne'gaN > edhe'gaN > ?eaNdhe'gaN > > cf. Da DEM=pc^e 'I think' (first person only), Wi hi=..re, suggesting > *DEM=...ye. > > So, in OP it's e=...dhe (inflected like an dh- (or *r-) stem) + e=gaN. > The e=gaN can't be omitted. > > It's sorta like having to say 'I sorta think' instead of *'I think'. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Mon Jun 26 04:47:55 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:47:55 +1000 Subject: "to wound" Message-ID: Speaking of peculiar verbs, we still do not have a Dhegiha conjugated set for *?o: 'to wound' or 'to shoot at and hit'. Dorsey 1890 pretty consistently puts the glottal stop in this one in Omaha: ?uu-biama (24.6) 'he wounded him, they say.' maN naNba i?u-biama (46.8) 'wounded with two arrows' kki wiN ?ui the (189.9) 'and one wounded it' wi u dhiNgexti (439.8) 'I wound no one' this last example should have given us the 1st person allomorph used with "glottal" stems having oral vowels, but unfortunately it appears as though Dorsey wrote the independent pronoun instead. My recollection is that Dakotan has promoted the verb analogically into the regular (wa-, ya-) paradigm, but there should have been an older irregular form in b- probably. Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor Research Center for Linguistic Typology Institute for Advanced Study La Trobe University Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087 Home: (+61 03) 9499-2393 Admin: (+61 03) 9467-3128 Fax: (+61 03) 9467-3053 From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Mon Jun 26 14:07:59 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:07:59 -0500 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Message-ID: I don't doubt your historical analysis, John, but surely something this fossilized isn't to be analyzed as part of present-day Omaha grammar. In the modern language e=dhegaN is simply the verb "to think", so this really isn't "another egaN". Actually all or at least most of the "other egaN's" are clearly related semantically; I'd tend to assume they are the same item, just taking on different shades of meaning in different contexts. So there's just one egaN (maybe 2?), with various uses. Are you(all) really suggesting there are 6 or more homophonous items here? Catherine ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Author: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Date: 6/25/00 10:18 PM On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > > 5. egaN required particle with e=..dh(e)=e=gaN 'to think' > > 5 I can't place or quite picture. The inflection of 'to think' is: ebdhe'gaN e(s^)ne'gaN edhe'gaN ?eaNdhe'gaN cf. Da DEM=pc^e 'I think' (first person only), Wi hi=..re, suggesting *DEM=...ye. So, in OP it's e=...dhe (inflected like an dh- (or *r-) stem) + e=gaN. The e=gaN can't be omitted. It's sorta like having to say 'I sorta think' instead of *'I think'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 26 15:49:17 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:49:17 -0600 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) In-Reply-To: <3956DE66.88EE89E4@latrobe.edu.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote: > OK, I'm sorry, I was thinking of the other verb: > > *aya-?iN > 1 az^a-m- iN > 2 az^a-z^-iN > 3 az^ iN > 1p ??? > > > > ebdhe'gaN > > e(s^)ne'gaN > > edhe'gaN > > ?eaNdhe'gaN The first is rendered 'suspect' by Dorsey, mostly. One difference is that the first takes a complement clause, whereas the second takes a quotation. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 26 15:56:06 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:56:06 -0600 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) In-Reply-To: <002F2CA6.C21368@wscgate.wsc.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Catherine Rudin wrote: > I don't doubt your historical analysis, John, but surely something this > fossilized isn't to be analyzed as part of present-day Omaha grammar. In the > modern language e=dhegaN is simply the verb "to think", so this really isn't > "another egaN". I agree that it's lexicalized. I haven't had a chance to examine the pitch contours, though, and I wonder if it doesn't accent as it does because the syllable marked as accented is actually the second accented syllable. > Actually all or at least most of the "other egaN's" are clearly related > semantically; I'd tend to assume they are the same item, just taking on > different shades of meaning in different contexts. So there's just one egaN > (maybe 2?), with various uses. Are you(all) really suggesting there are 6 or > more homophonous items here? I think I must have phrased this poorly. I mean that these are essentially 6 different syntactic/lexical contexts of egaN use. I agree it's all one stem, though I'm not sure that the two clause markers (or the use in 'to think') preceived as related to each other or to the rest of the uses. JEK From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jun 29 01:13:01 2000 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:13:01 -0500 Subject: Arikara (for the Caddoanists) Message-ID: W. Clark 12 Oct. 1804 in Jrnls. of Lewis & Clark Exped. II.161: The Ricaras Are about 500 men...Their language is So corrupted that many lodges of the Same village with dificuelty under Stand all that each other Say. From cqcq at compuserve.com Fri Jun 30 18:19:29 2000 From: cqcq at compuserve.com (Carolyn) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:19:29 -0400 Subject: EgaN (was Re: Tense, aspect and time in Siouan.) Message-ID: I have most all those ?koN uses in Osage, too, but don't remember any koN alone. Also there is koNz?koN "to be alike, same", and of course the series with the indefinite ha- instead of e: h?koN - for whatever, however, etc. Carolyn Carolyn Quintero cqcq at compuserve.com