Strange use Dakota kiN.

[R. Rankin]

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