Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates.

[Koontz John E]

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