Omaha/Dakota k?uN cognates.

[ROOD DAVID S]

>>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