From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Oct 2 16:05:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:05:35 -0600 Subject: Pedagogical Query Message-ID: There hasn't been much activity of late on the Siouan list, but a small cheerful fire is blazing amongst the Dhegihanists off to the side, with discussions of what examples to use, and what order to introduce various aspects of verbal inflection. Perhaps some of this could be "read into" the Siouan list if there is any interest outside the (small) subset of Dhegihanists. View pro or con should be addressed to me at john.koontz at colorado.edu. However, to bring up the substance of one of the issues, how to those of you who've been exposed to such matters feel about teaching the full range of forms of transitive paradigms? A particular matter of concern are the object marking forms. I've been arguing that these forms are necessary in lieu of the direct/indirect object forms in languages structured like standard European ones. You trade the effort in learning object pronoun lists for one in learning additional verb forms. I also argue that as the forms in question are the same as the stative paradigm when the subject is third person, there's not much real additional effort involved in learning them. I do admit that first/inclusive <=> second combinations are a significant addition and need to be introduced carefully. But I'm afraid that most of the rest of the discussants, including all those with any teaching experience, seem to feel that the full range of forms should be avoided as long as possible, perhaps even into the second year. Has anyone thought about this in connection with say, Dakota, Crow, or Hochank efforts? From mosind at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 21:28:26 2000 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Wablenica) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:28:26 +0400 Subject: Pedagogical Query Message-ID: Dear John: > I do admit that first/inclusive <=> second combinations are a >significant addition and need to be introduced carefully. I wonder is there a more adequate term for "we inclusive"/"dual" form of the Siouan verb? It seem to me that uN-thi' "I & thou dwell" is not real dual because there are NO (and never were) 2d p. dual and 3d. p. dual forms. Strictly speaking, the form uN-thi' covers only a subset of the meanings of "we inclusive" because uN-thi' pi means both "we exclusive" and "we inclusive plural" - "I & thou & he" / "I & y'all" Perhaps the term that I saw in Algonquinist linguistics is proper - "12p" ? If so, the paradigm of a stative verb is compactly and symmetrically described by a table with 4 rows and 2 columns: 1p sing. } 1p plur 12p } 2p sing. 2p pl. 3p sing. 3p pl. (Yet I know that David is against this layout) Best wishes, Constantine. From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Oct 3 00:10:02 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:10:02 +1000 Subject: Pedagogical Query Message-ID: John, please feel free to post whatever I've sent the Dhegiholics if you wish. Bob Koontz John E wrote: There hasn't been much activity of late on the Siouan list, but a small > cheerful fire is blazing amongst the Dhegihanists off to the side, with > discussions of what examples to use, and what order to introduce various > aspects of verbal inflection. Perhaps some of this could be "read into" > the Siouan list if there is any interest outside the (small) subset of > Dhegihanists. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Fellow 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 Oct 2 23:32:52 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:32:52 -0600 Subject: Inclusive (was Re: Pedagogical Query) In-Reply-To: <001701c02cb7$d68ee460$2304efc3@sirotkionline.ru> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Wablenica wrote: > I wonder is there a more adequate term for "we inclusive"/"dual" form of the > Siouan verb? > It seem to me that uN-thi' "I & thou dwell" is not real dual because there > are NO (and never were) 2d p. dual and 3d. p. dual forms. > Strictly speaking, the form uN-thi' covers only a subset of the meanings of > "we inclusive" because uN-thi' pi means both "we exclusive" and "we > inclusive plural" - "I & thou & he" / "I & y'all" > > Perhaps the term that I saw in Algonquinist linguistics is proper - "12p" ? > If so, the paradigm of a stative verb is compactly and symmetrically > described by a table with 4 rows and 2 columns: > > 1p sing. } 1p plur > 12p } > 2p sing. 2p pl. > 3p sing. 3p pl. > > (Yet I know that David is against this layout) > Best wishes, Constantine. Well, I prefer inclusive to dual, though either is an approximation. I abbreviate it 12(+/-p). As far as I know, Winnebago (Hochank) is the only Siouan language in which this works perfectly, however, as it appears that there the augment (pluralizer) can be used with both the first person (exclusive) and inclusive pronominals. Both occur without it, too. In Dakotan the first person can't be augmented with third persons (pluralized) and the plural of the inclusive serves instead in this capacity. In OP, it seems that unaugmented inclusives do occur, but fairly rarely, perhaps only with certain kinds of I/you pairs. Other Siouan languages always augment the inclusive and use it in the sense of a first person plural. Some have special augments for the inclusive. Biloxi has first person singular forms that seem to derive from the inclusive, which might be thought as a further leveling in favor of a standard singular/plural scheme. Another unique feature of the Winnebago inclusive is that you can't combine it with second person forms in transitive verbs. It co-occurs only with third persons. Inability to co-occur with first persons is standard across the family. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Oct 3 12:46:17 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:17 +0100 Subject: pedagogical enquiry Message-ID: Dear all Following my previous note, one problem with the way I statede it is that you have to think of another Person designation for the uN(k)- pronoun, which I was calling 1' ie 1st person prime, but it didn't come out very well on the scheme, because the ' went on the wrong side of the . So here is a clearer version. Maybe also one could put the new first person 1' following the old first person 1. as below: Sing/exclusive Plural/Inclusive 1. wa-/ ma- 1'. uN(k)- uN(k)- -pi 2. ya-/ -ni ya-/ni- -pi 3. _ -pi Bruce Date sent: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:28:26 +0400 Send reply to: "Wablenica" From: "Wablenica" To: Subject: Re: Pedagogical Query Dear John: > I do admit that first/inclusive <=> second combinations are a >significant addition and need to be introduced carefully. I wonder is there a more adequate term for "we inclusive"/"dual" form of the Siouan verb? It seem to me that uN-thi' "I & thou dwell" is not real dual because there are NO (and never were) 2d p. dual and 3d. p. dual forms. Strictly speaking, the form uN-thi' covers only a subset of the meanings of "we inclusive" because uN-thi' pi means both "we exclusive" and "we inclusive plural" - "I & thou & he" / "I & y'all" Perhaps the term that I saw in Algonquinist linguistics is proper - "12p" ? If so, the paradigm of a stative verb is compactly and symmetrically described by a table with 4 rows and 2 columns: 1p sing. } 1p plur 12p } 2p sing. 2p pl. 3p sing. 3p pl. (Yet I know that David is against this layout) Best wishes, Constantine. Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Oct 3 20:10:04 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:10:04 -0600 Subject: pedagogical enquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Sorry to be slow to respond; it was a busy weekend and is just now settling down. The question of what to teach when is always worth careful consideration in any language course. When we prepared our Lakhota textbooks, we were following a lot of audio-lingual teaching principles, which in turn were based on structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology. That means introduce the subject matter first and memorize examples of it, then give the explanations, and it also means introduce everything in little steps, building constantly on what went before. In the phonetics, then, for example, the dialogues never introduce sounds that haven't been taught yet (unless they are the target of the current lesson) (which makes for some awkward dialogue, of course, in the first 4-5 lessons), and there is a principle that says "teach the hard stuff first, so students get used to it and can practice it longer -- the easy stuff will be easy whenever you introduce it." At the same time, there is a principle that says "start with what they know and build on it" -- and those two principles can be contradictory in specific instances. As for pronouns, we reasoned as follows: Speakers of English expect a difference between "I" and "me" (et al.) to correlate with the difference between subject and object. They will therefore find the stative verb paradigms quite counter-intuitive if they've learned active and/or transitive ones first. So let's start with the statives, giving the impression that that's the "normal" use of the patient affixes. It will be easier to extend the stative subject to the transitive object than the other way around (I'm no longer quite sure why that's true, but it works). I prefer to teach the uN(k) pronoun as meaning "you (sg) and I", avoiding both of the technical terms (dual and inclusive) that have been discussed in some of these notes. Then you can add "pi" to that for more people, just as you do with the other persons. Assuming that active intransitives are introduced next, on the theory that we need to get one-argument structures down before we go to two-argument ones (unless one argument is 3rd sg), the transitive paradigms require just 3 new facts: wic^ha for plural 3rd, c^hi for I-you, and the fact that uNk requires pi in all cases where it's the object. From a formal point of view, I agree with the idea that uN(k) is in some sense the "singular" of an uN(k)/uN(k)...pi pair, but the symmetry isn't really improved that way since there is no -pi form for wa/ma. I've tried a lot of layouts and keep coming back to a 3-column one for subjects, two for objects, with "c^hi" relegated to a footnote: subjects objects sg du pl wa/ma uN(k) uN(k)...pi ma uN(k)...pi ya/ni ya/ni...pi ni ni...pi zero zero...pi zero wic^ha 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 Oct 3 20:30:09 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:30:09 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Articles Message-ID: This was a very nice contribution on Omaha-Ponca articles from Mark Swetland: 28 Sept 2000 Hello Brother John and Catherine: Mucho thanks for your quick responses and all of the samples ... Immediately after sending around the first class update I did try to jump in with both feet with the discussion of a single verb and its conjugations in class. I had elicited various forms of "thawa" (to count) from my Dad Joe Gilpin before he passed away in 1996. I had my speakers take a look at his versions, and then gave them to the class. bthawa (I am counting) nawa (you are counting) thawa (he/she/it is counting) Trying to put it into a useful sentence brought us back around to the definite articles and questions about plurals. One speaker had tangentally offered: shoNge ama thawa texi horse pl he is counting [with] difficulty In which the speaker noted that a group of horses milling about would be difficult to count. At the moment my speakers are still having difficulty discussing about the akHa/ama articles. So I switched to something inanimate since the students have mastered knife, fork, spoon, cup, and bowl (always thinking about feasting, enit?). We grappled with the 4 inanimate definite articles: tHe, kHe, thoN, and ge. From there we could cobble together sentences that seemed acceptable to our speaker. uxpe tHe bthawa dish VERT I am counting I am counting a stack of dishes. niithatHoN kHe oNthawa cup HOR we are counting We are counting a line of cups At the moment, one speaker has suggested that saying the dish (single) is in a stack (tHe) implies plurality. When a student offered: tehe ge bthawa spoon scattered I am counting I am counting the scattered spoons In this case the speaker interpreted the action of counting as also including the act of collecting. In other words, in order to count scattered objects it would be necessary to collect them together. The speaker acknowledged that there would be a separate word for "to collect" but did not offer it. ... Better get to class. With sincere thanks! uthixide From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Oct 3 22:56:33 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:56:33 -0600 Subject: OP Verb Patterns Message-ID: The patterns I'm aware of are: simple verb = inflected verb + (b)i progressive verb = inflected verb + inflected positional (i.e., the article) irrealis verb = inflected verb + ta + inflected positional (i.e., what is usually called the future) (no name yet) = inflected verb + ta + (b)i (i.e., the form used with the evidential "the future of certainty" or in polite requests) momentaneous verb = inflected verb + inflected momentaneous auxilliary (i.e., suddenly/begin/repeat forms) Examples: simple: naN?aN'=i 'he heard it; he hears it' progressive: naN?aN'=akha 'he is hearing it, listening to/for it; he hears it' irrealis: naN?aN=tta=akha 'he will/can hear it' ??? naN?aN=tta=i=the 'he must have heard it' dhanaN'aN=tte 'please listen to it' momentaneous naN?aN ???? 'he suddenly heard it; he began to hear it; he heard it suddenly and repeatedly' In the last case I don't know the particular auxilliary for this verb. It varies with the verb and is generally a combination of a verb of motion and a positional, usually causativized with a transitive verb. I also can't predict if a form is inceptive (begins to) or sudden (suddenly). I can predict if it's iterative, since in that case the positional stem is reduplicated. The most common forms are things like thihe, thidhaN, thithe, thidhe, with though just dhe (especially causativized as dhedhe) is fairly common, too. Forms like =tta=(b)=as^i 'must, has to' and some others of similar modal force may belong here, too, though I tend to think of this at present as just something further than can come after a regular or irrealis form, just as the tHe, etc., evidentials can come after a simple verb or an irrealis verb. I don't think that they can come after a progressive verb, and so it's not surprising that they occur instead of a positional with the irrealis (future), too. verb (tte) { positional } { (plural) (evidential) } Here () marks being optional, and {} is used to stack alternatives.] JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Oct 18 10:11:16 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:11:16 +0100 Subject: post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear David Could you please let me know whether you have received the revised version of Nominal and Verbal Status in Lakota for IJAL. Thanks Bruce Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Oct 18 11:51:46 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:51:46 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Siouanists I am sorry for disturbing you by my previous message which was meant for David. However to make up for that I wonder if any one can help me on a question re the above, which I tried to find out when I first became interested in Lakota and am still not satisfied about, which is that, if indefinite items such as taku 'something', tohan 'sometime', tuktel 'somewhere', tokiya 'some direction', tuwa 'someone' can also serve as the question words 'what', 'when', 'where', 'where to' and 'who', how then do we question an indefinite? ie how do we say 'have you seen something', 'will he arrive sometime', 'are you going somewhere' and 'have you seen someone'? With taku we have a form takunl which can be used in this way to mean 'anything' , but what about tuwa, tuktel, tokiya and tohan and of course tokeske 'how' and others. I have seen it suggested that this can be achieved by following them by cha so that tuwa cha wanlaka he could mean 'did you see anyone'. However many examples occur in texts where this just means 'who did you see?'. Has anyone any answer to this or comments about other Siouan languages. I know that in some Far Eastern languages which also have the Interrogative-indefinite type of word the difference between 'who did you see' and 'did you see anyone' is achieved only by intonation and I can see how that could occur also for Lakhota. I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he 'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they seem to be rarely used. It mystifies me as they would seem to be the sort of construction that in seven years of study of a language you would see a lot of examples of. But in fact you do not see them often. Hope you can help Bruce Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Oct 18 15:18:31 2000 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John P. Boyle) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:18:31 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Dear list members, As many of you already know this year's S & C conference will be held in Chicago at the University of Chicago. I would like to get the dates set up and wanted to suggest the weekend of June 16 - 18 (Friday - Sunday), although the actual conference will only be two days (June 16th and 17th). This would be best time given the schedule here. The University holds graduation on the previous weekend so that is out of the question. The weekend that I have chosen should also give us good weather as well as an abundant availability of rooms for people to stay in. Please let me know if this conflicts with too many schedules. It may be possible to move it earlier sometime in May but then finding an adequate room becomes a problem. I look forward to hearing from everyone. Best wishes, John P. Boyle From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed Oct 18 14:40:59 2000 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:40:59 EDT Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: John: I think your dates are wrong: according to my calendar, Friday to Sunday would be June 15-17. That weekend would work for me. Randy From tpattrsn at mailclerk.ecok.edu Wed Oct 18 15:42:37 2000 From: tpattrsn at mailclerk.ecok.edu (Trudi Patterson) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:42:37 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference -Reply Message-ID: John, That date is good with me. Trudi From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Wed Oct 18 16:48:55 2000 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:48:55 -0400 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Dr. Ingham, Hi! I believe Van (Robert D. Van Valin) addresses this in the chapter on focus in his book. I'll get the pages for you. In UmoNhoN, the same situation seems to be happening from what I've seen so far. That is, 'what' iNdadaN' is used also for something and sometimes 'anything.' The latter seems more often to be translated as iNdadaN shti 'what soever.' (The sh is s hacek in Americanist orthography, I am forgetting the Net Siouan version of it right now). I'm really happy there'll be a print version of your work on Noun - verb distinction. I really enjoyed your talk on it in Regina & have tried to remember your points on several occasions. It'll be nice to refer to. Take care, Ardis PS Example: INdadaN aniN-ya? 'Do you have anything?' Also interestingly in Polish, when you use the wh-words in a question but none of them occur first in the sentence (in the PreCore slot) and instead you have the verb first, an indefinite reading is obtained. Kupil co kto? 'Did anyone buy anything' bought what who So, even in European languages seem to have a similar phenomenon. (The above is in my MA thesis on Polish focus.) On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Bruce Ingham wrote: > Dear Siouanists > I am sorry for disturbing you by my previous message which was meant > for David. However to make up for that I wonder if any one can > help me on a question re the above, which I tried to find out when I > first became interested in Lakota and am still not satisfied about, > which is that, if indefinite items such as taku 'something', tohan > 'sometime', tuktel 'somewhere', tokiya 'some direction', tuwa > 'someone' can also serve as the question words 'what', 'when', > 'where', 'where to' and 'who', how then do we question an > indefinite? ie how do we say 'have you seen something', 'will he > arrive sometime', 'are you going somewhere' and 'have you seen > someone'? > With taku we have a form takunl which can be used in this > way to mean 'anything' , but what about tuwa, tuktel, tokiya and > tohan and of course tokeske 'how' and others. I have seen it > suggested that this can be achieved by following them by cha so > that tuwa cha wanlaka he could mean 'did you see anyone'. > However many examples occur in texts where this just means 'who > did you see?'. > Has anyone any answer to this or comments about other > Siouan languages. I know that in some Far Eastern languages > which also have the Interrogative-indefinite type of word the > difference between 'who did you see' and 'did you see anyone' is > achieved only by intonation and I can see how that could occur > also for Lakhota. > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he > 'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in > tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they > seem to be rarely used. It mystifies me as they would seem to be > the sort of construction that in seven years of study of a language > you would see a lot of examples of. But in fact you do not see > them often. > Hope you can help > > Bruce > > Dr. Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS > From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Wed Oct 18 18:57:51 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:57:51 -0700 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: I think this date will work for me, though a bit later would be safer -- we'll be away for at least the first half of June and I'm not sure yet exactly what day we'll be back. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Oct 18 18:41:18 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:41:18 -0600 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Ardis R Eschenberg wrote: > In UmoNhoN, the same situation seems to be happening from what I've seen > so far. That is, 'what' iNdadaN' is used also for something and sometimes > 'anything.' The latter seems more often to be translated as iNdadaN shti > 'what soever.' I think this is the =shte (or s^te) I was referring to. It should contrast with =shti 'too', though the versions I recall from speech all involved following aN, and so were =sht=aN. In fact, I think what I remember was actually =daN=shte=aN, which came out something like =jshtaN in the context. I about wore out that part of the tape listening to it. My recollection is that it was a construction analogous to 'whether one or whether two'. The =daN, is some sort of contingency marker that occurs in various contexts, and may well also be the final of iNdadaN. Incidentally, this reminds me to remind folks working on Omaha-Ponca to look for a contrast of iNdadaN and edadaN. These certainly contrasted for speakers in Dorsey's time. Or he thought they did. But linguists today seem to be hearing an undifferentiated i(N)dadaN. I wonder if this isn't simply not expecting the contrast, though, of course, an error on Dorsey's part is not impossible, and a change is not at all impossible. Insofar as I could determine what the contrast was from examples in context in Dorsey's texts it looked like edadaN was 'what specific thing' and iNdadaN was 'what thing in general'. There was also dadaN, used in (some?) non-questioning contexts. Incidentally, I thought to discern a parallel distinction in ebe 'who', marked by the location of the accent: e'be vs. ebe'. (The latter of these sounds to some extent like ibi' in practice, I recall.) The e vs. i contrast may involve i vs. [I], and, of course, it is rather hard to hear nasalization on initial i(N), as we all know. > (The sh is s hacek in Americanist orthography, I am forgetting the NetSiouan > version of it right now.) The NetSiouan notation is s^, but I think that it would be perfectly acceptable to use the practical orthography, now that there is one. Which brings up another question for me, which is, are the Nebraska Omaha and Oklahoma Ponca practical classroom schemes the same? I've forgotten. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Oct 18 19:26:07 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:26:07 -0600 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan (fwd) Message-ID: It looks like I managed to route this to Bruce instead of Siouan. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:51:49 -0600 (MDT) From: Koontz John E To: Bruce Ingham Subject: Re: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Bruce Ingham wrote: > However to make up for that I wonder if any one can > help me on a question re the above, which I tried to find out when I > first became interested in Lakota and am still not satisfied about, > which is that, if indefinite items such as taku 'something', tohan > 'sometime', tuktel 'somewhere', tokiya 'some direction', tuwa > 'someone' can also serve as the question words 'what', 'when', > 'where', 'where to' and 'who', how then do we question an > indefinite? ie how do we say 'have you seen something', 'will he > arrive sometime', 'are you going somewhere' and 'have you seen > someone'? ... > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he > 'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in > tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they > seem to be rarely used. It mystifies me as they would seem to be > the sort of construction that in seven years of study of a language > you would see a lot of examples of. But in fact you do not see > them often. In Lakota, of course, I'm out of my depth with such questions, but the situation in Omaha-Ponca is somewhat similar and makes me think of the enclitic s^te (and variants) usually rendered as -soever by Dorsey. I will see if I can find a suitable example in the texts and report back. From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Wed Oct 18 21:30:00 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:30:00 -0700 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan Message-ID: John K. wrote: I think this is the =shte (or s^te) I was referring to. It should contrast with =shti 'too', though the versions I recall from speech all involved following aN, and so were =sht=aN. I'm pretty sure I have taped examples of iNdadaN=shte with no following =aN, and it's definitely shte. In fact, I think what I remember was actually =daN=shte=aN, which came out something like =jshtaN in the context. I about wore out that part of the tape listening to it. My recollection is that it was a construction analogous to 'whether one or whether two'. The =daN, is some sort of contingency marker that occurs in various contexts, and may well also be the final of iNdadaN. Hmm... could this be the thing I transcribed dshtaN, which seemed to mean something like "probably" or "likely"? Often in combination with evidential (dshtaN=the), translated by speakers as "musta been". Or is this something else? Incidentally, this reminds me to remind folks working on Omaha-Ponca to look for a contrast of iNdadaN and edadaN... I've heard both iNdadaN and edadaN (and also, I think, iNbe' as well as ebe' (but not e'be?) for "who"). But I'm afraid I always wrote iNdadaN and ebe when transcribing... too hard to hear the difference, and not what I was interested in. I can listen back to the tapes if need be. Which brings up another question for me, which is, are the Nebraska Omaha and Oklahoma Ponca practical classroom schemes the same? I've forgotten. They're very similar but not quite identical... I think Ponca but not Omaha is writing doubled vowels for length, and Ponca uses aN while Omaha uses oN for the back nasal(s). Are there other differences? Maybe Kathy and Ardis (and/or Mark) could compare alphabets and post a summary. It does get confusing using several almost-identical versions. Catherine From mosind at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 21:23:27 2000 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Konstantin Hmelnitski) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:23:27 +0400 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan Message-ID: Dear Bruce: To eliminate the ambiguity of interrogative vs. indefinite in T-words I would add to the discussion the following: 1. The choice of interrogative enclitics. Tuwa u he? -Is someone coming here? / Who's coming here? Tuwa u sel? "se'l marks a dubitative question, but it presupposes an affirmative reply" (Rood&Taylor, Sketch of Lakhota...) -I guess somebody's coming here, huh? Tuwa u s'elel ? "s?ele'l marks a tag question" (R&T) - Somebody's coming here, is he? 2. The usage of taku & tuwa with determiners waN, waNz^i, (k?)eya I haven't found in Deloria's Dakota Texts, Buechel's Lakota Texts, and in an available part of Bushotter's a question with taku/tuwa waN/waNz^i. Yet I guess that many sentences can be rearranged to obtain a question with indefinite use of T-words: taku waNz^i makha-akaNl wakhaNyaN thi - something on earth exists in a holy manner (BO 16:4) ? taku waNz^i makha-akaNl wakhaNyaN thi he? -does anything on earth exists in a holy manner? "Mayute s^ni yo , echiN mayaluta haNtaNhaNs^ taku waNz^i s^ica ayakhipha kte lo," eye. "Don't eat me, if you do, something terrible will happen to you!" , he said. (BO 19:14) ? taku waNz^i s^ica akhipha kta he? will anything bad happen him? YuNkhaN uNgnahaNla taku waN oyuspa chaNke... And at last suddenly he felt of something and (BO 19:15) ? taku waN oyuspa he? did he felt of something? Khos^kalaka kiN haNkas^itku naNis^ thaNkeku es^a taku waNz^i uN is^telyapi haNtaNhaNs^... If a young man is shamed by a failure in this respect on the part of a female cross-cousin or a sister... (BO 111) ? taku waNz^i uN is^telyapi he? Is he ashamed because of anything? 3. Is adding of wa- to some other T-words eliminated the ambiguity too? (watohaNl - sometime, watukte el - sometime in the past ) Toksa akhe. From shanwest at uvic.ca Wed Oct 18 21:47:20 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:47:20 -0700 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 04:51 AM 2000-10-18, Bruce Ingham wrote: >Dear Siouanists >I am sorry for disturbing you by my previous message which was meant > for David. However to make up for that I wonder if any one can >help me on a question re the above, which I tried to find out when I >first became interested in Lakota and am still not satisfied about, >which is that, if indefinite items such as taku 'something', tohan >'sometime', tuktel 'somewhere', tokiya 'some direction', tuwa >'someone' can also serve as the question words 'what', 'when', >'where', 'where to' and 'who', how then do we question an >indefinite? ie how do we say 'have you seen something', 'will he >arrive sometime', 'are you going somewhere' and 'have you seen >someone'? > With taku we have a form takunl which can be used in this >way to mean 'anything' , but what about tuwa, tuktel, tokiya and >tohan and of course tokeske 'how' and others. Good question, I'm curious about that myself. I thought takuni was 'nothing' as opposed to 'anything'. Comments on that would be appreciated. Perhaps though, they mean much the same thing. >I have seen it >suggested that this can be achieved by following them by cha so >that tuwa cha wanlaka he could mean 'did you see anyone'. >However many examples occur in texts where this just means 'who >did you see?'. This is one of the questions I'm addressing (or attempting to address, at this point) in my thesis. The way I've been handling it is through an unselective binding (Nishigauchi (1990), Pesetsky (1987), Heim (1982)) relationship with a question particle. If there is a question particle, whether overt (as in the cases of hwo and such things) or null (as in the question is only marked by intonation), it gives the indefinite an interrogative interpretation. In sentences with multiple indefinites, there is some ambiguity. From Assiniboine: tuwe tagu manu? who/someone what/something steal "Who stole what?" "Who stole something?" (this was the first thought of my consultant) "What did someone steal?" "Someone stole something" > Has anyone any answer to this or comments about other >Siouan languages. I know that in some Far Eastern languages >which also have the Interrogative-indefinite type of word the >difference between 'who did you see' and 'did you see anyone' is >achieved only by intonation and I can see how that could occur >also for Lakhota. Yes, I think Chinese does this, or something similar. If you want references, I'm sure I can dig them up. > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he >'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in >tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they >seem to be rarely used. Where have you seen this? I could really use some more data on this topic, myself. Thanks for the questions. You've given me some new things to look into. :) Shannon West Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 (250) 721-7421 (Grad Student's Office) shanwest at uvic.ca From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Oct 19 00:07:01 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:07:01 +1000 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: John, Any dates in the middle-ish part of June would be fine with me. Any time after mid-May in fact. Bear in mind the Linguistic Institute at Santa Barbara that some may be attending. I don't know their dates--I'm just mentioning it.... Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Fellow 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 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Oct 19 00:33:15 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:33:15 +1000 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan Message-ID: > Incidentally, this reminds me to remind folks working on Omaha-Ponca to > look for a contrast of iNdadaN and edadaN... I've heard both iNdadaN and edadaN > (and also, I think, iNbe' as well as ebe' (but not e'be?) for "who"). But I'm > afraid I always wrote iNdadaN and ebe when transcribing... dadaN, iNdadaN and edadaN are certainly all distinct in JOD 1890. After a long conversation with DNS Bhat here at the Typology Centre about interrogative and indefinite pronouns, I set about trying to make a comprehensive list for the various Dhegiha languages. It got sidetracked pretty quickly, but it would be worth doing in order to sort all these problems out. I gladly will it to whoever wants it. :-) Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Fellow 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 bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Oct 19 06:58:20 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:58:20 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001018142633.00a8da20@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: In reply to Shanon West's questions Good question, I'm curious about that myself. I thought takuni was 'nothing' as opposed to 'anything'. Comments on that would be appreciated. Perhaps though, they mean much the same thing. In fact takuni is 'nothing', takunl spelt thus but pronounced takun is 'anything' > > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he >'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in >tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they >seem to be rarely used. Where have you seen this? I could really use some more data on this topic, myself. taohanhci is from a textbook called Lakota Wounspe wowapi from Pine Ridge. Tokiyetu ca is from a previous consultant so it is 'field notes' Shannon West Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 (250) 721-7421 (Grad Student's Office) shanwest at uvic.ca Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Oct 19 12:07:39 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:07:39 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001018142633.00a8da20@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: Reply to Shannon West I have just seen another example of tohanxci meaning 'ever' which is ithokab tohan xci le iyechel owax'an heci 'have I ever acted like this before' p. 79 in Buechel's Bible History. Regards Bruce > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he >'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in >tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they >seem to be rarely used. Where have you seen this? I could really use some more data on this topic, myself. Shannon West Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 (250) 721-7421 (Grad Student's Office) shanwest at uvic.ca Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From egooding at iupui.edu Thu Oct 19 14:37:16 2000 From: egooding at iupui.edu (Erik D Gooding) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:37:16 -0500 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'll jump in on a side note, have you gotten takuni as 'nothing' without the negative sni. Doesn't takun/takunl vary between southern Lakota and Northern Lakota as well? Erik On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Bruce Ingham wrote: > > In reply to Shanon West's questions > > Good question, I'm curious about that myself. I thought takuni was > 'nothing' as opposed to 'anything'. Comments on that would be > appreciated. Perhaps though, they mean much the same thing. > > In fact takuni is 'nothing', takunl spelt thus but pronounced takun is > 'anything' > > > > > > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he > >'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in > >tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they > >seem to be rarely used. > > Where have you seen this? I could really use some more data on this topic, > myself. > taohanhci is from a textbook called Lakota Wounspe wowapi from > Pine Ridge. Tokiyetu ca is from a previous consultant so it is 'field > notes' > > > Shannon West > > Department of Linguistics > University of Victoria > Box 3045 > Victoria, B.C. > V8W 3P4 > (250) 721-7421 (Grad Student's Office) > > shanwest at uvic.ca > > Dr. Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS > > From cqcq at compuserve.com Thu Oct 19 16:38:28 2000 From: cqcq at compuserve.com (Carolyn) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:38:28 -0400 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: No conflict for me for the week end of June 16. carolyn Carolyn Quintero cqcq at compuserve.com From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Oct 19 19:10:24 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:10:24 -0700 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 07:37 AM 2000-10-19, you wrote: >I'll jump in on a side note, have you gotten takuni as 'nothing' without >the negative sni. Doesn't takun/takunl vary between southern Lakota and >Northern Lakota as well? It seems to me that I have. I'd have to look for some examples though. Gives me an idea. :) Shannon Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 shanwest at uvic.ca From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Oct 19 20:42:24 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:42:24 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's Father's Day weekend, but it won't be the first time I've been away for that holiday. Otherwise, I think it's a very good time. 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 Thu Oct 19 23:09:21 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:09:21 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: I'm going to be deleting Robert Samtleben (manicscribbler at canada.com) from the list, as his mailbox has been refusing new material for some time on the grounds that it is full. If anyone knows Robert, they might warn him. I obviously can't do it myself with email and I don't know how else to reach him. John Koontz From BARudes at aol.com Fri Oct 20 02:22:20 2000 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:22:20 EDT Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Given that I am hoping to make my maiden voyage to the Siouan-Caddoan conference this year, and hope to bring the linguist from the Catawba Cultural Center along with me, I will chime in that the dates seem fine with me. The only possible conflict is a course I teach in Guadalajara, Mexico in June. But I never know the dates of the two weeks I need to be there until a few weeks ahead of time. If I have to be in Mexico, I will still try to get my colleague from the Catawba Cultural Center (Claudia Heinneman-Priest) to go. Blair From ird at blueridge.net Fri Oct 20 13:57:51 2000 From: ird at blueridge.net (ird) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:57:51 -0400 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: As one more from the Carolinas planning to attend the Siouan-Caddoan Conference for the first time, I like the June date. Irene D From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 21 04:30:42 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:30:42 -0600 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <00ea01c03949$a8a11a20$2466bcd4@avt993365> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Konstantin Hmelnitski wrote: > To eliminate the ambiguity of interrogative vs. indefinite in T-words I > would add to the discussion the following: > > 1. The choice of interrogative enclitics. It certainly makes a difference if there is an interrogaive at all in Omaha-Ponca, viz.: ... eda'daN ede'ha=m=azhi=tta=the ha. ... what I shall not say anything DECLm JOD 1891:101.3 I shall not say anything. Na! Eda'daN ede'he=tta? why! what I shall say something JOD 1890:596.9 Why! What should I say? Here the -a ending of =tte FUTRE/IRREALIS is, in effect, the interrogative. I suppose the translation 'Should I say something?' might also work. This is a case where someone is accused of saying something (muttering it), and denies it. The verb here is e=d=e, presumably e=d(a)=e, 'to say something' used in the sense of 'what did one say/did one say something' in questions. The first e= is the proclitic demonstative of 'to day', the d is da 'what' as in edadaN 'what', and the last e is the root of 'to say'. Or perhaps ed- is e-da form eda(daN) 'what'. As I've mentioned, the -daN is a marker of contingency. Of course, Bruce's real question is how to make the distinction between what and something in questions. Maybe the issue is really one of focus. The what questions focus on the unknown thing, whereas the something questions presume the something's unstated identity and focus on the rest of the matter. Presumably the first is the unmarked case, though I'm not sure I should state this so surely. It is worth noting that in the whole of Dorsey's texts the word something only occurs (in the interlinear translations) in connection with translating ede and various wa-prefixed forms. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 21 05:16:13 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:16:13 -0600 Subject: Varieties of What-ness (wasRe: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > Incidentally, this reminds me to remind folks working on Omaha-Ponca to > look for a contrast of iNdadaN and edadaN. ... Here are three examples showing Omaha-Ponca da'daN ~ eda'daN ~ iNda'daN 'what' in contrast, and two showing them not so much in contrast. Wani'tta da'daN t?e'=watha=i e'=shte=waN animal what they killed it that-soever-doing (notwithstanding) i'naNppe=hnaN ?i'=bi=ama. they only (habitually) fearing him they gave it to him, they say 11 JOD 1890:22.1-2 Whatever animal they killed, being always in fear of him, they gave it to him (they say). This is a sentence from the story of the Deer-Taker monster. Here simple da'daN modifies a noun. I think that eshtewaN is essentially a rarer variety of what Bob calls a perfect marker, i.e., a subordinating conjunction in aN, which he suggests is a characteristic of OP syntax. The same is perhaps present in =hnaN, the habitual or exclusivity marker. --- ZhiNthe'=ha, eda'daN ?itha=i= the=di, elder brother VOC what they speak of it when e' thashtaN=b=azhi e'=gaN, that they not stopping speaking of HAVING e' uhe'=hnaN=i, a=bi=ama. that they only (habitually) follow, he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:38.10 "O elder brother, whatever they speak of [or, when they speak of a(ny)thing], their way is to speak of it ceaselessly [or, is to gum it to death]," he said. Here eda'daN stands on its own, not modifying a noun. The typical e=gaN HAVING (Dorsey's gloss) subordinator, --- INda'daN aNgui'thitha=tta=i=the thiNge' e'=gaN, what we shall tell you there is nothing it is like that a'=bi=ama they said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:40.2 "There is nothing we could tell you," they said, they say. INda'daN stands on its own, but whereas eda'daN had a specific referent, here there is the denial of any reference. --- While these three examples outline what I believe to be the basic pattern, lest I get too cocky, there are cases like: Da'daN=shteshte thana'?aN e'=iN=the what soever you heard it PERHAPS iNwiN'dha=i=ga, a'=bi=amaI tell me (IMPm) he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:39.17 "You-all tell me whatever you have heard!" he said (they say). You may be beginning to wonder about that tell verb. It's u(g)itha, a dative. Also, the =iN= in PERHAPS is (perhaps) the particle that surfaces in the iN grade of the Teton ablaut system before the future. Also: KHage', iNda'daN=shteshte iNwiNtha=i=ga hau, a'=bi=ama Friend! whatsoever tell me! he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:40.5-6 "Friend! Tell me whatever it is!" he said (they say). One could argue that there's the issue of degree of indefiniteness to distinguish the two cases, but strictly speaking the, perhaps, it should be eda'daN the first time? Notice that the two examples occur within a few lines of each other, too. They are essentially variants of each other. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Oct 23 05:44:41 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:44:41 -0600 Subject: More on Omaha-Ponca =daN=shte and =daN=shte=aN Message-ID: Use of =shte with various forms of 'what' * eda'daN Kki eda'daN=shteshte i'wima'ghe And whatever (specific) I asked you about JOD 1891:77.4 * iNda'daN INda'daN=shte e'gaN, whatever (nonspecific) so, thana'?aN=b=azhi, kHage', a'=bi=ama you have not heard it, o younger brother, he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:39.16 You have heard nothing like that?, o younger brother, he said (they say). * da'daN Wu! Da'daN=shte pi'azhizhi=xci thatHa=i e=d=uehe a'haN, Wu! what really bad they eat it I go with them EXCLm a'=bi=ama he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:71.5-6 "Whoa! I am hanging out with those who eat disgusting things!", he said (they say). ====== Constuctions with =daN=shte=aN Nisi=ha! Uga'shaN=ga! Aba?a=daN, wathitaN=daN=shte= aN=ga! My child! Travel IMPm Hunt CONTINGENT work CONTINGENT do IMPm! 11 JOD 1890:189.1-2 "My child! Travel! Hunt or else work perhaps!" Witu'shpa, makaN' i'dhappahaN=daN=shte=maN a'dhiNhe Grandhild, medicine I know it "DUBITATIVE SIGN" I move a'=bi=ama she said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:36.13 "Grandchild, I may have some small knowledge of medicine," she said, Uspe'= daN=shte A sunken place perhaps 11 JOD 1890:345.9 GaN' ni'ashiNga (PaNka) pe'thabthiN shaNka=daN=shte=aN t?e=watha=i And man Ponca eight nine perhaps he killed them 11 JOD 1890:370.1 And he killed perhaps eight or nine Ponca men ... >>From the preceding examples I deduce a lexicalized sequence of enclitics =daN=shte=aN, of which the latter is inflected in the right contexts, signifying something like "perhaps this ..." with respect to the preceding phrase and opposed optionally to a phrase preceding that with the sense "perhaps that ...". This former phrase can be unmarked, especially if a number, or marked with =daN, if a verb. "Perhaps ... or ..." is a reasonable English translation with two terms. I wouldn't care to identify the sequence =daN=shte(shte) that occurs at the end of 'what' when =shte(shte) follows as an instance of this lexicalized sequence, but I do think that the constituents =daN and =shte are the same, and that the relationships of the meanings are clear. === I suppose we can think of =shte 'soever' as a sort of operator that emphasizes that the preceding element ranges potentially over a whole class of objects in reference rather than referring to some particular thing. Thus, it in some degree produces the sense 'something/anything (soever)' as opposed to 'what (particular thing)'. However, it doesn't do anything so simple as changing 'what' to 'something' in a question. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 23 12:59:30 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:59:30 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001019120729.00a1f170@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: Dear Shannon I'm sure takuni could occur without sni to mean nothing. There is a verb yatakuni 'to belittle', but normallly it is with sni. The form takunl is pronounced takun. In any case I think takunl with a sequence -nl- is unpronounceable. Posssibly it was written that way so that people did not pronounce it as though it ended in a nasalized -u- like un 'to be, live'. It is interesting that a language only so recently submitted to writing already has 'spelling conventions' ie unusual spellings of words. Bruce Date sent: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:10:24 -0700 Send reply to: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU From: Shannon West To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan At 07:37 AM 2000-10-19, you wrote: >I'll jump in on a side note, have you gotten takuni as 'nothing' without >the negative sni. Doesn't takun/takunl vary between southern Lakota and >Northern Lakota as well? It seems to me that I have. I'd have to look for some examples though. Gives me an idea. :) Shannon Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 shanwest at uvic.ca Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 23 13:46:31 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:46:31 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Ed, "It is worth noting that in the whole of Dorsey's texts the word something only occurs (in the interlinear translations) in connection with translating ede and various wa-prefixed forms. " This is what I find particularly interesting about all this, the fact that what should be a very commonly occurring type of sentence seems not to be so Bruce Date sent: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:30:42 -0600 (MDT) Send reply to: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Subject: Re: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Konstantin Hmelnitski wrote: > To eliminate the ambiguity of interrogative vs. indefinite in T-words I > would add to the discussion the following: > > 1. The choice of interrogative enclitics. It certainly makes a difference if there is an interrogaive at all in Omaha-Ponca, viz.: ... eda'daN ede'ha=m=azhi=tta=the ha. ... what I shall not say anything DECLm JOD 1891:101.3 I shall not say anything. Na! Eda'daN ede'he=tta? why! what I shall say something JOD 1890:596.9 Why! What should I say? Here the -a ending of =tte FUTRE/IRREALIS is, in effect, the interrogative. I suppose the translation 'Should I say something?' might also work. This is a case where someone is accused of saying something (muttering it), and denies it. The verb here is e=d=e, presumably e=d(a)=e, 'to say something' used in the sense of 'what did one say/did one say something' in questions. The first e= is the proclitic demonstative of 'to day', the d is da 'what' as in edadaN 'what', and the last e is the root of 'to say'. Or perhaps ed- is e-da form eda(daN) 'what'. As I've mentioned, the -daN is a marker of contingency. Of course, Bruce's real question is how to make the distinction between what and something in questions. Maybe the issue is really one of focus. The what questions focus on the unknown thing, whereas the something questions presume the something's unstated identity and focus on the rest of the matter. Presumably the first is the unmarked case, though I'm not sure I should state this so surely. It is worth noting that in the whole of Dorsey's texts the word something only occurs (in the interlinear translations) in connection with translating ede and various wa-prefixed forms. JEK Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Oct 23 14:21:17 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:21:17 -0600 Subject: More on Omaha-Ponca =daN=shte and =daN=shte=aN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I tried to get this in the school orthography, but messed up and reverted to NetSiouan in a few places. On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > Kki eda'daN=shteshte i'wima'ghe > And whatever (specific) I asked you about > JOD 1891:77.4 ki > Wu! Da'daN=shte pi'azhizhi=xci thatHa=i e=d=uehe a'haN, > Wu! what really bad they eat it I go with them EXCLm I think that was pi'azhiazhi=xci. > Witu'shpa, makaN' i'dhappahaN=daN=shte=maN a'dhiNhe > Grandhild, medicine I know it "DUBITATIVE SIGN" I move i'thapahaN .... a'thiNhe JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 23 16:36:14 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:36:14 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <00ea01c03949$a8a11a20$2466bcd4@avt993365> Message-ID: Dear Konstantin |Thankyou for the suggestions. Yes tuwe waN or tuwe waNji and taku waN or takunl are useful ways around it. I like the suggestion of -sel. I think that would work. I am tempted to think that intonantion might work. For an open question a slow rising intonation can be used as in ungnin kta hwo 'shall we go home' (my own made up example. I hope it's correct), whereas for a T- question a higher endiong is used as in tokhiya la? or tokhiya la hwo 'where are you going. So therefore if we use the slow rising intonantion for tokhiya la it should mean 'are you going somewhere?'. But I don't know for sure. Any other suggestions? Bruce PS I think I'll try and find out what happens in Algonquian. I know that Cree has a word kikwaay which means 'what' and 'something'. Perhaps they have the same problem. Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Oct 24 16:07:48 2000 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:07:48 -0400 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dr. Ingham, Hi. SOrry this has been delayed. Van Valin and La Polla (1997), Syntax: Structure, meaning, function, pp424-425, explains the difference between indefinite and wh-readings as a difference in focus. Basically, when the sometimes wh-word is in the actual focus domain, it receives a wh-reading while when it is not, it receives the indefinite reading. To consider this on my own terms, looking at something/what, if I am asking specifically about the something that you have, I want to know 'what' you have. This analysis would jive with intonational marking, in that focus is commonly marked intonationally. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that 'shte' is needed to mark indefinites in Omaha, only that quite commonly it is used for these when elders give sentences for us. Best, Ardis Eschenberg From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Oct 24 20:06:32 2000 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:06:32 -0500 Subject: etymol. of Minneconjou Message-ID: The Hdbk. N. Amer. Indians XVII (1996) 479 has the following etymology: Lakota mnikhowozhu 'those who plant by water' Would someone be so kind as to analyze it for me. (mni 'water' and wozhu 'plant' seem clear, but the middle of the word less so.) Thanks for any help. Alan From soup at vm.inext.cz Wed Oct 25 05:45:58 2000 From: soup at vm.inext.cz (SOUP) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:45:58 +0100 Subject: etymol. of Minneconjou Message-ID: Alan Hartley wrote: > The Hdbk. N. Amer. Indians XVII (1996) 479 has the following etymology: > > Lakota mnikhowozhu 'those who plant by water' > > Would someone be so kind as to analyze it for me. (mni 'water' and wozhu > 'plant' seem clear, but the middle of the word less so.) In her Dakota Texts Deloria uses the form MnikhaN'wozhu (story n. 50. paragraph 1). From this form the etymology is perhaps clearer: mni' 'water' + ikhaN' 'near to' + wozhu. The form Mnikho'wozhu either originates in the above or it could perhaps be from mni' 'water' + ikhaN' 'near to' + owo'zhu. I am not wure though whether owo'zhu can be used as a verb meaning 'to plant things into'. Jan Ullrich From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 30 14:13:27 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:13:27 -0000 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Ardis Thank you for your reply. I think the intonation factor will also firt with the information I got recently for Jerome KillsSmall of the modern language dept of the University of South Dakota at Vermilion, which goes as follows: Jerome's message "The hypothetical expression for taku is takunl, or when, tohan in the hypothetical usage is tohanl. Have you seen something, takunl wanlaka he Will he arrive sometime, tohanl hihunni kte he are you going somewhere, tokiyal la he (Because the "l" is at the end tokiya(l) and the beginning of la they share the "l" sound making only the one "l" sound. A sort of a contraction.) have you seen someone, tuwe wanzi wanlaka he have you seen anyone, tuwe wanzi wanlaka he have you found something, takunl iyeyaya he have you seen him somewhere, tukte ekta wanlaka he (sometimes the "e" sound is shared by tukte ekta, tuktekta) you will see him sometime, watohanl ake wanlakin kte lo (was kte yelo) can you do it somehow, tokel ecanu oyakihi he" What is interesting about this is that he extends the -l ending seen in takunl to also apply to tohanl and to tokiyal also using tukte ekta for anywhere. I have not seen these used, but it does fit in logically with the 'hypotheticalness of the tohanl form. Tohanl is often in grammar books said to refer to the future in contrast to tohan which refers to the past. This looks like another use for tohanl sharing the 'hypothetical' feature. Bruce Date sent: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:07:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Ardis R Eschenberg To: Bruce Ingham Copies to: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan Dr. Ingham, Hi. SOrry this has been delayed. Van Valin and La Polla (1997), Syntax: Structure, meaning, function, pp424-425, explains the difference between indefinite and wh-readings as a difference in focus. Basically, when the sometimes wh-word is in the actual focus domain, it receives a wh-reading while when it is not, it receives the indefinite reading. To consider this on my own terms, looking at something/what, if I am asking specifically about the something that you have, I want to know 'what' you have. This analysis would jive with intonational marking, in that focus is commonly marked intonationally. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that 'shte' is needed to mark indefinites in Omaha, only that quite commonly it is used for these when elders give sentences for us. Best, Ardis Eschenberg Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 30 14:19:01 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:19:01 -0000 Subject: etymol. of Minneconjou In-Reply-To: <001c01c03e47$013f4e20$7e006fd4@default> Message-ID: I think the form of it with the -w- in mni-khan-w-ozhu is showing a -w- glide between ikhan and ozhu. It is also seen as mnikhaNozhu. Such medial -ys- and -ws- do come and go as in wakhaNyezha and wakhaNhezha 'child', ithayanuNk, ithahanunk, ithaanunk 'from both sides'. Bruce Date sent: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:45:58 +0100 Send reply to: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU From: "SOUP" To: Subject: Re: etymol. of Minneconjou Alan Hartley wrote: > The Hdbk. N. Amer. Indians XVII (1996) 479 has the following etymology: > > Lakota mnikhowozhu 'those who plant by water' > > Would someone be so kind as to analyze it for me. (mni 'water' and wozhu > 'plant' seem clear, but the middle of the word less so.) In her Dakota Texts Deloria uses the form MnikhaN'wozhu (story n. 50. paragraph 1). From this form the etymology is perhaps clearer: mni' 'water' + ikhaN' 'near to' + wozhu. The form Mnikho'wozhu either originates in the above or it could perhaps be from mni' 'water' + ikhaN' 'near to' + owo'zhu. I am not wure though whether owo'zhu can be used as a verb meaning 'to plant things into'. Jan Ullrich Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From Ogalala2 at aol.com Tue Oct 31 21:33:32 2000 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:33:32 EST Subject: 2001 Conference Message-ID: June 15-17 is as good as any for me. Ted Grimm From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Oct 2 16:05:35 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:05:35 -0600 Subject: Pedagogical Query Message-ID: There hasn't been much activity of late on the Siouan list, but a small cheerful fire is blazing amongst the Dhegihanists off to the side, with discussions of what examples to use, and what order to introduce various aspects of verbal inflection. Perhaps some of this could be "read into" the Siouan list if there is any interest outside the (small) subset of Dhegihanists. View pro or con should be addressed to me at john.koontz at colorado.edu. However, to bring up the substance of one of the issues, how to those of you who've been exposed to such matters feel about teaching the full range of forms of transitive paradigms? A particular matter of concern are the object marking forms. I've been arguing that these forms are necessary in lieu of the direct/indirect object forms in languages structured like standard European ones. You trade the effort in learning object pronoun lists for one in learning additional verb forms. I also argue that as the forms in question are the same as the stative paradigm when the subject is third person, there's not much real additional effort involved in learning them. I do admit that first/inclusive <=> second combinations are a significant addition and need to be introduced carefully. But I'm afraid that most of the rest of the discussants, including all those with any teaching experience, seem to feel that the full range of forms should be avoided as long as possible, perhaps even into the second year. Has anyone thought about this in connection with say, Dakota, Crow, or Hochank efforts? From mosind at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 21:28:26 2000 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Wablenica) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:28:26 +0400 Subject: Pedagogical Query Message-ID: Dear John: > I do admit that first/inclusive <=> second combinations are a >significant addition and need to be introduced carefully. I wonder is there a more adequate term for "we inclusive"/"dual" form of the Siouan verb? It seem to me that uN-thi' "I & thou dwell" is not real dual because there are NO (and never were) 2d p. dual and 3d. p. dual forms. Strictly speaking, the form uN-thi' covers only a subset of the meanings of "we inclusive" because uN-thi' pi means both "we exclusive" and "we inclusive plural" - "I & thou & he" / "I & y'all" Perhaps the term that I saw in Algonquinist linguistics is proper - "12p" ? If so, the paradigm of a stative verb is compactly and symmetrically described by a table with 4 rows and 2 columns: 1p sing. } 1p plur 12p } 2p sing. 2p pl. 3p sing. 3p pl. (Yet I know that David is against this layout) Best wishes, Constantine. From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Tue Oct 3 00:10:02 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:10:02 +1000 Subject: Pedagogical Query Message-ID: John, please feel free to post whatever I've sent the Dhegiholics if you wish. Bob Koontz John E wrote: There hasn't been much activity of late on the Siouan list, but a small > cheerful fire is blazing amongst the Dhegihanists off to the side, with > discussions of what examples to use, and what order to introduce various > aspects of verbal inflection. Perhaps some of this could be "read into" > the Siouan list if there is any interest outside the (small) subset of > Dhegihanists. -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Fellow 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 Oct 2 23:32:52 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:32:52 -0600 Subject: Inclusive (was Re: Pedagogical Query) In-Reply-To: <001701c02cb7$d68ee460$2304efc3@sirotkionline.ru> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Wablenica wrote: > I wonder is there a more adequate term for "we inclusive"/"dual" form of the > Siouan verb? > It seem to me that uN-thi' "I & thou dwell" is not real dual because there > are NO (and never were) 2d p. dual and 3d. p. dual forms. > Strictly speaking, the form uN-thi' covers only a subset of the meanings of > "we inclusive" because uN-thi' pi means both "we exclusive" and "we > inclusive plural" - "I & thou & he" / "I & y'all" > > Perhaps the term that I saw in Algonquinist linguistics is proper - "12p" ? > If so, the paradigm of a stative verb is compactly and symmetrically > described by a table with 4 rows and 2 columns: > > 1p sing. } 1p plur > 12p } > 2p sing. 2p pl. > 3p sing. 3p pl. > > (Yet I know that David is against this layout) > Best wishes, Constantine. Well, I prefer inclusive to dual, though either is an approximation. I abbreviate it 12(+/-p). As far as I know, Winnebago (Hochank) is the only Siouan language in which this works perfectly, however, as it appears that there the augment (pluralizer) can be used with both the first person (exclusive) and inclusive pronominals. Both occur without it, too. In Dakotan the first person can't be augmented with third persons (pluralized) and the plural of the inclusive serves instead in this capacity. In OP, it seems that unaugmented inclusives do occur, but fairly rarely, perhaps only with certain kinds of I/you pairs. Other Siouan languages always augment the inclusive and use it in the sense of a first person plural. Some have special augments for the inclusive. Biloxi has first person singular forms that seem to derive from the inclusive, which might be thought as a further leveling in favor of a standard singular/plural scheme. Another unique feature of the Winnebago inclusive is that you can't combine it with second person forms in transitive verbs. It co-occurs only with third persons. Inability to co-occur with first persons is standard across the family. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Oct 3 12:46:17 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:17 +0100 Subject: pedagogical enquiry Message-ID: Dear all Following my previous note, one problem with the way I statede it is that you have to think of another Person designation for the uN(k)- pronoun, which I was calling 1' ie 1st person prime, but it didn't come out very well on the scheme, because the ' went on the wrong side of the . So here is a clearer version. Maybe also one could put the new first person 1' following the old first person 1. as below: Sing/exclusive Plural/Inclusive 1. wa-/ ma- 1'. uN(k)- uN(k)- -pi 2. ya-/ -ni ya-/ni- -pi 3. _ -pi Bruce Date sent: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:28:26 +0400 Send reply to: "Wablenica" From: "Wablenica" To: Subject: Re: Pedagogical Query Dear John: > I do admit that first/inclusive <=> second combinations are a >significant addition and need to be introduced carefully. I wonder is there a more adequate term for "we inclusive"/"dual" form of the Siouan verb? It seem to me that uN-thi' "I & thou dwell" is not real dual because there are NO (and never were) 2d p. dual and 3d. p. dual forms. Strictly speaking, the form uN-thi' covers only a subset of the meanings of "we inclusive" because uN-thi' pi means both "we exclusive" and "we inclusive plural" - "I & thou & he" / "I & y'all" Perhaps the term that I saw in Algonquinist linguistics is proper - "12p" ? If so, the paradigm of a stative verb is compactly and symmetrically described by a table with 4 rows and 2 columns: 1p sing. } 1p plur 12p } 2p sing. 2p pl. 3p sing. 3p pl. (Yet I know that David is against this layout) Best wishes, Constantine. Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Oct 3 20:10:04 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:10:04 -0600 Subject: pedagogical enquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Sorry to be slow to respond; it was a busy weekend and is just now settling down. The question of what to teach when is always worth careful consideration in any language course. When we prepared our Lakhota textbooks, we were following a lot of audio-lingual teaching principles, which in turn were based on structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology. That means introduce the subject matter first and memorize examples of it, then give the explanations, and it also means introduce everything in little steps, building constantly on what went before. In the phonetics, then, for example, the dialogues never introduce sounds that haven't been taught yet (unless they are the target of the current lesson) (which makes for some awkward dialogue, of course, in the first 4-5 lessons), and there is a principle that says "teach the hard stuff first, so students get used to it and can practice it longer -- the easy stuff will be easy whenever you introduce it." At the same time, there is a principle that says "start with what they know and build on it" -- and those two principles can be contradictory in specific instances. As for pronouns, we reasoned as follows: Speakers of English expect a difference between "I" and "me" (et al.) to correlate with the difference between subject and object. They will therefore find the stative verb paradigms quite counter-intuitive if they've learned active and/or transitive ones first. So let's start with the statives, giving the impression that that's the "normal" use of the patient affixes. It will be easier to extend the stative subject to the transitive object than the other way around (I'm no longer quite sure why that's true, but it works). I prefer to teach the uN(k) pronoun as meaning "you (sg) and I", avoiding both of the technical terms (dual and inclusive) that have been discussed in some of these notes. Then you can add "pi" to that for more people, just as you do with the other persons. Assuming that active intransitives are introduced next, on the theory that we need to get one-argument structures down before we go to two-argument ones (unless one argument is 3rd sg), the transitive paradigms require just 3 new facts: wic^ha for plural 3rd, c^hi for I-you, and the fact that uNk requires pi in all cases where it's the object. From a formal point of view, I agree with the idea that uN(k) is in some sense the "singular" of an uN(k)/uN(k)...pi pair, but the symmetry isn't really improved that way since there is no -pi form for wa/ma. I've tried a lot of layouts and keep coming back to a 3-column one for subjects, two for objects, with "c^hi" relegated to a footnote: subjects objects sg du pl wa/ma uN(k) uN(k)...pi ma uN(k)...pi ya/ni ya/ni...pi ni ni...pi zero zero...pi zero wic^ha 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 Oct 3 20:30:09 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:30:09 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Articles Message-ID: This was a very nice contribution on Omaha-Ponca articles from Mark Swetland: 28 Sept 2000 Hello Brother John and Catherine: Mucho thanks for your quick responses and all of the samples ... Immediately after sending around the first class update I did try to jump in with both feet with the discussion of a single verb and its conjugations in class. I had elicited various forms of "thawa" (to count) from my Dad Joe Gilpin before he passed away in 1996. I had my speakers take a look at his versions, and then gave them to the class. bthawa (I am counting) nawa (you are counting) thawa (he/she/it is counting) Trying to put it into a useful sentence brought us back around to the definite articles and questions about plurals. One speaker had tangentally offered: shoNge ama thawa texi horse pl he is counting [with] difficulty In which the speaker noted that a group of horses milling about would be difficult to count. At the moment my speakers are still having difficulty discussing about the akHa/ama articles. So I switched to something inanimate since the students have mastered knife, fork, spoon, cup, and bowl (always thinking about feasting, enit?). We grappled with the 4 inanimate definite articles: tHe, kHe, thoN, and ge. From there we could cobble together sentences that seemed acceptable to our speaker. uxpe tHe bthawa dish VERT I am counting I am counting a stack of dishes. niithatHoN kHe oNthawa cup HOR we are counting We are counting a line of cups At the moment, one speaker has suggested that saying the dish (single) is in a stack (tHe) implies plurality. When a student offered: tehe ge bthawa spoon scattered I am counting I am counting the scattered spoons In this case the speaker interpreted the action of counting as also including the act of collecting. In other words, in order to count scattered objects it would be necessary to collect them together. The speaker acknowledged that there would be a separate word for "to collect" but did not offer it. ... Better get to class. With sincere thanks! uthixide From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Oct 3 22:56:33 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:56:33 -0600 Subject: OP Verb Patterns Message-ID: The patterns I'm aware of are: simple verb = inflected verb + (b)i progressive verb = inflected verb + inflected positional (i.e., the article) irrealis verb = inflected verb + ta + inflected positional (i.e., what is usually called the future) (no name yet) = inflected verb + ta + (b)i (i.e., the form used with the evidential "the future of certainty" or in polite requests) momentaneous verb = inflected verb + inflected momentaneous auxilliary (i.e., suddenly/begin/repeat forms) Examples: simple: naN?aN'=i 'he heard it; he hears it' progressive: naN?aN'=akha 'he is hearing it, listening to/for it; he hears it' irrealis: naN?aN=tta=akha 'he will/can hear it' ??? naN?aN=tta=i=the 'he must have heard it' dhanaN'aN=tte 'please listen to it' momentaneous naN?aN ???? 'he suddenly heard it; he began to hear it; he heard it suddenly and repeatedly' In the last case I don't know the particular auxilliary for this verb. It varies with the verb and is generally a combination of a verb of motion and a positional, usually causativized with a transitive verb. I also can't predict if a form is inceptive (begins to) or sudden (suddenly). I can predict if it's iterative, since in that case the positional stem is reduplicated. The most common forms are things like thihe, thidhaN, thithe, thidhe, with though just dhe (especially causativized as dhedhe) is fairly common, too. Forms like =tta=(b)=as^i 'must, has to' and some others of similar modal force may belong here, too, though I tend to think of this at present as just something further than can come after a regular or irrealis form, just as the tHe, etc., evidentials can come after a simple verb or an irrealis verb. I don't think that they can come after a progressive verb, and so it's not surprising that they occur instead of a positional with the irrealis (future), too. verb (tte) { positional } { (plural) (evidential) } Here () marks being optional, and {} is used to stack alternatives.] JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Oct 18 10:11:16 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:11:16 +0100 Subject: post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear David Could you please let me know whether you have received the revised version of Nominal and Verbal Status in Lakota for IJAL. Thanks Bruce Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Oct 18 11:51:46 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:51:46 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Siouanists I am sorry for disturbing you by my previous message which was meant for David. However to make up for that I wonder if any one can help me on a question re the above, which I tried to find out when I first became interested in Lakota and am still not satisfied about, which is that, if indefinite items such as taku 'something', tohan 'sometime', tuktel 'somewhere', tokiya 'some direction', tuwa 'someone' can also serve as the question words 'what', 'when', 'where', 'where to' and 'who', how then do we question an indefinite? ie how do we say 'have you seen something', 'will he arrive sometime', 'are you going somewhere' and 'have you seen someone'? With taku we have a form takunl which can be used in this way to mean 'anything' , but what about tuwa, tuktel, tokiya and tohan and of course tokeske 'how' and others. I have seen it suggested that this can be achieved by following them by cha so that tuwa cha wanlaka he could mean 'did you see anyone'. However many examples occur in texts where this just means 'who did you see?'. Has anyone any answer to this or comments about other Siouan languages. I know that in some Far Eastern languages which also have the Interrogative-indefinite type of word the difference between 'who did you see' and 'did you see anyone' is achieved only by intonation and I can see how that could occur also for Lakhota. I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he 'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they seem to be rarely used. It mystifies me as they would seem to be the sort of construction that in seven years of study of a language you would see a lot of examples of. But in fact you do not see them often. Hope you can help Bruce Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Oct 18 15:18:31 2000 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John P. Boyle) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:18:31 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Dear list members, As many of you already know this year's S & C conference will be held in Chicago at the University of Chicago. I would like to get the dates set up and wanted to suggest the weekend of June 16 - 18 (Friday - Sunday), although the actual conference will only be two days (June 16th and 17th). This would be best time given the schedule here. The University holds graduation on the previous weekend so that is out of the question. The weekend that I have chosen should also give us good weather as well as an abundant availability of rooms for people to stay in. Please let me know if this conflicts with too many schedules. It may be possible to move it earlier sometime in May but then finding an adequate room becomes a problem. I look forward to hearing from everyone. Best wishes, John P. Boyle From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed Oct 18 14:40:59 2000 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Rgraczyk at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:40:59 EDT Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: John: I think your dates are wrong: according to my calendar, Friday to Sunday would be June 15-17. That weekend would work for me. Randy From tpattrsn at mailclerk.ecok.edu Wed Oct 18 15:42:37 2000 From: tpattrsn at mailclerk.ecok.edu (Trudi Patterson) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:42:37 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference -Reply Message-ID: John, That date is good with me. Trudi From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Wed Oct 18 16:48:55 2000 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:48:55 -0400 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Dr. Ingham, Hi! I believe Van (Robert D. Van Valin) addresses this in the chapter on focus in his book. I'll get the pages for you. In UmoNhoN, the same situation seems to be happening from what I've seen so far. That is, 'what' iNdadaN' is used also for something and sometimes 'anything.' The latter seems more often to be translated as iNdadaN shti 'what soever.' (The sh is s hacek in Americanist orthography, I am forgetting the Net Siouan version of it right now). I'm really happy there'll be a print version of your work on Noun - verb distinction. I really enjoyed your talk on it in Regina & have tried to remember your points on several occasions. It'll be nice to refer to. Take care, Ardis PS Example: INdadaN aniN-ya? 'Do you have anything?' Also interestingly in Polish, when you use the wh-words in a question but none of them occur first in the sentence (in the PreCore slot) and instead you have the verb first, an indefinite reading is obtained. Kupil co kto? 'Did anyone buy anything' bought what who So, even in European languages seem to have a similar phenomenon. (The above is in my MA thesis on Polish focus.) On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Bruce Ingham wrote: > Dear Siouanists > I am sorry for disturbing you by my previous message which was meant > for David. However to make up for that I wonder if any one can > help me on a question re the above, which I tried to find out when I > first became interested in Lakota and am still not satisfied about, > which is that, if indefinite items such as taku 'something', tohan > 'sometime', tuktel 'somewhere', tokiya 'some direction', tuwa > 'someone' can also serve as the question words 'what', 'when', > 'where', 'where to' and 'who', how then do we question an > indefinite? ie how do we say 'have you seen something', 'will he > arrive sometime', 'are you going somewhere' and 'have you seen > someone'? > With taku we have a form takunl which can be used in this > way to mean 'anything' , but what about tuwa, tuktel, tokiya and > tohan and of course tokeske 'how' and others. I have seen it > suggested that this can be achieved by following them by cha so > that tuwa cha wanlaka he could mean 'did you see anyone'. > However many examples occur in texts where this just means 'who > did you see?'. > Has anyone any answer to this or comments about other > Siouan languages. I know that in some Far Eastern languages > which also have the Interrogative-indefinite type of word the > difference between 'who did you see' and 'did you see anyone' is > achieved only by intonation and I can see how that could occur > also for Lakhota. > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he > 'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in > tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they > seem to be rarely used. It mystifies me as they would seem to be > the sort of construction that in seven years of study of a language > you would see a lot of examples of. But in fact you do not see > them often. > Hope you can help > > Bruce > > Dr. Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS > From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Wed Oct 18 18:57:51 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:57:51 -0700 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: I think this date will work for me, though a bit later would be safer -- we'll be away for at least the first half of June and I'm not sure yet exactly what day we'll be back. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Oct 18 18:41:18 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:41:18 -0600 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Ardis R Eschenberg wrote: > In UmoNhoN, the same situation seems to be happening from what I've seen > so far. That is, 'what' iNdadaN' is used also for something and sometimes > 'anything.' The latter seems more often to be translated as iNdadaN shti > 'what soever.' I think this is the =shte (or s^te) I was referring to. It should contrast with =shti 'too', though the versions I recall from speech all involved following aN, and so were =sht=aN. In fact, I think what I remember was actually =daN=shte=aN, which came out something like =jshtaN in the context. I about wore out that part of the tape listening to it. My recollection is that it was a construction analogous to 'whether one or whether two'. The =daN, is some sort of contingency marker that occurs in various contexts, and may well also be the final of iNdadaN. Incidentally, this reminds me to remind folks working on Omaha-Ponca to look for a contrast of iNdadaN and edadaN. These certainly contrasted for speakers in Dorsey's time. Or he thought they did. But linguists today seem to be hearing an undifferentiated i(N)dadaN. I wonder if this isn't simply not expecting the contrast, though, of course, an error on Dorsey's part is not impossible, and a change is not at all impossible. Insofar as I could determine what the contrast was from examples in context in Dorsey's texts it looked like edadaN was 'what specific thing' and iNdadaN was 'what thing in general'. There was also dadaN, used in (some?) non-questioning contexts. Incidentally, I thought to discern a parallel distinction in ebe 'who', marked by the location of the accent: e'be vs. ebe'. (The latter of these sounds to some extent like ibi' in practice, I recall.) The e vs. i contrast may involve i vs. [I], and, of course, it is rather hard to hear nasalization on initial i(N), as we all know. > (The sh is s hacek in Americanist orthography, I am forgetting the NetSiouan > version of it right now.) The NetSiouan notation is s^, but I think that it would be perfectly acceptable to use the practical orthography, now that there is one. Which brings up another question for me, which is, are the Nebraska Omaha and Oklahoma Ponca practical classroom schemes the same? I've forgotten. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Oct 18 19:26:07 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:26:07 -0600 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan (fwd) Message-ID: It looks like I managed to route this to Bruce instead of Siouan. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:51:49 -0600 (MDT) From: Koontz John E To: Bruce Ingham Subject: Re: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Bruce Ingham wrote: > However to make up for that I wonder if any one can > help me on a question re the above, which I tried to find out when I > first became interested in Lakota and am still not satisfied about, > which is that, if indefinite items such as taku 'something', tohan > 'sometime', tuktel 'somewhere', tokiya 'some direction', tuwa > 'someone' can also serve as the question words 'what', 'when', > 'where', 'where to' and 'who', how then do we question an > indefinite? ie how do we say 'have you seen something', 'will he > arrive sometime', 'are you going somewhere' and 'have you seen > someone'? ... > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he > 'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in > tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they > seem to be rarely used. It mystifies me as they would seem to be > the sort of construction that in seven years of study of a language > you would see a lot of examples of. But in fact you do not see > them often. In Lakota, of course, I'm out of my depth with such questions, but the situation in Omaha-Ponca is somewhat similar and makes me think of the enclitic s^te (and variants) usually rendered as -soever by Dorsey. I will see if I can find a suitable example in the texts and report back. From CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu Wed Oct 18 21:30:00 2000 From: CRudin at wscgate.wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:30:00 -0700 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan Message-ID: John K. wrote: I think this is the =shte (or s^te) I was referring to. It should contrast with =shti 'too', though the versions I recall from speech all involved following aN, and so were =sht=aN. I'm pretty sure I have taped examples of iNdadaN=shte with no following =aN, and it's definitely shte. In fact, I think what I remember was actually =daN=shte=aN, which came out something like =jshtaN in the context. I about wore out that part of the tape listening to it. My recollection is that it was a construction analogous to 'whether one or whether two'. The =daN, is some sort of contingency marker that occurs in various contexts, and may well also be the final of iNdadaN. Hmm... could this be the thing I transcribed dshtaN, which seemed to mean something like "probably" or "likely"? Often in combination with evidential (dshtaN=the), translated by speakers as "musta been". Or is this something else? Incidentally, this reminds me to remind folks working on Omaha-Ponca to look for a contrast of iNdadaN and edadaN... I've heard both iNdadaN and edadaN (and also, I think, iNbe' as well as ebe' (but not e'be?) for "who"). But I'm afraid I always wrote iNdadaN and ebe when transcribing... too hard to hear the difference, and not what I was interested in. I can listen back to the tapes if need be. Which brings up another question for me, which is, are the Nebraska Omaha and Oklahoma Ponca practical classroom schemes the same? I've forgotten. They're very similar but not quite identical... I think Ponca but not Omaha is writing doubled vowels for length, and Ponca uses aN while Omaha uses oN for the back nasal(s). Are there other differences? Maybe Kathy and Ardis (and/or Mark) could compare alphabets and post a summary. It does get confusing using several almost-identical versions. Catherine From mosind at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 21:23:27 2000 From: mosind at yahoo.com (Konstantin Hmelnitski) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:23:27 +0400 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan Message-ID: Dear Bruce: To eliminate the ambiguity of interrogative vs. indefinite in T-words I would add to the discussion the following: 1. The choice of interrogative enclitics. Tuwa u he? -Is someone coming here? / Who's coming here? Tuwa u sel? "se'l marks a dubitative question, but it presupposes an affirmative reply" (Rood&Taylor, Sketch of Lakhota...) -I guess somebody's coming here, huh? Tuwa u s'elel ? "s?ele'l marks a tag question" (R&T) - Somebody's coming here, is he? 2. The usage of taku & tuwa with determiners waN, waNz^i, (k?)eya I haven't found in Deloria's Dakota Texts, Buechel's Lakota Texts, and in an available part of Bushotter's a question with taku/tuwa waN/waNz^i. Yet I guess that many sentences can be rearranged to obtain a question with indefinite use of T-words: taku waNz^i makha-akaNl wakhaNyaN thi - something on earth exists in a holy manner (BO 16:4) ? taku waNz^i makha-akaNl wakhaNyaN thi he? -does anything on earth exists in a holy manner? "Mayute s^ni yo , echiN mayaluta haNtaNhaNs^ taku waNz^i s^ica ayakhipha kte lo," eye. "Don't eat me, if you do, something terrible will happen to you!" , he said. (BO 19:14) ? taku waNz^i s^ica akhipha kta he? will anything bad happen him? YuNkhaN uNgnahaNla taku waN oyuspa chaNke... And at last suddenly he felt of something and (BO 19:15) ? taku waN oyuspa he? did he felt of something? Khos^kalaka kiN haNkas^itku naNis^ thaNkeku es^a taku waNz^i uN is^telyapi haNtaNhaNs^... If a young man is shamed by a failure in this respect on the part of a female cross-cousin or a sister... (BO 111) ? taku waNz^i uN is^telyapi he? Is he ashamed because of anything? 3. Is adding of wa- to some other T-words eliminated the ambiguity too? (watohaNl - sometime, watukte el - sometime in the past ) Toksa akhe. From shanwest at uvic.ca Wed Oct 18 21:47:20 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:47:20 -0700 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 04:51 AM 2000-10-18, Bruce Ingham wrote: >Dear Siouanists >I am sorry for disturbing you by my previous message which was meant > for David. However to make up for that I wonder if any one can >help me on a question re the above, which I tried to find out when I >first became interested in Lakota and am still not satisfied about, >which is that, if indefinite items such as taku 'something', tohan >'sometime', tuktel 'somewhere', tokiya 'some direction', tuwa >'someone' can also serve as the question words 'what', 'when', >'where', 'where to' and 'who', how then do we question an >indefinite? ie how do we say 'have you seen something', 'will he >arrive sometime', 'are you going somewhere' and 'have you seen >someone'? > With taku we have a form takunl which can be used in this >way to mean 'anything' , but what about tuwa, tuktel, tokiya and >tohan and of course tokeske 'how' and others. Good question, I'm curious about that myself. I thought takuni was 'nothing' as opposed to 'anything'. Comments on that would be appreciated. Perhaps though, they mean much the same thing. >I have seen it >suggested that this can be achieved by following them by cha so >that tuwa cha wanlaka he could mean 'did you see anyone'. >However many examples occur in texts where this just means 'who >did you see?'. This is one of the questions I'm addressing (or attempting to address, at this point) in my thesis. The way I've been handling it is through an unselective binding (Nishigauchi (1990), Pesetsky (1987), Heim (1982)) relationship with a question particle. If there is a question particle, whether overt (as in the cases of hwo and such things) or null (as in the question is only marked by intonation), it gives the indefinite an interrogative interpretation. In sentences with multiple indefinites, there is some ambiguity. From Assiniboine: tuwe tagu manu? who/someone what/something steal "Who stole what?" "Who stole something?" (this was the first thought of my consultant) "What did someone steal?" "Someone stole something" > Has anyone any answer to this or comments about other >Siouan languages. I know that in some Far Eastern languages >which also have the Interrogative-indefinite type of word the >difference between 'who did you see' and 'did you see anyone' is >achieved only by intonation and I can see how that could occur >also for Lakhota. Yes, I think Chinese does this, or something similar. If you want references, I'm sure I can dig them up. > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he >'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in >tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they >seem to be rarely used. Where have you seen this? I could really use some more data on this topic, myself. Thanks for the questions. You've given me some new things to look into. :) Shannon West Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 (250) 721-7421 (Grad Student's Office) shanwest at uvic.ca From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Oct 19 00:07:01 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:07:01 +1000 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: John, Any dates in the middle-ish part of June would be fine with me. Any time after mid-May in fact. Bear in mind the Linguistic Institute at Santa Barbara that some may be attending. I don't know their dates--I'm just mentioning it.... Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Fellow 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 From r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au Thu Oct 19 00:33:15 2000 From: r.rankin at latrobe.edu.au (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:33:15 +1000 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan Message-ID: > Incidentally, this reminds me to remind folks working on Omaha-Ponca to > look for a contrast of iNdadaN and edadaN... I've heard both iNdadaN and edadaN > (and also, I think, iNbe' as well as ebe' (but not e'be?) for "who"). But I'm > afraid I always wrote iNdadaN and ebe when transcribing... dadaN, iNdadaN and edadaN are certainly all distinct in JOD 1890. After a long conversation with DNS Bhat here at the Typology Centre about interrogative and indefinite pronouns, I set about trying to make a comprehensive list for the various Dhegiha languages. It got sidetracked pretty quickly, but it would be worth doing in order to sort all these problems out. I gladly will it to whoever wants it. :-) Bob -- Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Fellow 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 bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Oct 19 06:58:20 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:58:20 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001018142633.00a8da20@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: In reply to Shanon West's questions Good question, I'm curious about that myself. I thought takuni was 'nothing' as opposed to 'anything'. Comments on that would be appreciated. Perhaps though, they mean much the same thing. In fact takuni is 'nothing', takunl spelt thus but pronounced takun is 'anything' > > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he >'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in >tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they >seem to be rarely used. Where have you seen this? I could really use some more data on this topic, myself. taohanhci is from a textbook called Lakota Wounspe wowapi from Pine Ridge. Tokiyetu ca is from a previous consultant so it is 'field notes' Shannon West Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 (250) 721-7421 (Grad Student's Office) shanwest at uvic.ca Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Oct 19 12:07:39 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:07:39 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001018142633.00a8da20@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: Reply to Shannon West I have just seen another example of tohanxci meaning 'ever' which is ithokab tohan xci le iyechel owax'an heci 'have I ever acted like this before' p. 79 in Buechel's Bible History. Regards Bruce > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he >'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in >tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they >seem to be rarely used. Where have you seen this? I could really use some more data on this topic, myself. Shannon West Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 (250) 721-7421 (Grad Student's Office) shanwest at uvic.ca Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From egooding at iupui.edu Thu Oct 19 14:37:16 2000 From: egooding at iupui.edu (Erik D Gooding) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:37:16 -0500 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'll jump in on a side note, have you gotten takuni as 'nothing' without the negative sni. Doesn't takun/takunl vary between southern Lakota and Northern Lakota as well? Erik On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Bruce Ingham wrote: > > In reply to Shanon West's questions > > Good question, I'm curious about that myself. I thought takuni was > 'nothing' as opposed to 'anything'. Comments on that would be > appreciated. Perhaps though, they mean much the same thing. > > In fact takuni is 'nothing', takunl spelt thus but pronounced takun is > 'anything' > > > > > > I have seen tohanhci for 'ever' as in tohanhci ekta yai he > >'have you ever been there?' and tokiyetu cha for 'anywhere' as in > >tokiyetu ca he wanlaka he 'have you seen him anywhere?', but they > >seem to be rarely used. > > Where have you seen this? I could really use some more data on this topic, > myself. > taohanhci is from a textbook called Lakota Wounspe wowapi from > Pine Ridge. Tokiyetu ca is from a previous consultant so it is 'field > notes' > > > Shannon West > > Department of Linguistics > University of Victoria > Box 3045 > Victoria, B.C. > V8W 3P4 > (250) 721-7421 (Grad Student's Office) > > shanwest at uvic.ca > > Dr. Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS > > From cqcq at compuserve.com Thu Oct 19 16:38:28 2000 From: cqcq at compuserve.com (Carolyn) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:38:28 -0400 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: No conflict for me for the week end of June 16. carolyn Carolyn Quintero cqcq at compuserve.com From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Oct 19 19:10:24 2000 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:10:24 -0700 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 07:37 AM 2000-10-19, you wrote: >I'll jump in on a side note, have you gotten takuni as 'nothing' without >the negative sni. Doesn't takun/takunl vary between southern Lakota and >Northern Lakota as well? It seems to me that I have. I'd have to look for some examples though. Gives me an idea. :) Shannon Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 shanwest at uvic.ca From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Oct 19 20:42:24 2000 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:42:24 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's Father's Day weekend, but it won't be the first time I've been away for that holiday. Otherwise, I think it's a very good time. 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 Thu Oct 19 23:09:21 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:09:21 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: I'm going to be deleting Robert Samtleben (manicscribbler at canada.com) from the list, as his mailbox has been refusing new material for some time on the grounds that it is full. If anyone knows Robert, they might warn him. I obviously can't do it myself with email and I don't know how else to reach him. John Koontz From BARudes at aol.com Fri Oct 20 02:22:20 2000 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:22:20 EDT Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Given that I am hoping to make my maiden voyage to the Siouan-Caddoan conference this year, and hope to bring the linguist from the Catawba Cultural Center along with me, I will chime in that the dates seem fine with me. The only possible conflict is a course I teach in Guadalajara, Mexico in June. But I never know the dates of the two weeks I need to be there until a few weeks ahead of time. If I have to be in Mexico, I will still try to get my colleague from the Catawba Cultural Center (Claudia Heinneman-Priest) to go. Blair From ird at blueridge.net Fri Oct 20 13:57:51 2000 From: ird at blueridge.net (ird) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:57:51 -0400 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: As one more from the Carolinas planning to attend the Siouan-Caddoan Conference for the first time, I like the June date. Irene D From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 21 04:30:42 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:30:42 -0600 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <00ea01c03949$a8a11a20$2466bcd4@avt993365> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Konstantin Hmelnitski wrote: > To eliminate the ambiguity of interrogative vs. indefinite in T-words I > would add to the discussion the following: > > 1. The choice of interrogative enclitics. It certainly makes a difference if there is an interrogaive at all in Omaha-Ponca, viz.: ... eda'daN ede'ha=m=azhi=tta=the ha. ... what I shall not say anything DECLm JOD 1891:101.3 I shall not say anything. Na! Eda'daN ede'he=tta? why! what I shall say something JOD 1890:596.9 Why! What should I say? Here the -a ending of =tte FUTRE/IRREALIS is, in effect, the interrogative. I suppose the translation 'Should I say something?' might also work. This is a case where someone is accused of saying something (muttering it), and denies it. The verb here is e=d=e, presumably e=d(a)=e, 'to say something' used in the sense of 'what did one say/did one say something' in questions. The first e= is the proclitic demonstative of 'to day', the d is da 'what' as in edadaN 'what', and the last e is the root of 'to say'. Or perhaps ed- is e-da form eda(daN) 'what'. As I've mentioned, the -daN is a marker of contingency. Of course, Bruce's real question is how to make the distinction between what and something in questions. Maybe the issue is really one of focus. The what questions focus on the unknown thing, whereas the something questions presume the something's unstated identity and focus on the rest of the matter. Presumably the first is the unmarked case, though I'm not sure I should state this so surely. It is worth noting that in the whole of Dorsey's texts the word something only occurs (in the interlinear translations) in connection with translating ede and various wa-prefixed forms. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Oct 21 05:16:13 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:16:13 -0600 Subject: Varieties of What-ness (wasRe: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > Incidentally, this reminds me to remind folks working on Omaha-Ponca to > look for a contrast of iNdadaN and edadaN. ... Here are three examples showing Omaha-Ponca da'daN ~ eda'daN ~ iNda'daN 'what' in contrast, and two showing them not so much in contrast. Wani'tta da'daN t?e'=watha=i e'=shte=waN animal what they killed it that-soever-doing (notwithstanding) i'naNppe=hnaN ?i'=bi=ama. they only (habitually) fearing him they gave it to him, they say 11 JOD 1890:22.1-2 Whatever animal they killed, being always in fear of him, they gave it to him (they say). This is a sentence from the story of the Deer-Taker monster. Here simple da'daN modifies a noun. I think that eshtewaN is essentially a rarer variety of what Bob calls a perfect marker, i.e., a subordinating conjunction in aN, which he suggests is a characteristic of OP syntax. The same is perhaps present in =hnaN, the habitual or exclusivity marker. --- ZhiNthe'=ha, eda'daN ?itha=i= the=di, elder brother VOC what they speak of it when e' thashtaN=b=azhi e'=gaN, that they not stopping speaking of HAVING e' uhe'=hnaN=i, a=bi=ama. that they only (habitually) follow, he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:38.10 "O elder brother, whatever they speak of [or, when they speak of a(ny)thing], their way is to speak of it ceaselessly [or, is to gum it to death]," he said. Here eda'daN stands on its own, not modifying a noun. The typical e=gaN HAVING (Dorsey's gloss) subordinator, --- INda'daN aNgui'thitha=tta=i=the thiNge' e'=gaN, what we shall tell you there is nothing it is like that a'=bi=ama they said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:40.2 "There is nothing we could tell you," they said, they say. INda'daN stands on its own, but whereas eda'daN had a specific referent, here there is the denial of any reference. --- While these three examples outline what I believe to be the basic pattern, lest I get too cocky, there are cases like: Da'daN=shteshte thana'?aN e'=iN=the what soever you heard it PERHAPS iNwiN'dha=i=ga, a'=bi=amaI tell me (IMPm) he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:39.17 "You-all tell me whatever you have heard!" he said (they say). You may be beginning to wonder about that tell verb. It's u(g)itha, a dative. Also, the =iN= in PERHAPS is (perhaps) the particle that surfaces in the iN grade of the Teton ablaut system before the future. Also: KHage', iNda'daN=shteshte iNwiNtha=i=ga hau, a'=bi=ama Friend! whatsoever tell me! he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:40.5-6 "Friend! Tell me whatever it is!" he said (they say). One could argue that there's the issue of degree of indefiniteness to distinguish the two cases, but strictly speaking the, perhaps, it should be eda'daN the first time? Notice that the two examples occur within a few lines of each other, too. They are essentially variants of each other. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Oct 23 05:44:41 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:44:41 -0600 Subject: More on Omaha-Ponca =daN=shte and =daN=shte=aN Message-ID: Use of =shte with various forms of 'what' * eda'daN Kki eda'daN=shteshte i'wima'ghe And whatever (specific) I asked you about JOD 1891:77.4 * iNda'daN INda'daN=shte e'gaN, whatever (nonspecific) so, thana'?aN=b=azhi, kHage', a'=bi=ama you have not heard it, o younger brother, he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:39.16 You have heard nothing like that?, o younger brother, he said (they say). * da'daN Wu! Da'daN=shte pi'azhizhi=xci thatHa=i e=d=uehe a'haN, Wu! what really bad they eat it I go with them EXCLm a'=bi=ama he said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:71.5-6 "Whoa! I am hanging out with those who eat disgusting things!", he said (they say). ====== Constuctions with =daN=shte=aN Nisi=ha! Uga'shaN=ga! Aba?a=daN, wathitaN=daN=shte= aN=ga! My child! Travel IMPm Hunt CONTINGENT work CONTINGENT do IMPm! 11 JOD 1890:189.1-2 "My child! Travel! Hunt or else work perhaps!" Witu'shpa, makaN' i'dhappahaN=daN=shte=maN a'dhiNhe Grandhild, medicine I know it "DUBITATIVE SIGN" I move a'=bi=ama she said (they say) 11 JOD 1890:36.13 "Grandchild, I may have some small knowledge of medicine," she said, Uspe'= daN=shte A sunken place perhaps 11 JOD 1890:345.9 GaN' ni'ashiNga (PaNka) pe'thabthiN shaNka=daN=shte=aN t?e=watha=i And man Ponca eight nine perhaps he killed them 11 JOD 1890:370.1 And he killed perhaps eight or nine Ponca men ... >>From the preceding examples I deduce a lexicalized sequence of enclitics =daN=shte=aN, of which the latter is inflected in the right contexts, signifying something like "perhaps this ..." with respect to the preceding phrase and opposed optionally to a phrase preceding that with the sense "perhaps that ...". This former phrase can be unmarked, especially if a number, or marked with =daN, if a verb. "Perhaps ... or ..." is a reasonable English translation with two terms. I wouldn't care to identify the sequence =daN=shte(shte) that occurs at the end of 'what' when =shte(shte) follows as an instance of this lexicalized sequence, but I do think that the constituents =daN and =shte are the same, and that the relationships of the meanings are clear. === I suppose we can think of =shte 'soever' as a sort of operator that emphasizes that the preceding element ranges potentially over a whole class of objects in reference rather than referring to some particular thing. Thus, it in some degree produces the sense 'something/anything (soever)' as opposed to 'what (particular thing)'. However, it doesn't do anything so simple as changing 'what' to 'something' in a question. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 23 12:59:30 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:59:30 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001019120729.00a1f170@pop.uvic.ca> Message-ID: Dear Shannon I'm sure takuni could occur without sni to mean nothing. There is a verb yatakuni 'to belittle', but normallly it is with sni. The form takunl is pronounced takun. In any case I think takunl with a sequence -nl- is unpronounceable. Posssibly it was written that way so that people did not pronounce it as though it ended in a nasalized -u- like un 'to be, live'. It is interesting that a language only so recently submitted to writing already has 'spelling conventions' ie unusual spellings of words. Bruce Date sent: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:10:24 -0700 Send reply to: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU From: Shannon West To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan At 07:37 AM 2000-10-19, you wrote: >I'll jump in on a side note, have you gotten takuni as 'nothing' without >the negative sni. Doesn't takun/takunl vary between southern Lakota and >Northern Lakota as well? It seems to me that I have. I'd have to look for some examples though. Gives me an idea. :) Shannon Department of Linguistics University of Victoria Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P4 shanwest at uvic.ca Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 23 13:46:31 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:46:31 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Ed, "It is worth noting that in the whole of Dorsey's texts the word something only occurs (in the interlinear translations) in connection with translating ede and various wa-prefixed forms. " This is what I find particularly interesting about all this, the fact that what should be a very commonly occurring type of sentence seems not to be so Bruce Date sent: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:30:42 -0600 (MDT) Send reply to: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Subject: Re: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Konstantin Hmelnitski wrote: > To eliminate the ambiguity of interrogative vs. indefinite in T-words I > would add to the discussion the following: > > 1. The choice of interrogative enclitics. It certainly makes a difference if there is an interrogaive at all in Omaha-Ponca, viz.: ... eda'daN ede'ha=m=azhi=tta=the ha. ... what I shall not say anything DECLm JOD 1891:101.3 I shall not say anything. Na! Eda'daN ede'he=tta? why! what I shall say something JOD 1890:596.9 Why! What should I say? Here the -a ending of =tte FUTRE/IRREALIS is, in effect, the interrogative. I suppose the translation 'Should I say something?' might also work. This is a case where someone is accused of saying something (muttering it), and denies it. The verb here is e=d=e, presumably e=d(a)=e, 'to say something' used in the sense of 'what did one say/did one say something' in questions. The first e= is the proclitic demonstative of 'to day', the d is da 'what' as in edadaN 'what', and the last e is the root of 'to say'. Or perhaps ed- is e-da form eda(daN) 'what'. As I've mentioned, the -daN is a marker of contingency. Of course, Bruce's real question is how to make the distinction between what and something in questions. Maybe the issue is really one of focus. The what questions focus on the unknown thing, whereas the something questions presume the something's unstated identity and focus on the rest of the matter. Presumably the first is the unmarked case, though I'm not sure I should state this so surely. It is worth noting that in the whole of Dorsey's texts the word something only occurs (in the interlinear translations) in connection with translating ede and various wa-prefixed forms. JEK Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Oct 23 14:21:17 2000 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:21:17 -0600 Subject: More on Omaha-Ponca =daN=shte and =daN=shte=aN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I tried to get this in the school orthography, but messed up and reverted to NetSiouan in a few places. On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Koontz John E wrote: > Kki eda'daN=shteshte i'wima'ghe > And whatever (specific) I asked you about > JOD 1891:77.4 ki > Wu! Da'daN=shte pi'azhizhi=xci thatHa=i e=d=uehe a'haN, > Wu! what really bad they eat it I go with them EXCLm I think that was pi'azhiazhi=xci. > Witu'shpa, makaN' i'dhappahaN=daN=shte=maN a'dhiNhe > Grandhild, medicine I know it "DUBITATIVE SIGN" I move i'thapahaN .... a'thiNhe JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 23 16:36:14 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:36:14 +0100 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: <00ea01c03949$a8a11a20$2466bcd4@avt993365> Message-ID: Dear Konstantin |Thankyou for the suggestions. Yes tuwe waN or tuwe waNji and taku waN or takunl are useful ways around it. I like the suggestion of -sel. I think that would work. I am tempted to think that intonantion might work. For an open question a slow rising intonation can be used as in ungnin kta hwo 'shall we go home' (my own made up example. I hope it's correct), whereas for a T- question a higher endiong is used as in tokhiya la? or tokhiya la hwo 'where are you going. So therefore if we use the slow rising intonantion for tokhiya la it should mean 'are you going somewhere?'. But I don't know for sure. Any other suggestions? Bruce PS I think I'll try and find out what happens in Algonquian. I know that Cree has a word kikwaay which means 'what' and 'something'. Perhaps they have the same problem. Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Oct 24 16:07:48 2000 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:07:48 -0400 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dr. Ingham, Hi. SOrry this has been delayed. Van Valin and La Polla (1997), Syntax: Structure, meaning, function, pp424-425, explains the difference between indefinite and wh-readings as a difference in focus. Basically, when the sometimes wh-word is in the actual focus domain, it receives a wh-reading while when it is not, it receives the indefinite reading. To consider this on my own terms, looking at something/what, if I am asking specifically about the something that you have, I want to know 'what' you have. This analysis would jive with intonational marking, in that focus is commonly marked intonationally. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that 'shte' is needed to mark indefinites in Omaha, only that quite commonly it is used for these when elders give sentences for us. Best, Ardis Eschenberg From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Oct 24 20:06:32 2000 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:06:32 -0500 Subject: etymol. of Minneconjou Message-ID: The Hdbk. N. Amer. Indians XVII (1996) 479 has the following etymology: Lakota mnikhowozhu 'those who plant by water' Would someone be so kind as to analyze it for me. (mni 'water' and wozhu 'plant' seem clear, but the middle of the word less so.) Thanks for any help. Alan From soup at vm.inext.cz Wed Oct 25 05:45:58 2000 From: soup at vm.inext.cz (SOUP) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:45:58 +0100 Subject: etymol. of Minneconjou Message-ID: Alan Hartley wrote: > The Hdbk. N. Amer. Indians XVII (1996) 479 has the following etymology: > > Lakota mnikhowozhu 'those who plant by water' > > Would someone be so kind as to analyze it for me. (mni 'water' and wozhu > 'plant' seem clear, but the middle of the word less so.) In her Dakota Texts Deloria uses the form MnikhaN'wozhu (story n. 50. paragraph 1). From this form the etymology is perhaps clearer: mni' 'water' + ikhaN' 'near to' + wozhu. The form Mnikho'wozhu either originates in the above or it could perhaps be from mni' 'water' + ikhaN' 'near to' + owo'zhu. I am not wure though whether owo'zhu can be used as a verb meaning 'to plant things into'. Jan Ullrich From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 30 14:13:27 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:13:27 -0000 Subject: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Ardis Thank you for your reply. I think the intonation factor will also firt with the information I got recently for Jerome KillsSmall of the modern language dept of the University of South Dakota at Vermilion, which goes as follows: Jerome's message "The hypothetical expression for taku is takunl, or when, tohan in the hypothetical usage is tohanl. Have you seen something, takunl wanlaka he Will he arrive sometime, tohanl hihunni kte he are you going somewhere, tokiyal la he (Because the "l" is at the end tokiya(l) and the beginning of la they share the "l" sound making only the one "l" sound. A sort of a contraction.) have you seen someone, tuwe wanzi wanlaka he have you seen anyone, tuwe wanzi wanlaka he have you found something, takunl iyeyaya he have you seen him somewhere, tukte ekta wanlaka he (sometimes the "e" sound is shared by tukte ekta, tuktekta) you will see him sometime, watohanl ake wanlakin kte lo (was kte yelo) can you do it somehow, tokel ecanu oyakihi he" What is interesting about this is that he extends the -l ending seen in takunl to also apply to tohanl and to tokiyal also using tukte ekta for anywhere. I have not seen these used, but it does fit in logically with the 'hypotheticalness of the tohanl form. Tohanl is often in grammar books said to refer to the future in contrast to tohan which refers to the past. This looks like another use for tohanl sharing the 'hypothetical' feature. Bruce Date sent: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:07:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Ardis R Eschenberg To: Bruce Ingham Copies to: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: Interrogative Indefinites in Siouan Dr. Ingham, Hi. SOrry this has been delayed. Van Valin and La Polla (1997), Syntax: Structure, meaning, function, pp424-425, explains the difference between indefinite and wh-readings as a difference in focus. Basically, when the sometimes wh-word is in the actual focus domain, it receives a wh-reading while when it is not, it receives the indefinite reading. To consider this on my own terms, looking at something/what, if I am asking specifically about the something that you have, I want to know 'what' you have. This analysis would jive with intonational marking, in that focus is commonly marked intonationally. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that 'shte' is needed to mark indefinites in Omaha, only that quite commonly it is used for these when elders give sentences for us. Best, Ardis Eschenberg Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Oct 30 14:19:01 2000 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:19:01 -0000 Subject: etymol. of Minneconjou In-Reply-To: <001c01c03e47$013f4e20$7e006fd4@default> Message-ID: I think the form of it with the -w- in mni-khan-w-ozhu is showing a -w- glide between ikhan and ozhu. It is also seen as mnikhaNozhu. Such medial -ys- and -ws- do come and go as in wakhaNyezha and wakhaNhezha 'child', ithayanuNk, ithahanunk, ithaanunk 'from both sides'. Bruce Date sent: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:45:58 +0100 Send reply to: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU From: "SOUP" To: Subject: Re: etymol. of Minneconjou Alan Hartley wrote: > The Hdbk. N. Amer. Indians XVII (1996) 479 has the following etymology: > > Lakota mnikhowozhu 'those who plant by water' > > Would someone be so kind as to analyze it for me. (mni 'water' and wozhu > 'plant' seem clear, but the middle of the word less so.) In her Dakota Texts Deloria uses the form MnikhaN'wozhu (story n. 50. paragraph 1). From this form the etymology is perhaps clearer: mni' 'water' + ikhaN' 'near to' + wozhu. The form Mnikho'wozhu either originates in the above or it could perhaps be from mni' 'water' + ikhaN' 'near to' + owo'zhu. I am not wure though whether owo'zhu can be used as a verb meaning 'to plant things into'. Jan Ullrich Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From Ogalala2 at aol.com Tue Oct 31 21:33:32 2000 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:33:32 EST Subject: 2001 Conference Message-ID: June 15-17 is as good as any for me. Ted Grimm