h- vs. x-aspiration in LDN

[Constantine Xmelnitski]

Dear Siouanists:

As is known, Lakhota dialect of Dakotan has two
variations of aspirated stops : weak (h-like), and
strong (x-like).
According to Rood & Taylor ("Beginning Lakhota", 1976,
3:5),
"All speakers agree that [h^] is used before [a, aN,
uN]. All will also agree that [h] is always used after
[c^]. Elsewhere, there is variation, with [h]
predomination before [i, u], but [h^] predomination
before [e, o, iN]."

Perhaps that's all that could and should be said to it
but I wonder what are the dialectal, positional, and
etymological features of x-aspiration.

1. Lakxota-Dakhota-Nakoda dialects

P.Shaw (1980), D.Parks & R. DeMallie (1992) do not
tell anything about Ch vs. Cx opposition in LDN
dialects.
Neither N.Levin (1964) nor R.Hollow (1970) mention
x-aspirated stops in their consonant sets for Fort
Peck Assiniboine. However, the examples of speech
published on
http://fpcctalkindian.nativeweb.org/Nakona%20Alphabet.htm
site cannot fully exclude the existence of px/tx/kx in
Nakota.
The audio-samples from CD on Yanktonai dialect (by the
way, is it for sale already?) also seem to have
[txatxanka] for buffalo.
The Riggs dictionary is almost totaly devoid of
aspiration marks, probably testifying the absense of
px/tx/kx in Dakota. Yet there is a couple of
exceptions, one of them is
ape [aphe] "to wait for", and
aphe [apxe?], var. of apha, to strike.
However, the 2nd edition has WJC's note for a th^aNka
entry: "The "h^" sound is introduced between "t" and
its vowel quiet frequently by the TitoNwaN; perhaps
with the idea of giving emphasis. I am more inclined,
however, to regard it as a conventionality. I give
some examples: tho, i. q. to, blue; thokeca, i. q.
tokeca, different; thehan, i. q. tehan."
So whether x-aspiration exists in Dakota is unclear.

2. Distribution.

If we take positional rules ( x / C _ {a, aN, uN, o} ;
  h / C _ { u, i, iN, +/-e } ) for granted then Ch and
Cx appear to be just positional allophones. Anyhow Jan
Ullrich claims and David Rood confirms that px/tx/kx
before ablauting -A remains in all positions, e.g.
apxA "to strike": apxa pi ~  apxe shni ~ apxin kte
(cp. aphe "to wait for": aphe shni). In this case Ch
and Cx may be turning into separate phonemes.

And Violet Catches, having designed the diacritic-free
orthography for Lakxota, even regards px/tx/kx as
consonantic clusters! Whether she is right or not,
this proves that (some) fluent speakers consider Ch
and Cx to be separate sounds.

3. Etymology.

What is the amount of native speakers using both
phe/the/khe and pxe/txe/kxe for different morphemes?

Can we hypothesize that all the x-aspirated stops
before [e] originate from -CxA verbs and Cxa nouns?

Here's some examples (from Albert White Hat, Violet
Catches - who show h- vs. x- aspiration in spelling)

Derivatives of -pxA verbs: wi'chapxe "fork", owapxe "a
strike; hour"

Derivatives of pxa? ("?sharped end"): pxehin "hair",
wi'pxe "sharped weapons", pxe'ta "fire"

(The words with unclear aspiration: phezhi "grass",
ophetxun "to buy")

wi'yutxe "sign-talk" (< iyutxA), derivatives of kxA
"to mean", wicakxA "to speak true"

But: thezi  "stomack", themni "to be perspiring",
the'ca (WhiteHat) (but txecake (Violet Catches)).

Thank you for your attention.

Connie.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/