Iroquoian bows

[Koontz John E]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 BARudes at aol.com wrote:

> Initial /m/ exists only in Wyandot, where it is the reflex of a *w before a
> nasal vowel.  Initial *w before a noun root is the third person singular
> neuter agent prefix (it).  It comes from Proto-Iroquoian *w.  Initial *w is
> dropped in Huron and in Wyandot (unless nasalized to /m/), and in Cherokee.
> Huron, Wyandot and Cherokee develop new cases of initial /w/ from the
> fricativization of the Proto-Iroquoian labiovelar *kw.

Thanks, Blair!

So, *w is interpretable as the 3rd singular neuter agent.  Would
*w-a?ta?(-...)  be 'it is wood, a stick, a bow', etc.?  Or proceding to
implications, would it be possible to suspect *wa?ta? instead of *a?ta?,
especially given the frequency of things like |[wata]| in the sense of
'bow'?

What's puzzling me here is the extent to which |[wata]| shaped things turn
up in the sense 'bow', but the correspondences are regular (Algonquian,
Iroquoian, Uto-Aztecan?, not Siouan) and, where the correspondences are
regular, intepretations like wood, pole, stick are also feasible.  I'm
pretty sure this isn't, say, a Proto-Amerind word in any of these senses.
It could be a series of coincidences, but I also doubt that.  At least it
seems worthwhile proceding on the presumption that it is not.

In regard to the problem of the underlying sense of 'pole, stick', notice
that Omaha-Ponca has maN'dehi 'spear', transparently a compound 'bowstave'
< 'bow' + 'stick, stem, trunk, bone', where clearly the order of
derivation of the terms is the reverse of the historical introduction of
the things named.  (The contradictory orders are an observation from
Michael McCafferty.)  Perhaps the sense of 'pole' > 'stick' is actually a
common secondary derivation from 'bow' instead of the original sense.

The other puzzling thing here is the distribution of |[wata]|-like forms,
currently Uto-Aztecan (not considered a borrowing), Siouan (three or four
forms, all considered borrowings), Algonquian (two forms, both vaguely
resemblant, neither considered borrowings), and Iroquoian (two forms plus
some change, one form and some of the change resemblant, the others not,
none considered borrowings).  The last three families are a
not-unreasonable continuum for a widespread loan, which, quite frankly,
seems not unlikely as the explanation for the resemblances, attested
regularities aside, but the first, UA, seems to require some path of
transmission not as yet noticed, most likely not, say, direct transmission
from Algonquian or Siouan to Numic.

It would definitely be interesting to know any further extent of
|[wata]|-like forms for 'bow' (or 'stick, pole'), and any reflections on
regularities, anomalies, and distributions in the terms in particular
languages or language families.  The north (Athabascan?) and the west
coast would seem profitable places to look.  It would also be interesting
to know of any archaeological surveys on bow technology.

JEK