From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug  1 00:16:22 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:16:22 -0600
Subject: Caddo ethnic terms
In-Reply-To: <4294032881.1028107450@[192.168.2.36]>
Message-ID: <WED.31.JUL.2002.181622.0600.>

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote:
> Unlike John, I find it hard to let go of Mexicanos as the origin of ka:nos
> etc. It seems relevant that among the Tonkawas ka:nos did in fact mean
> Mexicans.

That information would change matters considerably.  I missed it earlier.
I thought the term was only attested as 'Frenchman'.

> So we have the Tonkawas with that meaning, and their neighbors,
> Caddos and others, with the meaning Frenchmen for what seems obviously to
> be the same word. Exactly how that happened, historically and
> sociopolitically, may be a puzzle, but clearly we need to know a lot more
> about how the name Mexicanos was being used where and at what time.

It occurs to me to wonder if the Caddo form means anything besides
'Frenchman'.  Any chance it means 'people who don't have a specific name'?


From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Thu Aug  1 02:28:36 2002
From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:28:36 -0700
Subject: Caddo ethnic terms
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0207311813330.23225-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.31.JUL.2002.192836.0700.>

On this one point, nope, it only means Frenchman. But that's only in modern
times. There has to have once been a period when it meant something more
general, I should think, in order to explain the switch, if that's indeed
what happened.

> It occurs to me to wonder if the Caddo form means anything besides
> 'Frenchman'.  Any chance it means 'people who don't have a specific name'?


From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu  Thu Aug  1 15:15:16 2002
From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:15:16 -0500
Subject: flat structures
Message-ID: <THU.1.AUG.2002.101516.0500.>

Shannon -- Williamson has configurational trees for Lakhota in her article
on internal-headed relative clauses.  (Janis S. Williamson, An
Indefiniteness Restriction for Relative Clauses in Lakhota, in E. Reuland
and A.G.B. ter Meulen (eds), The Representation of Indefiniteness.  MIT
Press 1987).   Also in her dissertation (Williamson 1984 Studies in Lakhota
Grammar, UC San Diego) there are trees which look configurational to me,
though she states in the introduction that Lakhota has "flat structure" and
"nonconfigurational phrase structure rules".  Maybe I don't understand what
"flat" means!!!   Or at least what W. means by it.

 I've assumed configurational structures for both nominal phrases (DP) and
clauses in various papers on Omaha-Ponca, though it's not clear to me just
HOW configurational it is --  the type of trees David and I both presented
in Boulder lst fall, with layers of functional heads, seem very plausible,
but I'd hesitate to try to argue for e.g. a VP constituent.  Williamson
does show a VP in some of her trees.

What are your thoughts on the issue?  I'd love to know.  Or do we have to
wait for your dissertation?

Catherine
-----------------------------------------




                      "Shannon West"
                      <shanwest at uvic.ca>          To:       "Siouan \(E-mail\)" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
                      Sent by:                    cc:
                      owner-siouan at lists.c        Subject:  flat structures
                      olorado.edu


                      07/24/02 03:42 PM
                      Please respond to
                      shanwest






I'm looking for references that refer to Siouan syntax as 'flat' or
'nonconfigurational'. Dakotan would be best, but all others are welcome
too.
I have a few, but the more I can get, the better.

Actually, any that say the structure is hierarchical would be nifty to have
too. I'm finding very little on that kind of syntax.

Any ideas?
Thanks.

Shannon


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Thu Aug  1 18:55:48 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:55:48 -0700
Subject: flat structures
In-Reply-To: <OF416BA23D.9BDD6957-ON86256C08.0051B4EA@wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.1.AUG.2002.115548.0700.>

Hi Catherine. Thanks for the reminder on the relative clause paper, I'd
forgotten that one.

>
> Shannon -- Williamson has configurational trees for Lakhota in her article
> on internal-headed relative clauses.  (Janis S. Williamson, An
> Indefiniteness Restriction for Relative Clauses in Lakhota, in E. Reuland
> and A.G.B. ter Meulen (eds), The Representation of Indefiniteness.  MIT
> Press 1987).   Also in her dissertation (Williamson 1984 Studies
> in Lakhota
> Grammar, UC San Diego) there are trees which look configurational to me,
> though she states in the introduction that Lakhota has "flat
> structure" and
> "nonconfigurational phrase structure rules".  Maybe I don't
> understand what
> "flat" means!!!   Or at least what W. means by it.

She's got a bunch of things called virtual structures, in which she needs
the VP, but says that there is no surface structure difference between
Subject and Object. I've been having fun with her work. :)

>  I've assumed configurational structures for both nominal phrases (DP) and
> clauses in various papers on Omaha-Ponca, though it's not clear to me just
> HOW configurational it is --  the type of trees David and I both presented
> in Boulder lst fall, with layers of functional heads, seem very plausible,
> but I'd hesitate to try to argue for e.g. a VP constituent.  Williamson
> does show a VP in some of her trees.

I love the functional categories, they work so well for so many things. I'm
not using a whole pile of them (I'm very carefully avoiding the issue), but
that's just because I don't need this thing turning into a 1000 page volume.

> What are your thoughts on the issue?  I'd love to know.  Or do we have to
> wait for your dissertation?

Heh. It's directly tied into the pronominal argument stuff I was talking
about last year. I'm trying very hard to make a case for DP arguments *and*
pronominal arguments, the explanation Randy favours. It makes the most sense
intuitively, but it's hard to get the theory to work. It would require that
sentences with 1st and 2nd person arguments be somehow non-configurational.
The verb would have to check features via movement. In the event of 3rd
person arguments, those occupy the normal configurational structure argument
positions (or possibly heads of discourse functional categories)

Something hit me a while back. It doesn't matter which way you look at it
(lexical arguments or pronominal arguments), 1st and 2nd person are
mandatorily pronominal arguments. In a lex.arg. theory, they're pro. In a
pro.arg. theory, they're affixes. I've pretty much satisfied myself that DPs
are in argument position (Binding Condition C, no apparent Wh-movement, and
whatnot), so it really is a split system. I just had to decide whether I
wanted the 1st and 2nd person arguments to be pro or affixes. And it makes
more sense to me, that they would be affixes. If they were pro, then the
affixes would be agreement, and it would be nice to remove that layer of
abstraction.

I say that I've "pretty much satisfied myself" with regard to the position
of DPs, because I just read something else that seemed wonderfully plausible
(Gotta both love and hate it when that happens). Russell and Reinholtz
(1999) wrote a fantastic article about configurationality and pronominal
arguments in Cree. Cree has long been touted as the posterboy for
non-configurational languages. Almost no one argues against the pronominal
arguments in it. But R&R say that just because the arguments are pronominal,
that doesn't necessarily make the DPs adjuncts. Instead, they put them into
configurationally  structured trees under the functional categories of Topic
and Focus. I'm trying to work out all the implications of that idea before I
jump on it, but it seems like a nifty alternative, especially since in
Nakota the only way to have an OSV structure is if the object is the focus.
But I've not got any of the details worked out.

My advisor just got back in town after a year's leave, so I'll have lots of
things to work out with her. I'll get back to you once I cement my ideas at
least a little. :)

All the best,
Shannon


From mmccaffe at indiana.edu  Fri Aug  2 21:43:04 2002
From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:43:04 -0500
Subject: Caddo ethnic terms
In-Reply-To: <E17ZeLl-0003XD-00@gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.AUG.2002.164304.0500.>

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote:

>
> >> What I do wonder about, now that I think about it, is the s^aglas^a family of
> >> terms, though probably not via this Dakotan version.  In other words, maybe
> >> the term originally was something like zakanas^, and lost its first syllable.
> >> I think zakanas^ or something like it is found in some Algonquian languages.
>
> Okay, duty calls again... :-)
>
> I think I might have talked about this with John K. many years ago, but the
> "(les) Anglais" term for Englishmen is all over non-Eastern and non-Plains
> Algonquian. The great majority of the time it still means 'Englishman', and
> *not* 'white person':
>
> Miami /aakalaah$ima/, /aanhkalaah$ima/
> Fox /sa:kana:$a/, Sauk /0a:kana:$a/, Kickapoo /0aakanaasa/
> Menominee /sa:kana:s/
>
> Ojibwean:
>
> Southwest Ojibwe /zhaaganaash/
> Ottawa /zhaagnaash/ 'whiteman, Englishman'
> Maniwaki /a:gane:$a:/ & /zha:gana:sh/
> Potawatomi /zhagnash/ 'Englishman'
>
> Cree-Montagnais:
>
> Plains Cree /akaya:siw/, Attikamek /e:kare:$$a:w/, Montagnais /ak at li$aw/ &
> Naskapi /ka:kiya:sa:w/.
>
> ($ = s-hacek, @ = schwa, 0 = theta)
>
> Note that while most of the languages retain a trace of the sibilant in the
> French article 'les', the article is missing from the Miami, Maniwaki
> Ojibwe, and the various Cree dialect forms.
>
> The odd one out here is Shawnee, which has an old word for 'Englishman'
> which can probably be phonemicized as /me:kilesima:na/. This seems to be
> taken straight from the English word "Englishman"; I admittedly can't really
> explain the initial /m/, unless it's influenced by the initial /m/ of
> Shawnee's word for 'white man', /mtekohsiya/ (/tekohsiya/ by the 20th
> century). Either way, this is yet another example of Shawnee NOT borrowing
> from French when everyone else did.
>
> David


The initial m- in this term could be a Shawnee attempt to catch the
indefinite article 'an' that is elided with the first syllable of
"Englishman," i.e., [@ nINglI$m at n]. In other words maybe it is
*Nenglishman that became Shawnee */me:kilesima:na/.

But yes, the Shawnee had little opportunity to borrow from the French in
early historical times. Even in 1671-2, when Marquette was learning
Illinois from a Illinois slave boy held by the Ojibwa, the French had not
yet encountered the Shawnee. The first Shawnee-French meeting I'm aware of
was on the banks of the St. Josephy River (of Lake Michigan) around 1680,
when a small band of Shawnee met La Salle there.

Michael


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sat Aug  3 21:01:09 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 15:01:09 -0600
Subject: Assiniboine verbs with verbal complements requiring -pi
In-Reply-To: <200207301853.NAA23208@iupui.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.3.AUG.2002.150109.0600.>

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Linda Cumberland wrote:
> This is a follow-up to the list I distributed at the conference last
> month, of verbs that require either -pi or -kta on verbal
> complements, e.g.:
>
>     wachipi wachi~ka     'I want to dance'
>     wachikta washka~     'I'm trying to dance'
>     wachipi i~mnushki~   'I enjoy dancing'

I looked at some of these in OP without turning anything new up.

I did notice that OP verbs under imperatives don't repeat the subject,
something I hadn't realized before (or had forgotten):

iNwiN'kkaN    was^kaN'=ga                  JOD 1890:642.3
(you)-me-help try      IMP

a'kkihide           was^kaN' gi'=i= ga     JOD 1890:695.4-5
(you) attend to it try      return IMP

I also noticed that was^kaN often has an instrumental and suffix (not the
causative, as it isn't inflected itself) attached, though I couldn't
discern why:

aNwaN'dhittaN  aNwaNgas^kaNdha=i           JOD 1890:680.12
we work        we try it
< wa-dhittaN   < wa-ga-s^kaN-dhe

I also noticed an interesting case in which an instrumental was repeated,
apparently to clarify or make more transparent irregular morphology:

u's^kaN  i'kkigdhagas^kaNdha=bi= ama       JOD 1890:230.19
deed     he tried it for himself QUOTE

Here the underlying stem is ga-s^kaN-dhe as in the preceding example.
Adding the reflexive kki (here with benefactive sense) to ga- should
produce kki-g-dha-, with transformation of ga- to g-dha-, but kki-g-dha-ga
is what appears.  (There is also a locative i- in the actual verb.)  This
is analogous to the change of ka- to g-la- in Dakotan, in the suus.  In
Omaha-Ponca, ga- changes to gi-g-dha- there.  The additional gi- then
distinguishes this from the case of dha-, which becomes just g-dha-,
comparable to Dakotan ya- becoming g-la-.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug  8 06:59:08 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:59:08 -0600
Subject: Black Again
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.005908.0600.>

Here's a little comparative footnote that might particularly interest Bob
Rankin.  Leaving aside the issue of sound symbolism, Siouan languages tend
to have two roots for 'black'.  One is *sap(e), the other is *sep(e),
yielding, e.g., Da sapa or OP sabe and IO sewe or Wi seep.  A few
languages have both, e.g., Qu sa 'black (near)', s^ape 'black (disant)',
sewe 'black'.  Some languages conract things to -sp-.

I can now transfer Omaha-Ponca to the two term category.  The other day I
noticed in Fletcher & LaFlesche, p. 177, a female name Mi'sebe (Mi'c,ebe)
glossed 'dark or shadowy moon'.  This is a name in the TesiNde clan.

Of course, names can be borrowed, so one might argue that the name was
adapted from, say, Ioway-Otoe, but, one might as easily argue, at this
point, anyway, that the stative verb se'be is a relict preserved only in
this name.  I haven't noticed it elsewhere, certainly, and it doesn't
occur in the Dorsey texts.  Perhaps evidence of a pattern of borrowing
names in the TesiNde clan might sway matters in favor of a loan, but I
don't know of any such evidence, and at our present state of Siouan
philology such evidence might be difficult produce.

SInce this is the second case of both *sap(e) and *sep(e) in a Dhegiha
language, perhaps the presence of both forms is characteristic of Dhegiha?


From alber033 at tc.umn.edu  Thu Aug  8 17:17:19 2002
From: alber033 at tc.umn.edu (Patricia Albers)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:17:19 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.121719.0500.>

Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
gypsum, also loosely called mica?

Pat Albers
Chair, Department of American Indian Studies
2 Scott Hall
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612)-625-8050


From jggoodtracks at juno.com  Thu Aug  8 17:38:55 2002
From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:38:55 -0500
Subject: Proverbs (whistling)
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.123855.0500.>

I was going through some old EM's, and came to your responce below.  I
would be interested in a list of these "sayings" from the older Ponca in
White Eagle.  I wonder how many I would recognize, and how similar/
different they may be from Otoe-Missouria, Ioways and Pawnees?
Jimm GoodTracks

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:26:28 -0600 "TLeonard-tulsa.com"
<tleonard at prodigy.net> writes:
>  JEK wrote:
>  I seem to recall a comparable warning for either Dakota or Omaha along
the
> lines of "Don't whistle, you sound like a ghost."  Presumably sounding
like
> a ghost is bad because one either becomes one or summons one.
>
>  I've heard similar admonishments from older Ponca folks around White
Eagle,
> Oklahoma. The one I always heard was: "Don't whistle while your outside
at
> night. You'll attract ghosts."
>  The one I always loved was: "Don't eat too much fish. They'll make
your
> hair  grey."
>
>  Have recordings of these and others in Ponca.
>  TML


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Aug  9 03:21:15 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:21:15 -0600
Subject: Black Again (fwd)
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.212115.0600.>

Anthony asked me to pos tthis for him:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:45:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: Koontz John E <koontz at spot.colorado.edu>
To: Anthony Grant <Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Black Again

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Anthony Grant wrote:
> an interesting note!  Given the nature of subgrouping within Dhegiha, I
> think the sapa/sepe distinction can be safely projected back to
> Proto-Dhegiha.  (But then its existence in Quapaw would have pretty much
> suggested this anyway).  It's a pair I've often wondered about myself.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Aug  9 04:35:35 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:35:35 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330101b9785792100c@[160.94.64.17]>
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.223535.0600.>

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
> Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
> gypsum, also loosely called mica?

Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?

Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.

I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
below.)

The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:

khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
     River)
wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'

Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.

A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).

Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
(mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.

The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.

===

I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:

moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')

iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
     (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
     The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.

I also noticed:

iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'

===

Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:

ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')

And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).

===

The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
clear'.

I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
you need to know more standard lettering.

JEK


From alber033 at tc.umn.edu  Fri Aug  9 17:21:47 2002
From: alber033 at tc.umn.edu (Patricia Albers)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:21:47 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208082129320.7422-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.9.AUG.2002.122147.0500.>


I have also explored all of these sources and came up with what you
kindly shared from Lakota/Dakota sources but the Osage words I did
not know. There is really a derth of linguistic material, as far as I
can tell, on words for varieties of stone, clay, and mineral in
Lakota and Dakota dictionary sources. In this regard,  I have  been
trying to track down the term icage, which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221,
222-223, 227-228) gives to describe 'white fruits' growing under the
earth, suggesting the crystalline formations in caves. In Walker's
literary rendition of the Lakota genesis story, Taku Skan Skan made
entrails from these fruits and molded a male and a female figure (pp.
225-226). Like the Cheyennes, the Lakotas sprinkled powdered gypsum
on the ground to mark off the altar at their Sun Dance (Densmore
1918, p. 122. The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as "frost."
Could icage  come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84; Buechel
1970, p. 113). Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs
1968, p.171; Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related
word, icago, refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on
something (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name
for a sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835).
	Yes, yuwi'pi are transparent stones,including the crystalline
ones that ants push up from their underground tunnels.  Another word
used for stones with transparent qualities was Inyan zanzan in
Williamson and also in one of the texts in the Buechel collection.




>On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
>>  Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
>>  gypsum, also loosely called mica?
>
>Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
>When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
>Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?
>
>Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.
>
>I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
>this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
>below.)
>
>The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:
>
>khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
>      River)
>wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'
>
>Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
>me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
>not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
>hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
>dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.
>
>A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
>Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
>in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
>know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).
>
>Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
>(mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
>now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
>That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
>means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.
>
>The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
>that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
>compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.
>
>===
>
>I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:
>
>moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')
>
>iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
>      (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
>      The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.
>
>I also noticed:
>
>iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'
>
>===
>
>Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:
>
>ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')
>
>And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).
>
>===
>
>The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
>stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
>clear'.
>
>I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
>you need to know more standard lettering.
>
>JEK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020809/4fa6dd2e/attachment.html>

From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Fri Aug  9 20:51:41 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:51:41 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330100b979a3367e59@[128.101.249.209]>
Message-ID: <FRI.9.AUG.2002.145141.0600.>

I don't know much about ceremonial affairs, including vocabulary, but
etymologically _icaga_ is the verb _kaga_ 'make' with an instrumental
prefix, so it literally means 'to make with, to use to make', and should
take objects that are tools or ingredients.  Any verb with this extremely
vague meaning is of course subject to many kinds of specialization.
It sounds like the meanings you've uncovered are exactly the kinds
of semantic narrowings one would expect -- and the eytmology is, of
course, no help whatsoever when that happens.



David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:

>
> I have also explored all of these sources and came up with what you
> kindly shared from Lakota/Dakota sources but the Osage words I did
> not know. There is really a derth of linguistic material, as far as I
> can tell, on words for varieties of stone, clay, and mineral in
> Lakota and Dakota dictionary sources. In this regard,  I have  been
> trying to track down the term icage, which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221,
> 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe 'white fruits' growing under the
> earth, suggesting the crystalline formations in caves. In Walker's
> literary rendition of the Lakota genesis story, Taku Skan Skan made
> entrails from these fruits and molded a male and a female figure (pp.
> 225-226). Like the Cheyennes, the Lakotas sprinkled powdered gypsum
> on the ground to mark off the altar at their Sun Dance (Densmore
> 1918, p. 122. The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as "frost."
> Could icage  come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84; Buechel
> 1970, p. 113). Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs
> 1968, p.171; Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related
> word, icago, refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on
> something (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name
> for a sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835).
> 	Yes, yuwi'pi are transparent stones,including the crystalline
> ones that ants push up from their underground tunnels.  Another word
> used for stones with transparent qualities was Inyan zanzan in
> Williamson and also in one of the texts in the Buechel collection.
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
> >>  Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
> >>  gypsum, also loosely called mica?
> >
> >Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
> >When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
> >Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?
> >
> >Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.
> >
> >I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
> >this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
> >below.)
> >
> >The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:
> >
> >khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
> >      River)
> >wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'
> >
> >Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
> >me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
> >not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
> >hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
> >dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.
> >
> >A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
> >Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
> >in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
> >know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).
> >
> >Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
> >(mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
> >now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
> >That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
> >means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.
> >
> >The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
> >that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
> >compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.
> >
> >===
> >
> >I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:
> >
> >moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')
> >
> >iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
> >      (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
> >      The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.
> >
> >I also noticed:
> >
> >iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'
> >
> >===
> >
> >Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:
> >
> >ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')
> >
> >And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).
> >
> >===
> >
> >The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
> >stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
> >clear'.
> >
> >I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
> >you need to know more standard lettering.
> >
> >JEK
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Aug  9 20:53:36 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:53:36 -0500
Subject: Siouan "khagha" ~ "ichagha"
Message-ID: <FRI.9.AUG.2002.155336.0500.>

Re: gypsum or "mica"This verb apparently meant 'make marks' originally.  In the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages it has been generalized to 'make' in the modern languages.  The older, common Siouan verb 'make, so' is/was ?uN.  

Sorry I can't help with the mineral terms.  It is a real problem for all of us that cultural vocabulary has not been collected in sufficient detail in most Siouan languages.  In a few instances, such as ethnobotany, talented scientists of particular disciplines (in this case botany) have visited communities and collected a good many more terms than linguists did.  I haven't heard of any mineralogists who have done that however.  

Bob

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Patricia Albers 
  To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu 
  Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:21 PM
  Subject: Re: gypsum or "mica"




  I have also explored all of these sources and came up with what you kindly shared from Lakota/Dakota sources but the Osage words I did not know. There is really a derth of linguistic material, as far as I can tell, on words for varieties of stone, clay, and mineral in Lakota and Dakota dictionary sources. In this regard,  I have  been trying to track down the term icage, which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221, 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe 'white fruits' growing under the earth, suggesting the crystalline formations in caves. In Walker's literary rendition of the Lakota genesis story, Taku Skan Skan made entrails from these fruits and molded a male and a female figure (pp. 225-226). Like the Cheyennes, the Lakotas sprinkled powdered gypsum on the ground to mark off the altar at their Sun Dance (Densmore 1918, p. 122. The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as "frost."  Could icage  come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84; Buechel 1970, p. 113). Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs 1968, p.171; Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related word, icago, refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on something (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name for a sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835). 
          Yes, yuwi'pi are transparent stones,including the crystalline ones that ants push up from their underground tunnels.  Another word used for stones with transparent qualities was Inyan zanzan in Williamson and also in one of the texts in the Buechel collection.
          


          


    On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
    > Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
    > gypsum, also loosely called mica?

    Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
    When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
    Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?

    Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.

    I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
    this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
    below.)

    The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:

    khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
         River)
    wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'

    Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
    me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
    not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
    hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
    dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.

    A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
    Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
    in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
    know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).

    Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
    (mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
    now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
    That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
    means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.

    The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
    that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
    compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.

    ===

    I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:

    moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')

    iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
         (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
         The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.

    I also noticed:

    iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'

    ===

    Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:

    ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')

    And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).

    ===

    The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
    stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
    clear'.

    I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
    you need to know more standard lettering.

    JEK


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020809/d66120e7/attachment.html>

From rankin at ku.edu  Sat Aug 10 15:39:18 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:39:18 -0500
Subject: Siouan "khagha" ~ "ichagha"
Message-ID: <SAT.10.AUG.2002.103918.0500.>

Re: gypsum or "mica"Sorry, my slip.  I meant Dakota /ka'gha/, not with an aspirated /kh/.  

Bob

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: R. Rankin 
  To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu 
  Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Siouan "khagha" ~ "ichagha"


  This verb apparently meant 'make marks' originally.  In the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages it has been generalized to 'make' in the modern languages.  The older, common Siouan verb 'make, so' is/was ?uN.  

  Sorry I can't help with the mineral terms.  It is a real problem for all of us that cultural vocabulary has not been collected in sufficient detail in most Siouan languages.  In a few instances, such as ethnobotany, talented scientists of particular disciplines (in this case botany) have visited communities and collected a good many more terms than linguists did.  I haven't heard of any mineralogists who have done that however.  

  Bob

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Patricia Albers 
    To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu 
    Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:21 PM
    Subject: Re: gypsum or "mica"




    I have also explored all of these sources and came up with what you kindly shared from Lakota/Dakota sources but the Osage words I did not know. There is really a derth of linguistic material, as far as I can tell, on words for varieties of stone, clay, and mineral in Lakota and Dakota dictionary sources. In this regard,  I have  been trying to track down the term icage, which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221, 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe 'white fruits' growing under the earth, suggesting the crystalline formations in caves. In Walker's literary rendition of the Lakota genesis story, Taku Skan Skan made entrails from these fruits and molded a male and a female figure (pp. 225-226). Like the Cheyennes, the Lakotas sprinkled powdered gypsum on the ground to mark off the altar at their Sun Dance (Densmore 1918, p. 122. The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as "frost."  Could icage  come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84; Buechel 1970, p. 113). Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs 1968, p.171; Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related word, icago, refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on something (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name for a sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835). 
            Yes, yuwi'pi are transparent stones,including the crystalline ones that ants push up from their underground tunnels.  Another word used for stones with transparent qualities was Inyan zanzan in Williamson and also in one of the texts in the Buechel collection.
            


            


      On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
      > Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
      > gypsum, also loosely called mica?

      Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
      When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
      Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?

      Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.

      I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
      this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
      below.)

      The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:

      khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
           River)
      wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'

      Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
      me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
      not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
      hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
      dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.

      A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
      Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
      in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
      know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).

      Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
      (mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
      now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
      That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
      means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.

      The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
      that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
      compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.

      ===

      I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:

      moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')

      iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
           (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
           The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.

      I also noticed:

      iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'

      ===

      Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:

      ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')

      And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).

      ===

      The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
      stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
      clear'.

      I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
      you need to know more standard lettering.

      JEK


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020810/da888eb7/attachment.html>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sat Aug 10 21:30:08 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:30:08 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330100b979a3367e59@[128.101.249.209]>
Message-ID: <SAT.10.AUG.2002.153008.0600.>

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
> ... In this regard, I have been trying to track down the term icage,
> which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221, 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe
> 'white fruits' growing under the earth, suggesting the crystalline
> formations in caves. ... The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as
> "frost."  Could icage come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84;
> Buechel 1970, p. 113).

It may help to realize that c^ha'gha 'ice' (compounding form is c^hax) has
an initial aspirated c^ (usually written just c in Buechel) as opposed to
the unaspirated c^ of -c^aghe in ic^a'ghe, usually written with c-overdot
in Buechel.

Note:  Actually ptck with no marking would be in principle ambiguous in
Buechel.  A ptck with an opening apostrophe (or half circle) adjacent
upper right would be unambiguously aspirated, and a ptck with an overdot
would be unambiguously unaspirated.  It's a two-way contrast encoded in
three series of symbols, representing Buechel's attempt to improve upon
the Riggs system which uses only a single ambiguous series.  However,
hearing aspiration with c^ is harder (and I believe c^ never receives the
velarized aspiration characteristic of Teton Lakota), so c essentially
never receives the aspiration mark.  Usually, however, an undotted c is
c^h.

Note:  Also, gh is not aspirated.  It's just a fumbling attempt to
represent gamma (voiced velar fricative).  Buechel uses g-overdot or, in
the English index, just g.  We can't do that easily on this list because
too many Siouan languages have g as a voiced stop.  I guess it depends
what type of confusion you like.  The list is somewhat dominated by
comparativists trying to use a single scheme across all the languages.
But you will find lots of examples of use of popular orthographies that
fit ASCII better, too!

Returning to the subject, icage written just like that (assuming no
diacritics are missing) could be either ic^ha'ghe or ic^a'ghe.  Only a
native speaker familiar with Walker's usage could say which.  If the first
form exists, but is specialized usage, not widely known, it's possible a
native speaker might assume the latter incorrectly.  If the first form
exists, it's possible it has something to do with c^ha'gha 'ice'.

Note:  However, 'frost' is given in Ingham and Buechel (for Teton) as
xeyuN'ka.  The Santee form is xewaN'ka or wo{']tasaka in Williamson, while
Riggs gives xewaN'ke and says Teton has xeyuN'ke.  That's as much
difference among the sources as I've noticed in some time.  The yuNk- ~
waN'k- alternation reflects dialect variants of the 'sitting' positional
auxiliary.

Although the Riggs vs. Buechel and the others' testimony on the final
vowel reminds us that there are contexts in which final a alternates with
final e, there are no attested -e variants with the c^hax- root that I
know of, and xe-SIT-e vs. xe-SIT-a variation is the only suggestion that
such a variation is possible in something like this context.  (Of course,
OP nughe, Osage naNghe, IO nuxe ~ noNxe 'ice' show that there is an
e-final version of this somewhat irregular stem set in Mississippi Valley
Siouan general.)  In Dakotan specifically, usually you find final a ~ e in
connection with non-possessed vs. possessed, e.g.  s^uN'ka vs. thas^uN'ke
'his particular horse' (said to be an obsolete form).  Supporting this,
many body part terms take final -e', but have a compounding stem that is
consonant final.  There are some other a ~ e alternation contexts but I
don't feel I understand the details.  To some extent e makes sense as
marker of 'specificity'.

To summarize, ic^haghe having something to do with c^ha'gha 'ice' is not
impossible, but probably would require more support.  There's also the
issue of explaining the i- in this case.  The best I could come up with is
an irregularly denasalized iN- , the compounding form if 'stone', i.e.,
perhaps something like 'frozen stone'.

The possibility ic^a'gha from ka'gha (see below) makes more sense.

> Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs 1968, p.171;
> Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related word, icago,
> refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on something
> (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name for a
> sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835).

Here it's ic^a'ghe from ka'gha 'to make', as David Rood points out.  The
shift of k to c^ or kh to c^h after i is essentually regular.  This form
is essentially a nominalization of ic^agha 'to make something with
soething'.  (This is one of those a ~ e contexts I'm not sure of.)  If you
look in the surrounding articles, you can see that ic^a'gha has other less
transparent meanings:  'to spring up (as grass, a child, etc.); to
become'. Also 'to skim off', perhaps only compounded with ic^hu', i.e.,
ic^a'ghe ic^hu'.  It also participates in some constructions meaning
'together', e.g., ic^a'gheya 'together'.  I don't think any of these are
relevant, though the specific example of 'to become' given was iN'yaN
ic^agha 'to become a stone'.

Note:  Ic^a'gha is a stative verb inflectionally - imac^agha - though
plainly it takes two arguments in syntactic terms, so this is one of the
somewhat overlooked Siouan experiencer verbs.

I think ic^a'gho 'to make a mark, draw a line, sketch' (or the thing so
produced, as a noun) is simply a different stem, probably the root is gho,
with prefixed ka 'by force' (which becomes c^a after i). It does occur to
me that the 'make marks' version of *kax that appears in Ioway-Otoe and
Winnebago might owe something of its semantics to interactions with a
Proto-Siouan version of this stem.  There's no "change to o" or "add o
suffix" morphological rule in Dakotan.  If one added ic^ax to a verb stem
o, one would get ic^axo, not ic^agho.

Waki'c^agha < wa - ki - kagha is 'to make something for someone; what is
made for someone', the detransitivized form waki'c^agha from the dative
ki'c^agha from ka'gha.

In checking into this form I notice that Buechel gives kic^a'gha (with
c-overdot, so explicit lack of aspiration) as 'to become ice again'. Is
this correct?


From rankin at ku.edu  Sat Aug 10 22:10:15 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:10:15 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <SAT.10.AUG.2002.171015.0500.>

> I think ic^a'gho 'to make a mark, draw a line,
sketch' (or the thing so
> produced, as a noun) is simply a different stem,
probably the root is gho,
> with prefixed ka 'by force' (which becomes c^a after
i).

Yes, the Kaw stem is igazo w/ a Quapaw cognate.
Substituting -zo instead of -gho.  And the prefix is
the instrumental.

In kaghe~a 'make (marks)' the ka- is part of the verb
root, not a prefix.  This stem refers to making marks
and/or scratches in languages as different and as
distant as Crow and Winnebago-Chiwere.  And in Quapaw
the redup form, wakakaghe is 'movie'.  So it would seem
that the original semantics were more specific than
just 'make' alone.

Alas, this doesn't help us with the 'mica' problem
much.  Best thing to do is find speakers who know and
ask them for help.

Bob


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Sun Aug 11 15:23:55 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 09:23:55 -0600
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208101405400.12357-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.11.AUG.2002.092355.0600.>

First, I resist writing the "gh" for the gamma; the letter g unambiguously
spells gamma before a vowel and the voiced velar stop in other positions;
the only reason for ever using a diacritic is to help you remember
that rule.

Second, neither Buechel nor Riggs ever, to my knowledge, acknowledged that
there is an aspiration contrast for "c".  You can't rely on either one of
them for that distinction.  Buechel's three-way distinction for ptk that
John describes is a consequence of evolution.  His early notes leave
aspirated forms unmarked and put the dots on the unaspirated ones.  His
later notes put the aspiration mark on the aspirated ones and leave the
plain ones unmarked.  But when they typed his notes to produce the
dictionary, they didn't tell us which ones were new and which ones were
old, so we can't tell whether an unmarked letter is an old aspiration or a
new plain recording.  Riggs never marked aspiration regularly at all.


Third, while "ice" is always aspirated, as John points out, you'll have
to check with the native speakers for the "icaga" pronunciatiion -- and it
may not help.  Unfortunately, all the palatalized forms of "kaga" that I'm
familiar with EXCEPTIONALLY aspirate that initial when it changes from "k"
to "c"; the best examples are the dative/benefactives, which go from kaga
to kichaga.  My little note in the volume of IJAL that was dedicated to
Eric Hamp speculates, on the basis of comparative evidence, that the "ch"
in this case is not from the "k" at all, but from PSI *y.  There is a
tendency that I haven't been able to find rules for for "k" to disappear
between vowels in derived forms.  I speculate that that's what happened to
kicaga.  Since PSi *y regularly gives aspirated "ch" in Dakotan (cf.
heart, wood, etc.), the sequence is: ***ki-kaga > **ki-aga > *ki -yaga
(epenthetic y; note that this is "edh" in Dhegiha) > ki-chaga.
	The problem is that I don't know whether "icaga" is old enough to
follow this sequence, or whether it's a newer form from i-kaga which, if
productively derived by currently used rules, would give unaspirated "c".
	The point is that even if the "c" of the 'stones' form is
aspirated, we still don't know whether it's from 'ice' or 'make'.

Frankly, I forgot about 'ice' when this discussion first came up, but
semantically that's a much more likely source than 'make'.  Chaga can be a
verb meaning 'for ice to form' (amachaga 'little bits of ice formed on
me'), but I'm not coming up with any good ideas to explain the use of "i-"
here.  Aren't there any native speakers out there reading this who can
help us?


David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
> > ... In this regard, I have been trying to track down the term icage,
> > which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221, 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe
> > 'white fruits' growing under the earth, suggesting the crystalline
> > formations in caves. ... The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as
> > "frost."  Could icage come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84;
> > Buechel 1970, p. 113).
>
> It may help to realize that c^ha'gha 'ice' (compounding form is c^hax) has
> an initial aspirated c^ (usually written just c in Buechel) as opposed to
> the unaspirated c^ of -c^aghe in ic^a'ghe, usually written with c-overdot
> in Buechel.
>
> Note:  Actually ptck with no marking would be in principle ambiguous in
> Buechel.  A ptck with an opening apostrophe (or half circle) adjacent
> upper right would be unambiguously aspirated, and a ptck with an overdot
> would be unambiguously unaspirated.  It's a two-way contrast encoded in
> three series of symbols, representing Buechel's attempt to improve upon
> the Riggs system which uses only a single ambiguous series.  However,
> hearing aspiration with c^ is harder (and I believe c^ never receives the
> velarized aspiration characteristic of Teton Lakota), so c essentially
> never receives the aspiration mark.  Usually, however, an undotted c is
> c^h.
>
> Note:  Also, gh is not aspirated.  It's just a fumbling attempt to
> represent gamma (voiced velar fricative).  Buechel uses g-overdot or, in
> the English index, just g.  We can't do that easily on this list because
> too many Siouan languages have g as a voiced stop.  I guess it depends
> what type of confusion you like.  The list is somewhat dominated by
> comparativists trying to use a single scheme across all the languages.
> But you will find lots of examples of use of popular orthographies that
> fit ASCII better, too!
>
> Returning to the subject, icage written just like that (assuming no
> diacritics are missing) could be either ic^ha'ghe or ic^a'ghe.  Only a
> native speaker familiar with Walker's usage could say which.  If the first
> form exists, but is specialized usage, not widely known, it's possible a
> native speaker might assume the latter incorrectly.  If the first form
> exists, it's possible it has something to do with c^ha'gha 'ice'.
>
> Note:  However, 'frost' is given in Ingham and Buechel (for Teton) as
> xeyuN'ka.  The Santee form is xewaN'ka or wo{']tasaka in Williamson, while
> Riggs gives xewaN'ke and says Teton has xeyuN'ke.  That's as much
> difference among the sources as I've noticed in some time.  The yuNk- ~
> waN'k- alternation reflects dialect variants of the 'sitting' positional
> auxiliary.
>
> Although the Riggs vs. Buechel and the others' testimony on the final
> vowel reminds us that there are contexts in which final a alternates with
> final e, there are no attested -e variants with the c^hax- root that I
> know of, and xe-SIT-e vs. xe-SIT-a variation is the only suggestion that
> such a variation is possible in something like this context.  (Of course,
> OP nughe, Osage naNghe, IO nuxe ~ noNxe 'ice' show that there is an
> e-final version of this somewhat irregular stem set in Mississippi Valley
> Siouan general.)  In Dakotan specifically, usually you find final a ~ e in
> connection with non-possessed vs. possessed, e.g.  s^uN'ka vs. thas^uN'ke
> 'his particular horse' (said to be an obsolete form).  Supporting this,
> many body part terms take final -e', but have a compounding stem that is
> consonant final.  There are some other a ~ e alternation contexts but I
> don't feel I understand the details.  To some extent e makes sense as
> marker of 'specificity'.
>
> To summarize, ic^haghe having something to do with c^ha'gha 'ice' is not
> impossible, but probably would require more support.  There's also the
> issue of explaining the i- in this case.  The best I could come up with is
> an irregularly denasalized iN- , the compounding form if 'stone', i.e.,
> perhaps something like 'frozen stone'.
>
> The possibility ic^a'gha from ka'gha (see below) makes more sense.
>
> > Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs 1968, p.171;
> > Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related word, icago,
> > refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on something
> > (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name for a
> > sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835).
>
> Here it's ic^a'ghe from ka'gha 'to make', as David Rood points out.  The
> shift of k to c^ or kh to c^h after i is essentually regular.  This form
> is essentially a nominalization of ic^agha 'to make something with
> soething'.  (This is one of those a ~ e contexts I'm not sure of.)  If you
> look in the surrounding articles, you can see that ic^a'gha has other less
> transparent meanings:  'to spring up (as grass, a child, etc.); to
> become'. Also 'to skim off', perhaps only compounded with ic^hu', i.e.,
> ic^a'ghe ic^hu'.  It also participates in some constructions meaning
> 'together', e.g., ic^a'gheya 'together'.  I don't think any of these are
> relevant, though the specific example of 'to become' given was iN'yaN
> ic^agha 'to become a stone'.
>
> Note:  Ic^a'gha is a stative verb inflectionally - imac^agha - though
> plainly it takes two arguments in syntactic terms, so this is one of the
> somewhat overlooked Siouan experiencer verbs.
>
> I think ic^a'gho 'to make a mark, draw a line, sketch' (or the thing so
> produced, as a noun) is simply a different stem, probably the root is gho,
> with prefixed ka 'by force' (which becomes c^a after i). It does occur to
> me that the 'make marks' version of *kax that appears in Ioway-Otoe and
> Winnebago might owe something of its semantics to interactions with a
> Proto-Siouan version of this stem.  There's no "change to o" or "add o
> suffix" morphological rule in Dakotan.  If one added ic^ax to a verb stem
> o, one would get ic^axo, not ic^agho.
>
> Waki'c^agha < wa - ki - kagha is 'to make something for someone; what is
> made for someone', the detransitivized form waki'c^agha from the dative
> ki'c^agha from ka'gha.
>
> In checking into this form I notice that Buechel gives kic^a'gha (with
> c-overdot, so explicit lack of aspiration) as 'to become ice again'. Is
> this correct?
>


From alber033 at tc.umn.edu  Sun Aug 11 17:58:12 2002
From: alber033 at tc.umn.edu (Patricia Albers)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:58:12 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <SUN.11.AUG.2002.125812.0500.>

I'd like to thank everyone for helping me think about this.  I will
be  away from my computer for the next two weeks and unable to
further participate in this discussion until I return.  Pat Albers


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Aug 11 22:22:37 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:22:37 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated c
Message-ID: <SUN.11.AUG.2002.172237.0500.>

> Second, neither Buechel nor Riggs ever, to my
knowledge, acknowledged that there is an aspiration
contrast for "c".

My recollection is that Buechel's 1939 grammar does
make the distinction, but I don't have it here at home.
That's the place to look though.  He was very
consciencious about marking aspiration there.  I blame
the dictionary problems on Paul Manhart's editing, or
lack thereof, after B's death.  I could be wrong
though.

Bob


From mosind at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 12 03:56:09 2002
From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:56:09 -0700
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208110857540.29754-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.11.AUG.2002.205609.0700.>

--- ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:

> Second, neither Buechel nor Riggs ever, to my
> knowledge, acknowledged that
> there is an aspiration contrast for "c".  You can't
> rely on either one of
> them for that distinction.

--Buechel does it both in "Grammar" and in
"Dictionary", although uses it inconsistently, e.g.
spelling all A1S2 chi- as unaspirated ci- thoughout
the "Grammar".
However he contrasts "c" ("c*" in a Dictionary) "as in
'joy'" to
"c`" ("c" in a Dictionary) "as in 'chair'".

The dictionary also has some forms with unaspirated
"c*" in contrast to aspirated "c", also with numerous
inconsistencies:

c*i'k?ala "little", c*o'nala "a few", co'la "destitue,
without.."

Talking about c- / ch- pairs I'd add to the discussion
a quote from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar":

Page 101

� 131. kuN'za to decree, ka'g^a to make

ka'g^a to make, lacks the series waki- and has instead
we'cag^a I make for him, chi'cag^a I make it for you
(without your sanction), miye'cag^a you make it for
me, etc.; and chi'cicag^a I make yours or I make it
for you with your sanction (etc.). The possessive
forms are irregular insofar as they aspirate the c,
we'chaga I make my own.

wakuN'za to decree something, also lacks the series
waki- and has instead wawe'cuNza I decree something
for him without his sanction and wawe'cicuNza with his
sanction, or in place of another one. The other forms
follow the same pattern. As in ka'g^a the possessive
has aspirate ch, we'chuNza I decree something my own,
mic?i'chuNza for myself.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Aug 12 06:04:07 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:04:07 -0600
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <20020812035609.36829.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.000407.0600.>

What about that kic*aga 'to freeze again'?  Should that be kic`aga?
With an aspirate?  I expect this is an outright error, in other words, or
a very interesting sound change otherwise.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Constantine Xmelnitski wrote:
> Talking about c- / ch- pairs I'd add to the discussion
> a quote from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar":
>
> Page 101
>
> � 131. kuN'za to decree, ka'g^a to make
>
> ka'g^a to make, lacks the series waki- and has instead
> we'cag^a I make for him, chi'cag^a I make it for you
> (without your sanction), miye'cag^a you make it for
> me, etc.; and chi'cicag^a I make yours or I make it
> for you with your sanction (etc.). The possessive
> forms are irregular insofar as they aspirate the c,
> we'chaga I make my own.
>
> wakuN'za to decree something, also lacks the series
> waki- and has instead wawe'cuNza I decree something
> for him without his sanction and wawe'cicuNza with his
> sanction, or in place of another one. The other forms
> follow the same pattern. As in ka'g^a the possessive
> has aspirate ch, we'chuNza I decree something my own,
> mic?i'chuNza for myself.

I thought that was what I remembered. In other words, the regular and
dative stems of ka'gha and kuN'za are unaspirated (and affricate to c^
after ki in the dative), and the possessive or suus forms are aspirated
-khagha and -khuNza, but also affricate after ki, so that you get
(actually) -c^hagha and -c^huN'za?

Since the discussion here carefully gives the inflected forms but assumes
the user is familiar enough with Dakota to know the third person stem
forms, may I also verify that those forms are:

Transitive      Dative      Possesive
ka'gha          ki'c^agha   kic^ha'gha
kuN'za          ki'c^uNza   kic^huN'za

For comparison's sake, the OP forms are:

g(a)a'ghe       giaghe      gikkaghe
g(aN)aN'ze      giaNze      gikkaNze

The middle forms have the loss of the stem initial *k that David
mentioned, which is also exhibited with the ga- instrumental.  My
understanding is that Osage has something like ks^i'ghe and ks^iaNze here,
or just what LaFlesche reports, wildly improbable though it seems to the
uninitiated!

Note:  Though David is also prefectly correct in saying that it is
unnecessary to write gh for gamma in Dakotan, since gamma only occurs
before vowels and that's all a g before a vowel could be, I tend to write
it anyway, under what I might call an internationalist impulse, because in
Omaha-Ponca all unaspirated k's are voiced before vowels as before dh
(comparable to l, etc.), so there is a contrast between g and gh before
vowels, as in gaghe or gage (ga=ge), the former being 'to make', of
course, and the latter being 'those scattered things', which I think
Clifford Wolf once used in referring to the bits of shrapnel in his body,
courtesy of the Germany army.  The one place *ptc^k are not voiced is
after fricatives ss^x, and there, perhaps in defiance of consistency
all speakers of and students of Omaha seem to agree on writing ptc^k (or
whatever they write for c^).  So it's gaghe, but s^kaghe (second person).
There's a phonetic contrast between g and k, but no phonemic one.

In the same way I try to always write c^ and j^, because there are Siouan
languages where c and j are ts and dz.  A particular language can cut
orthographic corners that a family can't.


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Aug 12 12:53:41 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 06:53:41 -0600
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <20020812035609.36829.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.065341.0600.>

Thanks to Connie for looking things up and getting the details right, as
usual.  I apologize for submitting only partially complete information.  I
have to look up the details about possessive vs. dative -ki- every time,
and since I wrote that note at home, without my books handy, I missed a
big part of the story.

As for John's question about the ki- derivative of 'ice': I think it must
be aspirated; I don't know of any way for de-aspiration to occur between
vowels.



David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Constantine Xmelnitski wrote:

>
> --- ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>
> > Second, neither Buechel nor Riggs ever, to my
> > knowledge, acknowledged that
> > there is an aspiration contrast for "c".  You can't
> > rely on either one of
> > them for that distinction.
>
> --Buechel does it both in "Grammar" and in
> "Dictionary", although uses it inconsistently, e.g.
> spelling all A1S2 chi- as unaspirated ci- thoughout
> the "Grammar".
> However he contrasts "c" ("c*" in a Dictionary) "as in
> 'joy'" to
> "c`" ("c" in a Dictionary) "as in 'chair'".
>
> The dictionary also has some forms with unaspirated
> "c*" in contrast to aspirated "c", also with numerous
> inconsistencies:
>
> c*i'k?ala "little", c*o'nala "a few", co'la "destitue,
> without.."
>
> Talking about c- / ch- pairs I'd add to the discussion
> a quote from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar":
>
> Page 101
>
> � 131. kuN'za to decree, ka'g^a to make
>
> ka'g^a to make, lacks the series waki- and has instead
> we'cag^a I make for him, chi'cag^a I make it for you
> (without your sanction), miye'cag^a you make it for
> me, etc.; and chi'cicag^a I make yours or I make it
> for you with your sanction (etc.). The possessive
> forms are irregular insofar as they aspirate the c,
> we'chaga I make my own.
>
> wakuN'za to decree something, also lacks the series
> waki- and has instead wawe'cuNza I decree something
> for him without his sanction and wawe'cicuNza with his
> sanction, or in place of another one. The other forms
> follow the same pattern. As in ka'g^a the possessive
> has aspirate ch, we'chuNza I decree something my own,
> mic?i'chuNza for myself.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> http://www.hotjobs.com
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Aug 12 14:34:44 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:34:44 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.093444.0500.>

>The middle forms have the loss of the stem initial *k
that David
mentioned, which is also exhibited with the ga-
instrumental.  My
understanding is that Osage has something like ks^i'ghe
and ks^iaNze =
here, or just what LaFlesche reports, wildly improbable
though it seems to =
the uninitiated!

The corresponding Kaw forms are kki:'ghe ~ kki:aghe
'make for someone' [the only form I have] (with a long
V or diphthong) and khi'aNze 'teach'.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: aspirated and unaspirated caga


> This message uses a character set that is not
supported by the Internet
> Service.  To view the original message content,  open
the attached
> message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save
the attachment to
> disk, and then open it using a viewer that can
display the original
> character set. <<message.txt>>
>


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Mon Aug 12 14:31:03 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:31:03 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.093103.0500.>

> Third, while "ice" is always aspirated, as John points out, you'll have
> to check with the native speakers for the "icaga" pronunciatiion -- and
it
> may not help.  Unfortunately, all the palatalized forms of "kaga" that
I'm
> familiar with EXCEPTIONALLY aspirate that initial when it changes from
"k"
> to "c"; the best examples are the dative/benefactives, which go from kaga
> to kichaga.  My little note in the volume of IJAL that was dedicated to
> Eric Hamp speculates, on the basis of comparative evidence, that the "ch"
> in this case is not from the "k" at all, but from PSI *y.  There is a
> tendency that I haven't been able to find rules for for "k" to disappear
> between vowels in derived forms.  I speculate that that's what happened
to
> kicaga.  Since PSi *y regularly gives aspirated "ch" in Dakotan (cf.
> heart, wood, etc.), the sequence is: ***ki-kaga > **ki-aga > *ki -yaga
> (epenthetic y; note that this is "edh" in Dhegiha) > ki-chaga.

Interesting!  Actually, the OP (Dorsey) equivalent of this is gi-agha,
derived from gaghE, to make or do.  The equivalent sequence is:
***gi-gagha > gi-agha = gi-yagha, but NOT > *gi-dhagha.

We might need to distinguish two kinds of "epenthetic" here.  Sometimes
ease of speaking causes a new sound to arise, which can then function
as a new phoneme.  In this case, however, there is probably no
difference in actual pronunciation between *ki-aga and *ki-yaga, or
between *gi-agha and *gi-yagha; whether or not there is a y there is
entirely the listener's interpretation.  Apparently the Dakotans heard
a y and carried this word along with other y's to get ki-chaga, while
the Dhegihans did not count it as a y and left it alone as gi-agha.


Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Aug 12 14:36:13 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:36:13 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.093613.0500.>

John:  David's message, like yours, came through with
the "This message uses a character set..." note and an
attachment.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: aspirated and unaspirated caga


> This message uses a character set that is not
supported by the Internet
> Service.  To view the original message content,  open
the attached
> message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save
the attachment to
> disk, and then open it using a viewer that can
display the original
> character set. <<message.txt>>
>


From cqcqcq at pgtv.net  Mon Aug 12 14:43:12 2002
From: cqcqcq at pgtv.net (Carolyn Quintero)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:43:12 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <OF20F848CF.94D9BB19-ON86256C13.004D0554@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.094312.0500.>

Off the top of my head, I think this is the same phenomenon in Osage:
:
OS ki-ka:'ghe -> ks^i'ghe
 dative - make/do

OS ki-hkoN'ze -> ks^i'oNze
  dative-teach

OS ki -ki'dhe -> ks^i'dhe
  dat - cause to do  -> cause to do [? for that person's own good]

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of
rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 9:31 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: aspirated and unaspirated caga



> Third, while "ice" is always aspirated, as John points out, you'll have
> to check with the native speakers for the "icaga" pronunciatiion -- and
it
> may not help.  Unfortunately, all the palatalized forms of "kaga" that
I'm
> familiar with EXCEPTIONALLY aspirate that initial when it changes from
"k"
> to "c"; the best examples are the dative/benefactives, which go from kaga
> to kichaga.  My little note in the volume of IJAL that was dedicated to
> Eric Hamp speculates, on the basis of comparative evidence, that the "ch"
> in this case is not from the "k" at all, but from PSI *y.  There is a
> tendency that I haven't been able to find rules for for "k" to disappear
> between vowels in derived forms.  I speculate that that's what happened
to
> kicaga.  Since PSi *y regularly gives aspirated "ch" in Dakotan (cf.
> heart, wood, etc.), the sequence is: ***ki-kaga > **ki-aga > *ki -yaga
> (epenthetic y; note that this is "edh" in Dhegiha) > ki-chaga.

Interesting!  Actually, the OP (Dorsey) equivalent of this is gi-agha,
derived from gaghE, to make or do.  The equivalent sequence is:
***gi-gagha > gi-agha = gi-yagha, but NOT > *gi-dhagha.

We might need to distinguish two kinds of "epenthetic" here.  Sometimes
ease of speaking causes a new sound to arise, which can then function
as a new phoneme.  In this case, however, there is probably no
difference in actual pronunciation between *ki-aga and *ki-yaga, or
between *gi-agha and *gi-yagha; whether or not there is a y there is
entirely the listener's interpretation.  Apparently the Dakotans heard
a y and carried this word along with other y's to get ki-chaga, while
the Dhegihans did not count it as a y and left it alone as gi-agha.


Rory


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Aug 12 15:59:14 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:59:14 -0600
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <AGEMKAHBJICALMADFKLOAEIECAAA.cqcqcq@pgtv.net>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.095914.0600.>

Except that, though these forms pattern alike in Osage, they pattern
differently in Omaha-Ponca:

Dakotan          Omaha-Ponca     Osage

kagha/kic^agha   gaghe/giaghe    gaghe/ks^ighe       'make'

kuNza/kic^uNza   gaNze/giaNze    koNze/ks^ioNze      'demonstrate, teach'

ya/khiya         dhe/khidhe      dhe/ks^idhe          causative

It certainly looks like these forms have been analogized to the causative
pattern in Osage, and Bob's khiaNze in Kaw tends to confirm this, showing
that ks^ is *kh (the normal situation in Osage) and not some special
treatment of *ky (which was what I had actually been thinking).  I'd have
expected the Kaw form for 'to make' to be khi(i/a)ghe, too, but since it
isn't I wonder what's up there?

OP and Da treat the causative as if the dative were formed on a suppletive
stem *hirE, handled as an h-stem.  Presumably the same pattern was
inherited in Osage.  I believe it occurs in Kaw and Quapaw, too.  But,
while Da africates (palatalized k after i) and OP deletes the stem initial
g (< *k), Osage and Kaw seem to have remodelled things on a basis of the
causative, substituting hiV for kV in the stem underlying the dative.  I
wonder if we have here some trace of the logic that underlies the
replacement of *ka by *ki in Ioway-Otoe and Winnebago?


On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Carolyn Quintero wrote:

> Off the top of my head, I think this is the same phenomenon in Osage:
> :
> OS ki-ka:'ghe -> ks^i'ghe
>  dative - make/do
>
> OS ki-hkoN'ze -> ks^i'oNze
>   dative-teach
>
> OS ki -ki'dhe -> ks^i'dhe
>   dat - cause to do  -> cause to do [? for that person's own good]
>
> Carolyn


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Aug 12 21:13:00 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:13:00 -0500
Subject: reflexive vs. suus 'make'.
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.161300.0500.>

The reason I included the statement [the only form I
have] in my posting is that there ought to be at least
two different forms at stake here: 'to make for
oneself' and 'to make ones own'.  They ought to have
different reflexes, but I'm not sure we're keeping them
straight in our discussion.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: Siouan List <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: aspirated and unaspirated caga


> Except that, though these forms pattern alike in
Osage, they pattern
> differently in Omaha-Ponca:
>
> Dakotan          Omaha-Ponca     Osage
>
> kagha/kic^agha   gaghe/giaghe    gaghe/ks^ighe
'make'
>
> kuNza/kic^uNza   gaNze/giaNze    koNze/ks^ioNze
'demonstrate, teach'
>
> ya/khiya         dhe/khidhe      dhe/ks^idhe
causative
>
> It certainly looks like these forms have been
analogized to the causative
> pattern in Osage, and Bob's khiaNze in Kaw tends to
confirm this, showing
> that ks^ is *kh (the normal situation in Osage) and
not some special
> treatment of *ky (which was what I had actually been
thinking).  I'd have
> expected the Kaw form for 'to make' to be
khi(i/a)ghe, too, but since it
> isn't I wonder what's up there?
>
> OP and Da treat the causative as if the dative were
formed on a suppletive
> stem *hirE, handled as an h-stem.  Presumably the
same pattern was
> inherited in Osage.  I believe it occurs in Kaw and
Quapaw, too.  But,
> while Da africates (palatalized k after i) and OP
deletes the stem initial
> g (< *k), Osage and Kaw seem to have remodelled
things on a basis of the
> causative, substituting hiV for kV in the stem
underlying the dative.  I
> wonder if we have here some trace of the logic that
underlies the
> replacement of *ka by *ki in Ioway-Otoe and
Winnebago?
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Carolyn Quintero wrote:
>
> > Off the top of my head, I think this is the same
phenomenon in Osage:
> > :
> > OS ki-ka:'ghe -> ks^i'ghe
> >  dative - make/do
> >
> > OS ki-hkoN'ze -> ks^i'oNze
> >   dative-teach
> >
> > OS ki -ki'dhe -> ks^i'dhe
> >   dat - cause to do  -> cause to do [? for that
person's own good]
> >
> > Carolyn
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Aug 12 22:37:06 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:37:06 -0600
Subject: reflexive vs. suus 'make'.
In-Reply-To: <000f01c24245$0adc94c0$d1b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.163706.0600.>

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> The reason I included the statement [the only form I have] in my
> posting is that there ought to be at least two different forms at
> stake here: 'to make for oneself' and 'to make ones own'.  They ought
> to have different reflexes, but I'm not sure we're keeping them
> straight in our discussion.

In OP

base       dative         possessive (suus)    reflexive

gaghe      giaghe         gikkaghe             kkikkaghe

make       make for s.o.  make one's own       make for oneself

The forms for gaNze : giaNze etc, are analogous, but the root sense of
'demonstrate, behave like' tends to be glossed 'teach' in the dative,
i.e., 'to demonstrate to'.  This rather reminds me of the perfect of 'to
see' being 'to know' in Ancient Greek.  There's also gaNdha 'to donate' in
this group.  I think the other g-stems are intransitive.  Actually,
they're gaNz^iNga 'not to know how to' (presumably takes a clausal
argument) and gi 'to come home'.  If there are any more, I'm forgetting
them.

In principle, kkik-kaghe should mean 'to make onself' but obviously this
isn't a particularly useful form ouside of philosophy and the gloss I've
encountered is 'to make for oneself', Another verb like this is une 'to
search for, to hunt', which has a possessive ugine 'to search for one's
own' and a reflexive/reciprocal ukkine 'to search for for oneself'.

I suppose there may be a more insightful account of when the reflexive is
a reflexive benefactive than 'when it's not very useful as a reflexive',
but I'm afraid it escapes me.  There don't seem to be contrasting
'reflexive' and 'reflexive benefactive' forms, but there may be cases
where either interpretation is possible.  It's at this point that my more
or less morphological acquaintence with OP begins to break down.

Reflecting, I suppose it's possible that the possessive form here should
mean 'make for one's own' (that is 'make s.t. for s.o. who is one's own')?

Incidentally, one thing that puzzled me a bit about the possessive at
first was that I expected it to apply whenever any object was possessed.
However, in OP at least, it seems to be applied essentially for kin.  The
principle may be 'inalienable possessions' - another place where my
understanding is inadwquate.  It certainly isn't applied for things that
use tta or 'to have' or some other form of possessive construction, not
as far as I know.

It's easy (for me) to get the possessive construction crossed with the
dative experiencer verbs, like 'one's own to die' or 'one's own to be
burnt up' and so on.  However, the forms there are dative, and the
association is primarily via the English glossing.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Aug 13 16:09:02 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:09:02 -0500
Subject: reflexive vs. suus 'make'.
Message-ID: <TUE.13.AUG.2002.110902.0500.>

Good summary.  BTW ga:ghe is consistently long; I
wonder what happens when the accent shifts?

> In OP
>
> base       dative         possessive (suus)
reflexive
>
> gaghe      giaghe         gikkaghe
kkikkaghe
>
> make       make for s.o.  make one's own       make
for oneself
>
> The forms for gaNze : giaNze etc, are analogous, but
the root sense of
> 'demonstrate, behave like' tends to be glossed
'teach' in the dative,
> i.e., 'to demonstrate to'.  This rather reminds me of
the perfect of 'to
> see' being 'to know' in Ancient Greek.  There's also
gaNdha 'to donate' in
> this group.  I think the other g-stems are
intransitive.  Actually,
> they're gaNz^iNga 'not to know how to' (presumably
takes a clausal
> argument) and gi 'to come home'.  If there are any
more, I'm forgetting
> them.

Can't recall any others either.

bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Aug 13 16:37:00 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:37:00 -0600
Subject: Syncopating or Short Pronominal Stems (Re: reflexive vs. suus
 'make')
In-Reply-To: <005f01c242e3$bec535c0$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <TUE.13.AUG.2002.103700.0600.>

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> Good summary.  BTW ga:ghe is consistently long; I wonder what happens
> when the accent shifts?

I wish I'd been listening properly ...

So, to summarize, the g-stems are gaa'ghe 'to make', g(aN)aN'ze 'to
demonstrate', g[aN]aN'dha 'to donate', g[aN]aN'z^iNga 'not to know how'
(sure looks like 'to little wish'!), and gi 'to come back'.

The verb gaN'=dha (both roots inflected) 'to want, to wish' is similar,
but has kkaN'=bdha in the first person, with kk where the others have a
pp.  Actually, of course, kk is what I'd expect with gaa'ghe, but ppaa'ghe
is what you get.

The only d-stem (*t-stem) is d[aN]aN'be 'to see'.  Interestingly, in
Ioway-Otoe and Winnebago the only *t-stem is *a...ta (hada', haj^a') -
same gloss, different stem.  In Dakotan there is a verb that's not coming
to mind, that has ki-k-t... in what seems to be a dative or frozen dative
that I suspect is a relict t-stem, of special interest as (a) a Dakotan
example of the *t-stems, and (b) a *t-stem that doesn't mean 'to see',

There are more b-stems.  Most are derived with the ba- and bi-
instrumentals, but b[e]e'thaN 'to fold' is a b-stem, and in Osage baN' 'to
call' is or was, and I suspect that most stems in b- probably were at one
point.  There aren't a great many of them, but I don't know the list off
the top of my head.

In fact, once you allow for the dha- and dhi- instrumentals, there aren't
actually all that many other dh-stems (*r-stems, or y-stems in Dakotan
terms), either.  Perhaps under ten?  The causative looks like a *r-stem in
Dakotan and Dhegiha, but is not.

This is one of the anomalies of Siouan grammatical treatments.  Sometimes
the *ptk stems are treated as irregular verbs, sometimes as major
paradigms, but there actually never are that many of them in either case -
except as due to the productiveness of certain instrumentals.  The
perception of the nature of the category is partly a matter of whether or
not there is a separate personal paradigm.  But even when there is not,
there are often substantially characterizing patterns of dative and
possessive derivation.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 14 16:01:07 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:01:07 -0600
Subject: *t-stems in Dakotan
Message-ID: <WED.14.AUG.2002.100107.0600.>

The verb form I couldn't remember in my posting on lists of stop-stems is
kikta 'to get up' (wekta, etc.).  I take it to involve an underlying stem
ta.  I believe I simply found this in Buechel looking under kik- out of
curiosity.  Also relevant in Dakotan is akiktuNwaN 'to look around for
one's own', mentioned in Boas & Deloria 1941 as anomalous.  This time it's
that 'see' gloss (and one of the stems) again.

The anomally in each case in Dakotan is the extra -k- following the first
ki.  The first ki is the one that fuses with the personal pronouns in
inflection (or however we interpret the paradigm we, ye, ki).  The
intrusive -k- after that is anomalous as part of the regular pattern in
Dakotan or Omaha-Ponca, but "normal" as part of the stop-stem pattern in
Omaha-Ponca.

My suspicion is that the extra -k- is historically non-anomalous, or
rather, inherited, in Dakotan as well.  That is, I think that stop-stem
possessives in Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan, maybe Proto-Siouan, had
*k- (syncopated from *ki-) as a derivational prefix.  The details of
inflection of both the derived and underived stems vary, but I believe
that the pronominals of the underived stems were also syncopated (*p-,
*s^-) originally, as they still are in Omaha-Ponca (and most other Siouan
languages, Dakotan and Mandan being major exceptions within "Central"
Siouan).

It is debatable whether the derived possessive stems (in, e.g., *k-t...)
had an additional *ki, too, e.g., *ki-k-t..., at this stage or that.
Adding an additional or pleonastic regular prefix over an irregular one is
an on-going tendency in Siouan languages, and typically behavior at a
given instant (now, 1890, etc.) varies with the individual stem.  Various
patterns are attested, even within particular languages.  We pay more
attention to this with pronominals, but it seems to me to be a relevant
consideration with other prefixal morphology as well.

It is also variable whether in cases where there was this additional *ki-
the resulting stems were regularly inflected, or had the fused paradigm
(*we-, *ye-, *ki-).  I'm not sure what conditions the fused paradigm,
apart from analogy, which seems to be the main factor at present.  It may
originally have been something like k => [nil] / V_V', but there are
exceptions to application of this.


From mosind at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 14 18:08:19 2002
From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:08:19 -0700
Subject: *t-stems in Dakotan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208140933020.19385-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.14.AUG.2002.110819.0700.>

--- Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:
> The verb form I couldn't remember in my posting on
> lists of stop-stems is
> kikta 'to get up' (wekta, etc.).  I take it to
> involve an underlying stem
> ta.  I believe I simply found this in Buechel
> looking under kik- out of
> curiosity.  Also relevant in Dakotan is akiktuNwaN
> 'to look around for
> one's own', mentioned in Boas & Deloria 1941 as
> anomalous.  This time it's
> that 'see' gloss (and one of the stems) again.
>

Two more words with -kik- (both seemingly obsolete):
ikikcu "take one's own" < icu
akicikcita "hunt one's own" < akhita (not sure about
aspiration in c's in akicikcita).

Talking about kikta this could be from ki- + kta stem
(non-ablauting), occuring in a number of other verbs:
wakta "expect", akta "respect, regard, give heed to",
ihakta.

Here's also from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar".

Page 88

� 101. The use of ki- for back again

"A peculiar use of ki is probably reducible to the
dative ki. The possessive forms iki'kcu he takes his
own, i.e. he takes it back 47.1, 48.8; kichu' he gives
his own, i.e., he gives it back; ophe'kithuN he buys
his own, i.e., he buys it back; kicha' he asks for his
own, i.e., he asks it back; kikta' to get up from a
lying position, i.e., to be up again; all imply a
return to a former state. The first person has the
regular possessive form we'. The k does not change to
c after e and i.

"A number of other forms which render the idea of
return to a previous state are expressed by forms
corresponding to the first dative ki, with first
person waki...

Best wishes,
Constantine.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 15 06:28:03 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:28:03 -0600
Subject: *t-stems in Dakotan
In-Reply-To: <20020814180819.61768.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.002803.0600.>

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Constantine Xmelnitski wrote:
> Two more words with -kik- (both seemingly obsolete):

> ikikcu "take one's own" < icu

Boas & Deloria (1941:102) mention this one, too.  I omitted it only
because it represents - I think - a different stem initial, *y or maybe
*k.

Background:  It's clear that *y becomes c^h in Dakotan when it's alone in
the syllable initial, but it seems to become just c^ in clusters. Examples
in clusters are (wi)kc^emna 'ten' cf. OP gdheb(dh)aN, apparently from
*kyepraN (or *kyewraN, if one prefers), or c^hetaN 'hawk' cf. OP gdhedaN,
from *kyetaN, or c^haphuNka 'mosquito' cf. Os laphoNke < *kraphoNke, from
*kyaphuNk-.  Sometimes Dakotan loses the initial stop.

The only reconstructed *y-stem is 'think', as in the Dakotan verb epc^a 'I
thought it' (*e-p-yE), only known in the first person in Dakotan.
Omaha-Ponca has all persons, in the first it's ebdhe (< *e-p-yE) + egaN
apparently always requiring the egaN 'like that'.  I interpret this as an
obligatory "sort of":  'I sorta thought ...'.  Since *y and *r merge to
such a great extent, it's hard to identify *y-stems in opposition to
*r-stems.  Dakotan seems to be the only environment in which *Cy is
distinguishable from *Cr in verbs, and it has mainly 'I thought'.  Maybe
i-ki-k-c^u is an additional example.

However, the base form here is apparently ic^u, not ic^hu (fide B&D), and
that tends to suggest that ic^u is from something like *iku, not *iyu.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to identify a cognate of this stem or
root that would clarify matters.  If the source is a form *iku, then
ikikc^u is unusual in keeping the c^ when separated from the i.  I'd
expect ikikhu < *iki-h-ku < **i-ki-k-ku.

> akicikcita "hunt one's own" < akhita (not sure about aspiration in c's
> in akicikcita).

Buechel (1970:71a), right?  This gives akic^ic^ita 'hunt a thing for
another', and then akic^ikc^ita 'hunt one's own' under that, calling the
latter a possessive of akhita (aspiration clear in main entry a few pages
later).  So I suppose the first form is akic^ic^hita < *a-kiki-khita,
which would be 'to hunt for something for someone'.  I'd expect the
regular possessive of this to be akic^hita, if I'm not confused, and I
often get that way faced with Dakota ki-things.  This form is in the next
column, so I'm probably OK.  Checking a little further, it looks like the
first two forms (akic^ic^hita and akic^ikc^ita) date to Riggs.

Also, I don't know any reason to expect the ki-k- of a pleonastic double
possessive to be separated by the second dative sequence kic^i.

I wonder if the strange second one is being handled as a reduplication of
ac^hita:  a-c^hik-c^hita > a-ki-c^hik-c^hita.  Of course, there isn't any
ac^hita ... so I'm at a loss.  A hapless hapax legomenon.

> Talking about kikta this could be from ki- + kta stem (non-ablauting),
> occuring in a number of other verbs: wakta "expect", akta "respect,
> regard, give heed to", ihakta.

The semantics seem a bit of a stretch.  What's your suggestion for them?

> Here's also from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar". Page 88
>
> � 101. The use of ki- for back again
>
> "A peculiar use of ki is probably reducible to the dative ki. The
> possessive forms iki'kcu he takes his own, i.e. he takes it back 47.1,
> 48.8; kichu' he gives his own, i.e., he gives it back; ophe'kithuN he
> buys his own, i.e., he buys it back; kicha' he asks for his own, i.e.,
> he asks it back; kikta' to get up from a lying position, i.e., to be
> up again; all imply a return to a former state. The first person has
> the regular possessive form we'. The k does not change to c after e
> and i.

Isn't the root sense of ic^u 'to receive, to accept'?  Of course this is
just a different analysis of 'to take', and the *rusE stem has both senses
in the rest of MVS.  Anyway, I'd argue that 'back' here comes from the
logic of 'to accept one's own', which implies a return.  'Back' is
secondary, not primary, here.

In fact, I think that this paragraph in B&D is simply a speculation that
doesn't pan out.  It also appears to confuse the dative and possessive and
then actually goes on to discuss dative forms with similar readings.

> "A number of other forms which render the idea of return to a previous
> state are expressed by forms corresponding to the first dative ki,
> with first person waki...


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 15 15:36:31 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:36:31 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.103631.0500.>

Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
be discovered.

UPPER CASE vowels are accented.  What I found so far:

Quapaw /$adAkke/ is 'Cherokee'.
Quapaw /$awaNnaN/ is 'Shawnee'.

Kansa /$ayAkki/ is 'Cherokee' in Dorsey's notes, but by
the 1970's Mrs. Rowe gave a more modern /ccelEkki/.
Note that Quapaw /d/ and Kansa /y/ normally correspond
in cognate vocabulary.
Kansa /moN$kOge/ is 'Creek, Muskogee'.  It's
interesting since the Kansa speakers borrowed the name
(from Creeks or perhaps others) with /$/ rather than
/s/.  This probably reflects the fact that, in Creek,
the sibilant is most often retroflexed next to back
vowels, and this was apparently perceived as the
alveopalatal rather than the dental or alveolar.
Kansa /ccIkkasa/ and /ccattA/ are 'Chickasaw' and
'Choctaw' respectively -- both from Dorsey.
Kansa /hi$A/ is 'Caddo'.  I don't have any etymology
for this.  It's from Dorsey.
Kansa /$Awane/ is 'Shawnee' for Dorsey, but again Mrs.
Rowe gave the modern /$oNnI/.


From cqcqcq at pgtv.net  Thu Aug 15 15:31:26 2002
From: cqcqcq at pgtv.net (Carolyn Quintero)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:31:26 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
In-Reply-To: <001301c24471$8858a820$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.103126.0500.>

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:37 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?


Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
be discovered.

UPPER CASE vowels are accented.  What I found so far:

Quapaw /$adAkke/ is 'Cherokee'.
Quapaw /$awaNnaN/ is 'Shawnee'.

Kansa /$ayAkki/ is 'Cherokee' in Dorsey's notes, but by
the 1970's Mrs. Rowe gave a more modern /ccelEkki/.
Note that Quapaw /d/ and Kansa /y/ normally correspond
in cognate vocabulary.
Kansa /moN$kOge/ is 'Creek, Muskogee'.  It's
interesting since the Kansa speakers borrowed the name
(from Creeks or perhaps others) with /$/ rather than
/s/.  This probably reflects the fact that, in Creek,
the sibilant is most often retroflexed next to back
vowels, and this was apparently perceived as the
alveopalatal rather than the dental or alveolar.
Kansa /ccIkkasa/ and /ccattA/ are 'Chickasaw' and
'Choctaw' respectively -- both from Dorsey.
Kansa /hi$A/ is 'Caddo'.  I don't have any etymology
for this.  It's from Dorsey.
Kansa /$Awane/ is 'Shawnee' for Dorsey, but again Mrs.
Rowe gave the modern /$oNnI/.


From cqcqcq at pgtv.net  Thu Aug 15 15:53:14 2002
From: cqcqcq at pgtv.net (Carolyn Quintero)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:53:14 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
In-Reply-To: <001301c24471$8858a820$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.105314.0500.>

Bob,
All my speakers were "rusty" when it came to tribe names.  The ones I find
are the following:

Cherokee $Alaki [Bristow, ok'd by Morrel]
	Cherokee (Variant) $saAke [Bristow, unconfirmed]
Creek (Muskogee): muskOke [Bristow, tentatively ok'd by L Shannon and Ed Red
Eagle] LF: moN-shko'-ge
Choctaw -unknown; Not in LF
Chickasaw - ??;  LF = T-dot si'-ge-shi
Shawnee - $Awani [Bristow, confirmed by Margaret Red Eagle]; LF ZhoN-ni'
Caddo - hiNiN$A  [produced, Holding and Morrell]

NOT S.E. OR NOT REQUESTED  are the following:
Pawnee -hpadhImaha (Holding), hpAimaNhaN (Bristow), hpAiNmaha (Morrell - who
applies this term to any western tribe) LF: P-dot a'-thiN  and P-dot
a'-thiN-moN-hoN
Navajo - haxINlezêkaaghe  [LF same....]
Sac and Fox - sakIwa, sakIz^iN, sakIwo

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:37 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?


Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
be discovered.

UPPER CASE vowels are accented.  What I found so far:

Quapaw /$adAkke/ is 'Cherokee'.
Quapaw /$awaNnaN/ is 'Shawnee'.

Kansa /$ayAkki/ is 'Cherokee' in Dorsey's notes, but by
the 1970's Mrs. Rowe gave a more modern /ccelEkki/.
Note that Quapaw /d/ and Kansa /y/ normally correspond
in cognate vocabulary.
Kansa /moN$kOge/ is 'Creek, Muskogee'.  It's
interesting since the Kansa speakers borrowed the name
(from Creeks or perhaps others) with /$/ rather than
/s/.  This probably reflects the fact that, in Creek,
the sibilant is most often retroflexed next to back
vowels, and this was apparently perceived as the
alveopalatal rather than the dental or alveolar.
Kansa /ccIkkasa/ and /ccattA/ are 'Chickasaw' and
'Choctaw' respectively -- both from Dorsey.
Kansa /hi$A/ is 'Caddo'.  I don't have any etymology
for this.  It's from Dorsey.
Kansa /$Awane/ is 'Shawnee' for Dorsey, but again Mrs.
Rowe gave the modern /$oNnI/.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 15 16:25:25 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:25:25 -0600
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
In-Reply-To: <001301c24471$8858a820$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.102525.0600.>

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
> the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
> found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
> wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
> Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
> Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
> presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
> be discovered.

There is a list of Omaha ethnonyms in Fletcher & LaFlesche that has some
of these, I think.  There's also a list in Howard's Ponca Tribe, and I
know some of them appear in LaFlesche for Osage.  Unfortunately, those are
the only sources for Dhegiha ethnonyms that I know of, other than possible
random inclusions in ethnographic material or texts.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 15 18:33:01 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:33:01 -0600
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes? (fwd)
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.123301.0600.>

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, David Costa wrote:
> Dorsey didn't get any?

I don't recall that he includes a list of ethnonyms in any of his Dhegiha
publications.  Those he collected are in his unpublished slip files.  Any
year now I'm going to either get a microfilm reader or find out how to
have microfilm copied to CDs, and then, thanks to my benefactor Mark
Swetland, I'll be able to consult Dorsey's slip file for Omaha.

The CD solution occurred to me within the last year or so, but I haven't
been able to implement it yet.  I'd need a commercial service to do the
conversion, and I haven't located one.

JEK


From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com  Thu Aug 15 18:40:59 2002
From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:40:59 +0100
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.194059.0100.ANTHONY.GRANT3@BTINTERNET.COM>

Folks:

Could Quapaw /hi$a/ have something to do with the little-known Caddoan tribe
whose name is usually spelt Eyeish?  One Caddo clan was supposedly of Quapaw
origin and was called Imaha - a clearly Dhegiha name!.  (There was also a
Caddo clan of Choctaw origin, named 'Yowani', according to Alice Fletcher.)

Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: R. Rankin <rankin at ku.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?


> Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
> the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
> found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
> wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
> Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
> Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
> presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
> be discovered.
>
> UPPER CASE vowels are accented.  What I found so far:
>
> Quapaw /$adAkke/ is 'Cherokee'.
> Quapaw /$awaNnaN/ is 'Shawnee'.
>
> Kansa /$ayAkki/ is 'Cherokee' in Dorsey's notes, but by
> the 1970's Mrs. Rowe gave a more modern /ccelEkki/.
> Note that Quapaw /d/ and Kansa /y/ normally correspond
> in cognate vocabulary.
> Kansa /moN$kOge/ is 'Creek, Muskogee'.  It's
> interesting since the Kansa speakers borrowed the name
> (from Creeks or perhaps others) with /$/ rather than
> /s/.  This probably reflects the fact that, in Creek,
> the sibilant is most often retroflexed next to back
> vowels, and this was apparently perceived as the
> alveopalatal rather than the dental or alveolar.
> Kansa /ccIkkasa/ and /ccattA/ are 'Chickasaw' and
> 'Choctaw' respectively -- both from Dorsey.
> Kansa /hi$A/ is 'Caddo'.  I don't have any etymology
> for this.  It's from Dorsey.
> Kansa /$Awane/ is 'Shawnee' for Dorsey, but again Mrs.
> Rowe gave the modern /$oNnI/.
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 15 20:05:58 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:05:58 -0600
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
In-Reply-To: <007a01c2448d$7011fde0$132f073e@a5h1k3>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.140558.0600.>

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Anthony Grant wrote:
> Could Quapaw /hi$a/ have something to do with the little-known Caddoan tribe
> whose name is usually spelt Eyeish?  One Caddo clan was supposedly of Quapaw
> origin and was called Imaha - a clearly Dhegiha name!.

I'd noticed the Imaha.  They're one of the four (?) Quapaw villages that
Dorsey mentions in his survey article Siouan Sociology, which is mainly a
list of bands, clans, and villages from various sources.

Bob Rankin and I have a long standing debate over whether the village name
Okaxpa ("Quapaw, lit. downstream") is opposed the village name ImaNhaN, or
to the tribal name UmaNhaN ("Omaha") both literally "upstream".  Or, of
course, whether they are all independent of each other.  A major
constituent of this issue is whether Okxapa properly applied originally
only to the village Okaxpa, or to all of the Quapaw (in later terms).
Also of interest, how the term Arkansas (Alkansea) related to KkoNze
(Kansa(s), Kaw, various clans in Dhegiha groups) and which groups it
applied to.

I don't know if anyone has the energy to rehearse the arguments here and
now ...


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 15 22:18:25 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:18:25 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.171825.0500.>

> > Could Quapaw /hi$a/ have something to do with the
little-known Caddoan tribe
> > whose name is usually spelt Eyeish?  One Caddo clan
was supposedly of Quapaw
> > origin and was called Imaha - a clearly Dhegiha
name!.

They may well have been the group of Quapaws who moved
in with the Caddos when they left Arkansas.

The Dhegiha "Caddo" term is probably better preserved
in the Osage form /hiN:$a/ (long, nasal V as Carolyn
recorded) than in the Kaw term.  As for Eyeish, I
really can't offer an opinion.

> I'd noticed the Imaha.  They're one of the four (?)
[five -- RLR] Quapaw villages that Dorsey mentions in
his survey article Siouan Sociology, ...

which is mainly a
> list of bands, clans, and villages from various
sources.
>
> Bob Rankin and I have a long standing debate over
whether the village name
> Okaxpa ("Quapaw, lit. downstream") is opposed the
village name ImaNhaN, or to the tribal name UmaNhaN
("Omaha") both literally "upstream".  Or, of
> course, whether they are all independent of each
other.  A major
> constituent of this issue is whether Okxapa properly
applied originally
> only to the village Okaxpa, or to all of the Quapaw
(in later terms).

Well, FWIW, the village name was okaxpa-xti 'real
Quapaws' in the French accounts.  I won't recap all the
rest -- it must be in the archives someplace.

Bob


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 15 22:27:00 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:27:00 -0500
Subject: Imaha
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.172700.0500.>

> They may well have been the group of Quapaws who
moved
> in with the Caddos when they left Arkansas.

Sorry, my wording was unclear.  It is the Caddo group
called Imaha that I'm talking about here, not the
"Eyeish."

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Aug 16 18:30:54 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:30:54 -0600
Subject: Character Set Problems with List
Message-ID: <FRI.16.AUG.2002.123054.0600.>

Is anyone other than the folks at KU receiving messages from the list
(some or all) that are converted to attachments, with the message replaced
by a text that starts out "This message uses a character set that is not
supported by the Internet Service."?

Is anyone noticing it occurring with postings from anyone other than David
Rood or myself?  Does it occur always with postings from us, or only
sometimes?

I am presently under the impression that this occurs when a Microsoft
Exchange email server receives a message in a character set it hasn't been
configured to believe supported, e.g., iso-8859-1.  I believe the Exchange
mail server can be told not to do this, by adding additional code pages,
but I haven't yet verified this.  The problem seems to be exacerbated by
particular users' sending email programs, e.g., maybe pine, which seems to
be especially solicitous about preserving such settings in included
messages.

This problem is different from a simple warning displayed at the top of
mail that the character set being used in the mail is, e.g., iso-8859-1,
and that you are actually using a different set.  It is also different
from problems due to email having been encoded wholly or partially in
HTML, which also causes some mail programs to present the message as an
attachment.  In those cases the message is sometimes displayed in
unformatted text, too.  I would discourage use of HTML in letters posted
to the list for that reason, though nobody's actually complained about it
(recently) and it doesn't seem to be a big problem.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Aug 16 20:02:37 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:02:37 -0500
Subject: More Quapaw ethnonyms for Dhegihanists.
Message-ID: <FRI.16.AUG.2002.150237.0500.>

While at the office today I checked the few field notes
A.S. Gatschet left from his Quapaw elicitation in 1888.
Gatschet is not known for his phonetic ability, so in
some instances it is not possible to determine which
voiceless stop he was hearing.  I the cases where I
simply cannot venture a phonemization, I write the stop
in CAPS below.  N marks nasalization of preceding V,
and accented V's are in CAPS also.

Gatschet           phonemicized     tribe
Shawa'no        /$awANno/        Shawnee
Masko'gi          /maskOki/            Creek
Ta'xta                /ttAxta/            Choctaw
(this is what happens to [c^] before a back V in a
language that had no phonemic affricates.  G. wrote it
two different times with initial T-)
Tcika'su            /CikkAso/        Chickasaw (note
that palatal is accepted preceding front V).
Semino'ne        /semiNnONne/ Seminole
Tonka'wa        /ToNKAwa/        Tonkawa
Shada'ki            /$adAkki/        Cherokee
Su'te                /sOTe/                Caddo
(another mysterious Caddo term)

I also double-checked La Flesche's Osage dictionary,
but oddly, no term for Cherokee.

Bob


From napsha51 at aol.com  Mon Aug 19 22:28:59 2002
From: napsha51 at aol.com (napsha51 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:28:59 -0400
Subject: chagxa & ichage
Message-ID: <MON.19.AUG.2002.182859.0400.>

TO All,
I have thought this over and over, and I feel I should write and clarify. I know that the question applied to these two words had nothing to do with complementary distribution, I don't know what I was thinking at the time I wrote it, I apologize!
unshimalapiye!


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Wed Aug 21 08:14:54 2002
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda A Cumberland)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:14:54 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <DGECJCJMGOEJKGCEPLFMMEKECHAA.shanwest@uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.031454.0500.>

I've been on the road for a while and am just now working through all the
messages on this list, hence the belated contribution to the discussion.
I'll add my Assiniboine data to Shannon's, since I have a few additional
terms, and there is some variation in the ones that I have.  These are
from Carry The Kettle, but are consistent with the forms Doug Parks
collected a decade ago at Ft. Belknap:

s^uNk-thokeca	= wolf
s^uNk-cuk?ana	= coyote (unaspirated c, but frequently written as j)
s^uNks^iNca  	= coyote pup (cf. s^uNks^iNcana  'puppy')
thokhana	= gray fox
s^uNka-sana     = red fox
mnaNza		= wolverine
wiNkcena	= wolverine


The first four (including 'puppy') have second syllable stress; the last
three have first syllable stress. The intervocalic voicing rule (as I
described in  Anadarko) applies. I include the terms for gray fox and
wolverine because they are non-canine.

cuk?ana = 'little', although it only occurs in 5 or 6 words in my (our)
data, as well as independently. The words commonly used are cusina
'little' and ptecena 'small'.

-s^iNca is surely a variant of c^iNca 'child' but nothing in the phonology
that I have discovered accounts for c^ -> s^. kc^ is rare, occurring only
in compounds and reduplications, i.e., across morpheme boundaries, and the
c^ does not change to s^ in those instances.  ks^ is a very common
syllable onset, of course, but the case in question crosses a morpheme
boundary. The two examples here are the only ones I find like that.

Linda



On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote:

> Did a little digging, and the Assiniboine Nakota words I found were
>
> s^uNga-dokeja = wolf
> s^uNga-jukana = coyote
> s^uNga-taNga = horse
>
> I have no non-canine based words for these, but I'll ask next time I see or
> talk to any of my consultants.
>
> Shannon
>
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 16:54:31 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:54:31 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020821020626.4443A-100000@lear.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.105431.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Linda A Cumberland wrote:
> s^uNks^iNca  	= coyote pup (cf. s^uNks^iNcana  'puppy')

> -s^iNca is surely a variant of c^iNca 'child' but nothing in the phonology
> that I have discovered accounts for c^ -> s^. kc^ is rare, occurring only
> in compounds and reduplications, i.e., across morpheme boundaries, and the
> c^ does not change to s^ in those instances.  ks^ is a very common
> syllable onset, of course, but the case in question crosses a morpheme
> boundary. The two examples here are the only ones I find like that.

For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca 'little, small, young' is z^iNga',
cognate with c^hiNc^a.  (This is aspirated in the southerly dialects of
Dakotan, right?)  The proto-form is *yiNka.  OP z^iNga' can be truncated
to just z^iN in special diminutive forms like si'z^iN 'little offspring'
from nisi' z^iNga' or saN'z^iN 'little brother' from saNga' z^iNga', and
so on.  For some reason 'old woman' is wa'?uz^iNga, literally 'little
woman', cf. English 'little old woman'.  I think this pattern occurs in
other Siouan languages as well, and maybe areally.

Interestingly, however, there are two words with s^iN'ga in what seems to
be the same diminutive sense.  One is s^iN'gaz^iNga '(younger) children',
cf. s^e'mi(N)z^iNga 'girl child' (a 'maid(en)' in old English usage) and
nu'z^iNga 'boy child' (a 'youth' in old English usage).  The other is
ni'kkas^iNga, nia's^iNga 'person(s)'.  I associate this possibly with the
diminutive only from knowing that the Osage refer to themselves in at
least ritual literature as 'the little ones', though I do not recall the
Osage form associated with this gloss.  Nikka refers to 'people' and
occurs in compounds, like these and nikkagahi 'chief'.  Nia's^iNga is an
puzzling variant of ni'kkas^iNga that I think I've mentioned before.

I believe there's another diminutive root *ksik(a) that we noticed
recently in some animal names.

JEK


From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu  Wed Aug 21 18:13:50 2002
From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:13:50 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.131350.0500.>

A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any Native American
languages have a word for land that means/is derived from "mother" (or
presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge but I'd ask around a
bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical ways of refering to
land too, and anything that indicates land conceived of as a possession (or
not).

I'll forward anything interesting to him, or if you "reply to all" he
should get it.  Thanks,
Catherine


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Wed Aug 21 18:46:49 2002
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda A Cumberland)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:46:49 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208211029170.5347-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.134649.0500.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca 'little, small, young' is z^iNga',
> cognate with c^hiNc^a.  (This is aspirated in the southerly dialects of
> Dakotan, right?)

Just to be clear, I'll confirm that the second c in c^iNca is unaspirated
in Assiniboine (a "northerly" dialect).



>   For some reason 'old woman' is wa'?uz^iNga, literally 'little
> woman', cf. English 'little old woman'.  I think this pattern occurs in
> other Siouan languages as well, and maybe areally.
>
> Interestingly, however, there are two words with s^iN'ga in what seems to
> be the same diminutive sense.  One is s^iN'gaz^iNga '(younger) children',
> cf. s^e'mi(N)z^iNga 'girl child' (a 'maid(en)' in old English usage) and
> nu'z^iNga 'boy child' (a 'youth' in old English usage).

For comparison, here are some relevant Assiniboine terms:

wakaNnana		old woman
wiNc^iNcana		girl  (literally, 'little woman' or 'little female')
but: hoks^ina		boy
c^iNca			child
mic^iNcapi		my children
but: 'taku's^kina	children (1st and 3rd syll. stress)
c^iNcana		calf; any small offspring of an animal
as in:
honog^ina c^iNcana	maggots
ptec^iNcana		buffalo calf

(and what does this imply about wiNc^iNcana?!)

Also of interest: 'thecana 'young' and wa'thecana 'to be young'

Linda


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 19:03:54 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:03:54 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <OFBAD67848.7A2B7FB4-ON86256C1C.00634BF8@wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.130354.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote:
> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any Native American
> languages have a word for land that means/is derived from "mother" (or
> presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge but I'd ask around a
> bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
> He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical ways of refering to
> land too, and anything that indicates land conceived of as a possession (or
> not).

I don't have an explicit reference in mind, but I've always had the
impression that the Earth is Grandmother and that various grandmothers in
higaN are the personification of Earth, e.g., Rabbit's Grandmother.  I
think this applies across Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe, and Winnebago.

As far as discussion of land, the letters in the Dorsey Omaha-Ponca text
collections would be a place to look for it.  I can recall some particular
examples.  One could find them easily by searching in the texts for
various terms like mazhaN, ttaNde, etc.  You have to be careful with
looking only at the English translation, as there are several different
possessive constructions in Omaha-Ponca, and these must to some extent
reflect different attitudes to or natures of possession.

Also, I recently read something in:

Mountain Wolf Woman, Sister of Crashing Thunder: The Autobiography of a
Winnebago Indian by Nancy O. Lurie (Editor), Ruth M. Underhill (Paperback
- June 1961)

MWW's father didn't take a homestead because he was Eagle Clan and felt
that land was the concern of Bear Clan, not Eagle Clan.  He said that
Eagle Clan was properly concerned with the sky, not the earth,

Certainly any discussion of treaty rights that includes or reports the
words of the Native Americans involved would be worth considering.  The
literature on this is large.  This is one of the sorts of things you can
find in the OP letters.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 19:05:33 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:05:33 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020821125419.3781G-100000@lear.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.130533.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Linda A Cumberland wrote:
> > For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca 'little, small, young' is z^iNga',
> > cognate with c^hiNc^a.  (This is aspirated in the southerly dialects of
> > Dakotan, right?)
>
> Just to be clear, I'll confirm that the second c in c^iNca is unaspirated
> in Assiniboine (a "northerly" dialect).

I see the problem.  Linda uses ^ to mark aspiration, whereas I use it for
hacek.  Linda's c^ is my c^h.  her c is my c^.

JEK


From daynal at nsula.edu  Wed Aug 21 21:08:45 2002
From: daynal at nsula.edu (Dayna Bowker Lee)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:08:45 -0700
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.140845.0700.DAYNAL@NSULA.EDU>

The Caddo use ?i-nah wah-dut (mother earth), sometimes just i-nah (?
"Because the Caddo came out of the ground they call it ina, mother, and go
back to it when they die" (Mooney 1896:1093-4).


----- Original Message -----
From: "Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC" <CaRudin1 at wsc.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Cc: "Randy Bertolas/SS/AC/WSC" <raberto1 at wsc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: land=mother???


>
> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any Native American
> languages have a word for land that means/is derived from "mother" (or
> presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge but I'd ask around a
> bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
> He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical ways of refering to
> land too, and anything that indicates land conceived of as a possession
(or
> not).
>
> I'll forward anything interesting to him, or if you "reply to all" he
> should get it.  Thanks,
> Catherine
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 20:37:17 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:37:17 -0600
Subject: please forward to the list (fwd)
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.143717.0600.>

Posted for Jan Ullrich.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:17:53 +0200
From: Jan Ullrich <mathotopa at centrum.cz>
To: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU>
Subject: please forward to the list

Catherine Rudin wrote:

> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any Native American
> languages have a word for land that means/is derived from "mother" (or
> presumably vice versa).

In traditional prayers the Lakhotas address the Earth as UNci' Makha' -
"Grandmother Earth".
In my audio collection of about 300 Lakhota prayer songs UNci' Makha'
appears about 10 times. In two songs nikhuN'shi (your grandmother) is used
instead, only symbolically without mentioning any particular word for Earth
or land.
The recent literature is full of the "Mother Earth" term, but I'd guess this
is a modern influence of the New Age or of the Pan-Indian approach. I have
no record of a song or a prayer with the word "iná" (mother) applied for the
land or the Earth.

> He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical ways of refering to
> land too, and anything that indicates land conceived of as a possession
> (or not).

I don't know if this is what your colleague is looking for, but in the songs
I found:
ThuNkashila makhoce kiN thawamakiya - Grandfather (Creator) gave me the land
makhoce waN washe chic'upi cha yanipi kte - I gave a good country so that
you may live (Creators words)


Also in so called Four Direction songs (which usually are actually six
direction songs) the directions are represented by animals and the earth
direction is usually symbolized by wahiN'heya - the mole.


Jan


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 20:44:56 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:44:56 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <OFBAD67848.7A2B7FB4-ON86256C1C.00634BF8@wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.144456.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote:
> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" ...

See also

Buffalo Bird Woman's Garden: Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians (Borealis)
by Gilbert L. Wilson, Jeffery R. Hanson (Introduction)

for Hidatsa attitudes to land and control of land.

I suspect that the request oversimplies, but I would imagine that European
and Native American attitudes toward land vary extensively with the
particular group within each larger category, and with time and place,
too.  Freehold has been an unusual pattern in Europe in many places in the
past, though it is considered the norm in the US (for those who don't live
in apartments).

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Aug 21 21:09:35 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:09:35 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.160935.0500.>

I can't think of anything in Siouan or Muskogean
languages that would approach this.  There are several
senses of Earth, of course.  The notion of "Mother
Earth" (and "Father Sky") seems to be central to a lot
of early Indo-European religious thinking.  The
concepts are discussed in some detail in that book on
Indo-European by Mallory.  If you need the
bibliographic information, I have it at the office.

My recollection is that some of the Southeastern tribes
had very definite ideas of land ownership.  The best
sources to consult on those groups would probably be
the large compendia published by the Bureau of American
Ethnology by John R. Swanton, but I have no specific
references to send you to.

Bob Rankin

----- Original Message -----
From: Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC <CaRudin1 at wsc.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Cc: Randy Bertolas/SS/AC/WSC <raberto1 at wsc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: land=mother???


>
> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something
about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any
Native American
> languages have a word for land that means/is derived
from "mother" (or
> presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge
but I'd ask around a
> bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in
Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
> He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical
ways of refering to
> land too, and anything that indicates land conceived
of as a possession (or
> not).
>
> I'll forward anything interesting to him, or if you
"reply to all" he
> should get it.  Thanks,
> Catherine
>
>


From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Wed Aug 21 21:33:46 2002
From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:33:46 -0700
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <OFBAD67848.7A2B7FB4-ON86256C1C.00634BF8@wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.143346.0700.>

The Seneca (and other Iroquois) ritual expression for the earth means "our
mother, who serves as a support for our feet".

Yes, the Caddo expression is ina? wa:dat (? for glottal stop, and wa:dat
has an accent on the first syllable). It's quite literally "mother earth".
Can ina? be a borrowing from Osage (assuming that Osage women captives
often became Caddo mothers)?

Wally


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Aug 21 21:35:50 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:35:50 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.163550.0500.>

> Can ina? be a borrowing from Osage (assuming that
Osage women captives
> often became Caddo mothers)?

There was also the Quapaw group that associated itself
with the Caddos for awhile, and they have the same
term, inaN'.

Bob


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Wed Aug 21 22:02:34 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:02:34 -0700
Subject: 'he told me'
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.150234.0700.>

For the Assiniboine of 'he told me', I've got omagiyaga and omijiyaga. I
recognize the rule g --> j / i_, but why is the i there in the first place?
Is there a difference in these two forms that I'm not seeing? Linda, do you
get both forms too?

I have this pair but I don't have a clue what to do with it.

John buza waNz^i hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omagiyaga
John told me he bought a cat last night (he = John)

John buza waN'z^i 'hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omijiyaga
He told me John bought a cat last night (same reading as English he != John)

Any ideas?

Shannon


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 22:19:23 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:19:23 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <000901c2495a$bc156c00$e2b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.161923.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> There was also the Quapaw group that associated itself with the Caddos
> for awhile, and they have the same term, inaN'.

I think they Imaha are actually still a component of the Caddo tribe, or
rather that this was a permanent merger.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 22:32:42 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:32:42 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <14298283.1029940426@[192.168.2.36]>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.163242.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote:
> Yes, the Caddo expression is ina? wa:dat (? for glottal stop, and wa:dat
> has an accent on the first syllable). It's quite literally "mother earth".
> Can ina? be a borrowing from Osage (assuming that Osage women captives
> often became Caddo mothers)?

Is ina? then not the usual term for mother in Caddo?  Or is this term not
typical of Caddoan generally?  If it isn't the usual mother term, it's
interesting that it is still glossed as 'mother'.  I think na ~ ma and so
on are in the usual range for 'mother' terms in many languages, like pa ~
ta, etc., for 'father', but it would be interesting to have a demonstrable
borrowing, with or without a special usage.  A special usage would be like
learned mater, alma mater, maternal and so on in English.

The Siouan terms for 'mother' and 'father' are all fairly clearly related,
in spite of being within the range of non-genetic similiarity for these
terms.  One oddity that is fairly regularly repeated (along with regular
sound correspondences) is the presence of two suppletive stems in each
case.  In Dhegiha -naNhaN is the 'first person/vocative' stem for
'mother', while the third person is stem is -haN.  I don't think the
suppletion always goes along those precise lines.

Dhegiha also has iN as the first person possessive for these stems,
otherwise not found in Dhegiha (except maybe iNs^?age '(my) elder'?), but
rather similar, I think, to the first person possessive in Ioway-Otoe,
though I doubt it's a loan.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 22:47:10 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:47:10 -0600
Subject: 'he told me'
In-Reply-To: <000c01c2495e$74f98be0$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.164710.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Shannon West wrote:

> For the Assiniboine of 'he told me', I've got omagiyaga and omijiyaga. I
> recognize the rule g --> j / i_, but why is the i there in the first place?
> Is there a difference in these two forms that I'm not seeing? Linda, do you
> get both forms too?

Isn't this an opposition of the possessive and the second dative?  I
suppose in this case the stems are something like ogiyaga 'to tell to
someone regarding one's own' and ogijiyaga 'to tell to someone regarding
someone else's (with the approval of that other person)'.  And the first
dative would be ogiyaga, too, but inflect differently, and mean 'to tell
to someone regarding someone else's (without their approval)'?  Except I'd
kind of expect the possessive to be omiyaga, and for omagiyaga to be the
first dative.  Perhaps I can be forgiven being a bit confused when the
regular OP dative and possessive are opposite in morphological behavior
from the Dakotan forms.  At least there's no second dative to worry about
in OP.

> I have this pair but I don't have a clue what to do with it.
>
> John buza waNz^i hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omagiyaga
> John told me he bought a cat last night (he = John)
>
> John buza waN'z^i 'hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omijiyaga
> He told me John bought a cat last night (same reading as English he != John)
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Shannon
>


From mmccaffe at indiana.edu  Thu Aug 22 00:03:48 2002
From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:03:48 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <002501c24957$0f736b80$e2b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.190348.0500.>

You might look at Charles Callendar, 1962, "Social Organization of the
Central Algonkian Indians." Publications in Anthropology 7. Milwaukee
Public Museum, Milwaukee. In Emerson's and Sasso's excellent chapter 15
titled  "Prelude to History on the Eastern Prairies" in the Smithsonian's
recent (what year?) _Societies in Eclipse, Archaeology of the Eastern
Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400-1700_, ed., Brose, Cowan and Mainfort,
they seem to suggest an Oneata cultural pattern expressed in
"...patrilineal clans organized into earth and sky moieties."

I'm not sure if this is useful to your research, but maybe.

Michael McCafferty


 On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:

> I can't think of anything in Siouan or Muskogean
> languages that would approach this.  There are several
> senses of Earth, of course.  The notion of "Mother
> Earth" (and "Father Sky") seems to be central to a lot
> of early Indo-European religious thinking.  The
> concepts are discussed in some detail in that book on
> Indo-European by Mallory.  If you need the
> bibliographic information, I have it at the office.
>
> My recollection is that some of the Southeastern tribes
> had very definite ideas of land ownership.  The best
> sources to consult on those groups would probably be
> the large compendia published by the Bureau of American
> Ethnology by John R. Swanton, but I have no specific
> references to send you to.
>
> Bob Rankin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC <CaRudin1 at wsc.edu>
> To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> Cc: Randy Bertolas/SS/AC/WSC <raberto1 at wsc.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:13 PM
> Subject: land=mother???
>
>
> >
> > A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something
> about Native American
> > vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any
> Native American
> > languages have a word for land that means/is derived
> from "mother" (or
> > presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge
> but I'd ask around a
> > bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in
> Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
> > He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical
> ways of refering to
> > land too, and anything that indicates land conceived
> of as a possession (or
> > not).
> >
> > I'll forward anything interesting to him, or if you
> "reply to all" he
> > should get it.  Thanks,
> > Catherine
> >
> >
>
>
>


Michael McCafferty
307 Memorial Hall
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
47405
mmccaffe at indiana.edu

"When you eventually see through the veils to how things really are, you
will keep saying again and again, "This is certainly not like we thought
it was".

--Rumi


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 22 01:59:25 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:59:25 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020821185726.19384D-100000@ariel.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.195925.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> ... In Emerson's and Sasso's excellent chapter 15 titled "Prelude to
> History on the Eastern Prairies" in the Smithsonian's recent (what
> year?) _Societies in Eclipse, Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands
> Indians, A.D. 1400-1700_, ed., Brose, Cowan and Mainfort, they seem to
> suggest an Oneota cultural pattern expressed in "...patrilineal clans
> organized into earth and sky moieties."

This is generally descriptive of Dhegiha society, and, though I'm not sure
about the moieties, the rest covers Ioway-Otoe-Missouria and Winnebago,
too, and generally Central Algonquian (in the regional sense).  It's
certainly very likely that some of the picture, or the clarity in it,
comes from examining the likely suspects.

On the other hand, some fairly abstract cultural factors are thought to be
estimatable from physical evidence.  For example, the fairly rapid change
in stylistic detail of Oneota pottery is thought to reflect a patrilineal,
patrilocal pattern, on the assumption that women made the pottery and that
this approach to social organization is known to produce this pattern in
comparable historical societies.  Essentially, the pottery makers bring in
and get exposed to a variety of competing styles as they come into their
husband's group.  By contrast, the stability of styles in Middle Missouri
reflects matilineal, matrilocal patterns.  Using the traditional style is
an expression of kingroup solidarity.

I've also seen discussions of Oneota that suggest, based on house
population sizes estimated from house size and hearth numbers, and
arranged temporally, that Oneota varied between wife's parent and
husband's locality patterns with time.  Larger houses are correlated with
wife's parent residence, which might reflect matrilineality.

(I forget the terms for wife's parent and husband's parent residence -
uxorilocal and avunculocal?)

A possible basis for an assumption of a sky moiety could be the suspicion
that certain Oneota pottery decoration patterns are though to be stylized
representations of hawks.  I don't know if other patterns are thought to
represent the earth, but I know that a fairly wide range of patterns are
found.

Although it's certainly a reasonable suspicion that Oneota has some
conection with Siouan, the notion is not universally accepted and the
details are far from clear.  The existance of earth and sky divisions is
fairly well attested in historical times, however, and might be adequately
attested to in, say, Dorsey's Siouan Sociology survey, or in Fletcher &
LaFlesche.

Although not all IE languages follow a sun:male :: moon:female pattern
(historically reversed in Germanic), I think sky:male :: earth:female is
fairly constant.  In Siouan (and regional?) mythology the sun is male.  I
believe that the Sun is the father of the two twins, though this part of
the story is missing in the OP version.  It's there in the IO version, if
I remember correctly.  It's also true, I think, in Navajo mythology.  The
Sun and his sons figure in Blackfoot mythology as well, though the point
of view is somewhat different.


From jggoodtracks at juno.com  Wed Aug 21 23:54:40 2002
From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:54:40 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.185440.0500.>

For what it is worth, in Pawnee, my mother = atira.
John might ask David what the term is in Wichita.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:32:42 -0600 (MDT) Koontz John E
<John.Koontz at colorado.edu> writes:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote:
> > Yes, the Caddo expression is ina? wa:dat (? for glottal stop, and
wa:dat
> > has an accent on the first syllable). It's quite literally "mother
earth".
> > Can ina? be a borrowing from Osage (assuming that Osage women
captives
> > often became Caddo mothers)?
>


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Thu Aug 22 05:50:17 2002
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda A Cumberland)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:50:17 -0500
Subject: 'he told me'
In-Reply-To: <000c01c2495e$74f98be0$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.005017.0500.>

The whole -ki-/kici thing has been giving me fits, too.  There are three
verbs in the set:

oyaka		to tell, announce
		   omnaka	'I tell, announce'
		   oyaka	'he tells, announces'

okiyaka		to tell someone
		   owemnaka	'I told him'
		   omakiyaka	'he told me'  (dat. pros: ma-/ni)

okiciyaka	to tell someone about something (else)
		   owecimnaka	'I told him about it'
		   omiciyaka    'he told me about it' (mici-/nici)

Okiciyaka is really more like 'he told me it for me', so John's suggestion
of second data is on target.  I don't have examples of the forms you give,
Shannon, but I like your two test sentences and I will phone my primary
consultant to elicit them from her to see if I get the same responses.

Here is my most straightforward example of okiciyaka:

mas?apha s^ten ochicimnakiNkta	'when he calls, I'll tell you'

So I guess I should say, mas?awakipha s^ten ochicimnakiNkta ('when I call
her, I'll tell you about it')!

Linda



On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Shannon West wrote:

> For the Assiniboine of 'he told me', I've got omagiyaga and omijiyaga. I
> recognize the rule g --> j / i_, but why is the i there in the first place?
> Is there a difference in these two forms that I'm not seeing? Linda, do you
> get both forms too?
>
> I have this pair but I don't have a clue what to do with it.
>
> John buza waNz^i hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omagiyaga
> John told me he bought a cat last night (he = John)
>
> John buza waN'z^i 'hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omijiyaga
> He told me John bought a cat last night (same reading as English he != John)
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Shannon
>
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 22 17:30:55 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:30:55 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.123055.0500.>

Ioway-Otoe hiN- is, I think, definitely to be
associated with earlier *miN-.  There are a few other
terms that show the same h/m/w alternation (or
replacement) pattern.  I seriously wonder/doubt if
Dhegiha iN- is cognate with the IO prefix; the
alternation is semi-regular for IO but not at all in
Dhegiha.  I guess I always just assumed that terms for
'ones own parent' didn't need a possessor since they
were always possessed by their antecedant.  And I don't
think iN- a loan either.

> Dhegiha also has iN as the first person possessive
for these stems,
> otherwise not found in Dhegiha (except maybe iNs^?age
'(my) elder'?), but
> rather similar, I think, to the first person
possessive in Ioway-Otoe,
> though I doubt it's a loan.


From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com  Thu Aug 22 17:54:34 2002
From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:54:34 +0100
Subject: land=mother
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.185434.0100.ANTHONY.GRANT3@BTINTERNET.COM>

Folks:

My understanding is that in Caddo ina' is confined to 'my mother' and that the normal stem for 'mother' is quite different (is it /sa:sin/ or is my memoy playing tricks on me?).  Caddo has such a low percentage of cogantes with any other Caddoan language that the original Proto-Cadoan form may just now be attested in Wichita, Kitsai, etc.  

Anthony.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020822/c177c359/attachment.html>

From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Thu Aug 22 17:58:31 2002
From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:58:31 -0700
Subject: land=mother
In-Reply-To: <002301c24a04$fc1d52e0$9f5e073e@a5h1k3>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.105831.0700.>

Yes, ina? is the speaker's mother, while sa:sin? is somebody else's mother.
My thought has been that sa:sin? is the earlier Caddo word, and that ina?
developed from the practice of making captive women into Caddo mothers.
Since the Osages were the prototypical enemies of the Caddos, I thought
that Osage might be the best source. (?)
Wally


From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Thu Aug 22 18:06:46 2002
From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:06:46 -0700
Subject: land=mother
In-Reply-To: <56357.1030013910@[192.168.2.36]>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.110646.0700.>

On 'mother'

Something that always tickled my fancy is the fact that the Tuscarora word
for 'my mother' is E:nE? (where E here represents nasalized schwa, with
stress on the first one, and automatic falling tone). Unlike the other
forms for mother, which are quite different, and all other kinship terms,
there is no identifiable pronominal prefix referring to either of the
kinsmen in the relationship, the mother or the child.

As you all know, the Tuscarora were in the Southeast (mostly North
Carolina) until most of them made their way back up north to join the
other Northern Iroquoians at the beginning of the eighteenth century.


Marianne Mithun


On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote:

> Yes, ina? is the speaker's mother, while sa:sin? is somebody else's mother.
> My thought has been that sa:sin? is the earlier Caddo word, and that ina?
> developed from the practice of making captive women into Caddo mothers.
> Since the Osages were the prototypical enemies of the Caddos, I thought
> that Osage might be the best source. (?)
> Wally
>
>
>


From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Thu Aug 22 18:13:39 2002
From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:13:39 -0700
Subject: land=mother
In-Reply-To: <56357.1030013910@[192.168.2.36]>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.111339.0700.>

I should add that the Tuscarora form is not cognate with forms for 'my
mother' in the other Northern Iroquoian languages, except for it's closest
relative Nottoway, which was spoken into the nineteenth century in
Virginia.


Marianne Mithun


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 22 18:25:28 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:25:28 -0500
Subject: mother CORRECTION
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.132528.0500.>

Wally's note made me look twice at my posting re Quapaw
'mother'.  The Quapaw form for one's own mother is
normally iNda', not inaN as I had originally written,
although d/n do vary in contact with a nasal vowel in
Quapaw.  So I think Wally's right -- Osage may well be
the better bet.  I have to admit though that I have no
idea what Caddo phonology might do with either of these
Siouan forms.

I've got to stop doing my email at home where I can't
check up on my data. . . .

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 22 21:40:36 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:40:36 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <001b01c24a01$bc6edcc0$d1b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.154036.0600.>

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:

> Ioway-Otoe hiN- is, I think, definitely to be associated with earlier
> *miN-.

Agreed.  Of course, I'm referring here to the first person inalienable
possessive prefix.

> There are a few other terms that show the same h/m/w alternation (or
> replacement) pattern.

As far as I can recollect hiN- ~ miN- within IO only in the sense that
certain auxiliary verbs have miN- in the first person, whereas most verbs
gave hiN- for the first person patient.

Actually, there's not trace of w ~ m in the first person in Mississippi
Valley except in Dakotan (where w ~ m are general), in syncopated first
persons that have *p- still represented as b or m (like Dakotan y-stems or
?-stems bluha, muN), in Dhegiha wi- A1P2 (equivalent of Dakotan c^hi-), in
Dhegiha first person possessive wi-, and in those IO miN- forms.  Other
forms have h- (IO and Wi) or 0 (zero) (Dhegiha).  So:

                Da        OP        IO         Wi
Possessive      ma/i(N)-  wi-/iN-   hiN-       ---
Regular A1      wa-       a-        ha-        ha-
Regular P1      ma(N)-    aN-       hiN-/miN-  hiN-
Notes           mi(N)-    iN-

Notes:  Da mi(N)- is the form in the possessive and second dative.
        Dh iN is the P1 form in the (only) dative.
        IO miN- occurs with certain positional stems as first person.

Winnebago has epenthetic h- before initial V, but IO does not.  Both IO
and Wi lose initial h in the first person when some other morpheme comes
before the first person.

I've suggested elsewhere that the IO and Wi regular P1 forms are
contamination from the dative paradigm.  In essence the old dative
paradigm as attested in OP has replaced the regular transitive paradigm.
There is serious rearranging of the dative paradigms in IO and Wi anyway.
This part looks essentially like an antipassive run wild.

> I seriously wonder/doubt if Dhegiha iN- is cognate with the IO prefix;
> the alternation is semi-regular for IO but not at all in Dhegiha.  I
> guess I always just assumed that terms for 'ones own parent' didn't
> need a possessor since they were always possessed by their antecedant.
> And I don't think iN- a loan either.

The iN- is definitely extra on the front of the first persons of father
and mother, e.g., dadi' 'father (VOC) vs. iNda'di 'my father'.  These
forms have the stem -dadi. The second person is dhi-adi, the third is
idh-adi (epenthetic dh after i).  These have the alternate stem -adi.

The two things that may explain iN- here as something other than an
arbitrary fact are the IO first person possessive hiN- and the OP dative
iN-, which are not necessarily related of course other than by both being
first persons.  Etymologically the iN- on the front of iNs?a'ge 'elder' is
also extra, but it's apparently fixed in OP.

I don't mean to imply that the first person possessive in OP 'father' and
'mother' is borrowed from IO, but only that it arises in the same way in
Proto-MV, but is restricted as to which kin terms it applies to.
Elsewhere in OP the first person possessive prefix is wi- as in wine'gi
'my mother's brother'.  Dh wi- actually looks more like an innovation than
iN- given the Dakotan and IO forms.


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Mon Aug 26 14:39:29 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:39:29 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
Message-ID: <MON.26.AUG.2002.093929.0500.>

I've checked Fletcher & LaFlesche, and also the
Stabler-Swetland dictionary.  For "Cherokee", the
latter has:

che'thuki  (corruption of English-no Omaha word)


Of the ethnonyms requested, Fletcher & LaFlesche
list only Caddo.  (Pawnee is Pa'thiN.)

Caddo, Pa'thiNwasabe.  This name means "black Pawnee."


Apologies if this has already been covered.  I just
got back from a week-and-a-half vacation.


Rory





                      Koontz John E
                      <John.Koontz at colorad        To:       siouan at lists.colorado.edu
                      o.edu>                      cc:
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  Re: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
                      owner-siouan at lists.c
                      olorado.edu


                      08/15/2002 11:25 AM
                      Please respond to
                      siouan






On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
> the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
> found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
> wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
> Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
> Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
> presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
> be discovered.

There is a list of Omaha ethnonyms in Fletcher & LaFlesche that has some
of these, I think.  There's also a list in Howard's Ponca Tribe, and I
know some of them appear in LaFlesche for Osage.  Unfortunately, those are
the only sources for Dhegiha ethnonyms that I know of, other than possible
random inclusions in ethnographic material or texts.


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Mon Aug 26 17:05:18 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:05:18 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
Message-ID: <MON.26.AUG.2002.120518.0500.>

John wrote:
>  Nikka refers to 'people' and
> occurs in compounds, like these and nikkagahi 'chief'.  Nia's^iNga is an
> puzzling variant of ni'kkas^iNga that I think I've mentioned before.

I wonder if dropping the /kk/ in this word isn't just
a rapid-speech slurring that is becoming a secondary
standard because four full syllables is too long for
a word that just means 'person' or 'people'.  I've
heard the word reduced even further in a compound by
one of our speakers, Emmaline Sanchez, to what sounds
like /ne'os^iN/ (the 'o' being perhaps more of a shwa):

ne'os^iN hiN's^kube = 'thick-haired person' = Bigfoot

Tangentially, Fletcher & LaFlesche list /s^e hiN's^kube/
as 'peach', where /s^e/ means 'apple' in Omaha.  So I
guess /hiN's^kube/ (/hiN/ = 'hair'; /s^kube/ = 'deep' or
'thick') could be glossed as the standard Omaha word for
'hairy'.

Does anyone have words for Bigfoot in other languages?

Rory


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Aug 27 15:23:00 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:23:00 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <OF2AB04A56.8FC63634-ON86256C21.005BF078@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.27.AUG.2002.092300.0600.>

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> John wrote: > Nikka refers to 'people' and > occurs in compounds, like
> these and nikkagahi 'chief'.  Nia's^iNga is an > puzzling variant of
> ni'kkas^iNga that I think I've mentioned before.
>
> I wonder if dropping the /kk/ in this word isn't just
> a rapid-speech slurring that is becoming a secondary
> standard because four full syllables is too long for
> a word that just means 'person' or 'people'.  I've
> heard the word reduced even further in a compound by
> one of our speakers, Emmaline Sanchez, to what sounds
> like /ne'os^iN/ (the 'o' being perhaps more of a shwa):

I wondered about fast speech and contraction, but elision usually affects
dh and simple stops, not the tense series.  Also, this variation is
attested in Dorsey's materials from the 1880s.  My impression is that
nias^iNga emphasizes an outside person, while nikkas^iNga is an inside
person or the default form.  I supppose the kk could be viewed a sort of
reflexive or reciprocal, though it doesn't appear that the
reflexive/reciprocal -kki- is historically present here.

I'm hestitent about putting too much weight on this hypothesis.  It seemed
consistant across a random sample of examples, but it called for a certain
amount of interpretation, and I thought that a larger sample or
consultation would be needed to confirm it.  Unfortunately, nias^iNga and
nikkas^iNga are very common in the texts and consultation wasn't possible.

I think I've discussed this with Kathy Shea in the past, but I can't
remember what she suggested, which I hope means we didn't come to any
definite conclusions!

> ne'os^iN hiN's^kube = 'thick-haired person' = Bigfoot

The loss of -ga in a compound would be reasonable, especially with z^iNga,
of which I take s^iNga to be a doublet form.  Isn't bluebird waz^iN'ttu
(waz^iNga '(small) bird')?  Z^iNga also loses -ga in diminutive forms like
siz^iN 'little child' or saNz^iN 'little brother'.

> Tangentially, Fletcher & LaFlesche list /s^e hiN's^kube/ as 'peach',
> where /s^e/ means 'apple' in Omaha.  So I guess /hiN's^kube/ (/hiN/ =
> 'hair'; /s^kube/ = 'deep' or 'thick') could be glossed as the standard
> Omaha word for 'hairy'.

I agree, I've encountered 'deep furred/haired' somewhere else, too, I
think in the Dorsey texts.  I believe hiN is 'fur' or 'body hair' (e.g.,
on a human).

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 28 03:10:20 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:10:20 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208270907480.21278-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.27.AUG.2002.211020.0600.>

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
> I've encountered 'deep furred/haired' somewhere else, too, I think in
> the Dorsey texts.  I believe hiN is 'fur' or 'body hair' (e.g., on a
> human).

hiN' s^ku'be 'thick feathers' (under the wing of an eagle) JOD 90:581:1-2
waiiN' s^ku'be 'thick robe' JOD 90:40-18
xa'de s^ku'be 'deep grass' JOD 90:58.13

but

uc^[h?]i'z^e s^u'ga 'dense thicket' JOD 90:38.14
wac^hi's^ka wiN s^u'ga=xti 'a very thick[ly wooded?] creek' JOD 90:149.10
ha' s^u'ga 'thick skin' JOD 90:235.19
xdhabe' s^uga'=xti 'thick[ly standing] trees' JOD 90:277.2

HiN' apparently also covers downy feathers as well as fur or body hair.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 28 04:41:42 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:41:42 -0600
Subject: Vowel Length in Omaha-Ponca
Message-ID: <TUE.27.AUG.2002.224142.0600.>

In OP there are some words that vary in accentuation.  In the previous
examples of 'thick', for example, this variation occurred with s^u'ga ~
s^uga'.  A prominent example is naN'ba ~ naNba' 'two'.  To a certain exten
one can formulate rules like 'accent falls on every other syllable in a
phrase' or 'accent falls on the second syllable when followed by =bi or
some other enclitic.

Alternating:

xdhabe' naNba' 'two trees' 90:320.6
gdhe'ba naN'ba 'twenty' 90:86.9

Moved by enclitic?

gdhe'bahiN'wiNttaN'ga naNba'=bi=ama '2000 they say' 90:88.8
aN'ba waxu'be naNba'=the=di'=hi=kki 'when two Sundays had passed' 90:661.6

But these only work some of the time.

Not alternating:

hiNbe' naN'ba 'two moccasions' 90:297.14
miN'daNbe naN'ba 'two hours' 90:21.27
z^aN'inaN'ge naNba' 'two wagons' 90:642.2
s^aN'ge wa'xe etta'=xti naNba' 'two of the white people's horses' 90:777.8

Not moved by enclitic:

naN'ba=xti=egaN 'about two' 90:247.16

Neither principle at work:

wakkaN'dagi naN'ba=akha 'the two watermonsters' 90:249.1

Here we see waCV'CV naN'ba and waCV'CV naNba':

wasa'be naN'ba=ma 'the two black bears'  90:18.5-6
tti' waxu'be naNba'=the 'the two sacred tents' 90:462.2
nini'ba waxu'be naN'ba=khe 'the two sacred pipes' 90:471.14

There are often doublets or near doublets, as just above or below:

ni'as^iNga naN'ba 'two people' 90:23.2
ni'as^iNga naNba'=dhaNkha 'the two people' 90:356.218

nu'z^iNga naNba'=akha 'the two boys' 90:86.5
nu'z^iNga naN'ba 'two boys' 90:85.14

maN' naN'ba 'two arrows' 90:46.8
maN' naNba'=dhaNdhaN 'two arrows each' JOD 1890:13
naN' naNba'=akha 'the two grown ones' 90:88.14

====

There seem to be several possibilities here, one being that Dorsey
couldn't hear accent very well, and another being that the principles
governing it are too complex for my deductive powers at present.  I'm not
so sure that I believe the former, though the latter could easily be true.

What has occurred to me is that the word 'two' is naN'baa or maybe
naNaN'baa with H(H)LL as its pitch contour or accentual pattern, and a
final long vowel.  I suspect that a final long vowel would occasionally be
salient enough, especially if emphasized by an alternating stress pattern
or perhaps by certain following enclitics, to come across to English
trained ears as accented.

An alternative I'm less comfortable with is that naNaN'ba alone can be
sometimes perceived as finally accented, though it is always HHL, perhaps
simply because it is not reduced to schwa?  Cases like naNba'=akha would
still be analyzable as hearing something like a long vowel as accented:
naN(aN)'ba=akha heard as naNbaa'kha in spite of a H(H)LL(L) contour.
(The final vowel is elided or voiceless after /kh/.)

====

The comparative data doesn't help here.  Dakotan has nuN'pa, reduplicating
as nuN'mnuNpa, i.e., appearing to be monosyllabic with a stem-forming -a.
Ioway-Otoe has nuN(uN?)'we.  Winnebago has nuNuN'p, but all monosyllables
are long and the final vowel being e after a simple stop has been lost.
The length of the first syllable may be indicated by Winnebago nuNuNpi'wi
'a pair', which retains length in a context of a longer word.

JEK


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Aug 28 16:47:56 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:47:56 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.114756.0500.>

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
>> I've encountered 'deep furred/haired' somewhere else, too, I think in
>> the Dorsey texts.  I believe hiN is 'fur' or 'body hair' (e.g., on a
>> human).
>
> hiN' s^ku'be 'thick feathers' (under the wing of an eagle) JOD 90:581:1-2
> waiiN' s^ku'be 'thick robe' JOD 90:40-18
> xa'de s^ku'be 'deep grass' JOD 90:58.13

> but

> uc^[h?]i'z^e s^u'ga 'dense thicket' JOD 90:38.14
> wac^hi's^ka wiN s^u'ga=xti 'a very thick[ly wooded?] creek' JOD 90:149.10
> ha' s^u'ga 'thick skin' JOD 90:235.19
> xdhabe' s^uga'=xti 'thick[ly standing] trees' JOD 90:277.2

> HiN' apparently also covers downy feathers as well as fur or body hair.

> JEK

Yes.  I think s^ku'be generally means 'deep' like water
or 'thick' like a board.  s^u'ga is most commonly used for
'thick' in the sense of trees or bodies clustered closely
together.  The ha' s^u'ga example John gives above challenges
that limitation, however.

Rory





                      Koontz John E
                      <John.Koontz at colorad        To:       Siouan List <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
                      o.edu>                      cc:
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  RE: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
                      owner-siouan at lists.c
                      olorado.edu


                      08/27/2002 10:10 PM
                      Please respond to
                      siouan


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 28 17:27:20 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:27:20 -0600
Subject: OP waiiN 'robe'
In-Reply-To: <OF132028BF.DBA2181A-ON86256C23.005B81B2@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.112720.0600.>

> waiiN' s^ku'be 'thick robe' JOD 90:40-18

An incidental footnote:  I believe I transcribed waiiN' 'robe' as it was
provided by Dorsey, in the sense of one thing for one thing.  I never
heard it said myself.  I've always assumed it was something like wai'?iN
or wa(?)iN'i, except that I'd expect the first to be *we'?iN and I can't
see why the form would be plural (the second alternative).  I'm assuming a
connection with [?]iN 'wear on the shoulders'.  One of those little
mysteries that I can't solve, though the smaller they are, the more
grateful I am.  Except that anything that simultaneously challenges the
foundation block of second syllable or, better, second mora stress and the
morphophonemics of wa-i- can't be swept under the carpet without leaving a
bit of a bulge.

I suppose this term might be the one used today for blanket, but I don't
remember that.

JEK


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Aug 28 20:19:39 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:19:39 -0500
Subject: OP waiiN 'robe'
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.151939.0500.>

>> waiiN' s^ku'be 'thick robe' JOD 90:40-18

> An incidental footnote:  I believe I transcribed waiiN' 'robe' as it was
> provided by Dorsey, in the sense of one thing for one thing.  I never
> heard it said myself.  I've always assumed it was something like wai'?iN
> or wa(?)iN'i, except that I'd expect the first to be *we'?iN and I can't
> see why the form would be plural (the second alternative).  I'm assuming
a
> connection with [?]iN 'wear on the shoulders'.  One of those little
> mysteries that I can't solve, though the smaller they are, the more
> grateful I am.  Except that anything that simultaneously challenges the
> foundation block of second syllable or, better, second mora stress and
the
> morphophonemics of wa-i- can't be swept under the carpet without leaving
a
> bit of a bulge.

> I suppose this term might be the one used today for blanket, but I don't
> remember that.

Could it just be wa?iN' meaning 'that which is worn', with the glottal
stop being elided for lazy speech, while the moment originally alotted
to it is epenthetically taken up with oral /i/ as the jaw and tongue
move into position for the following /iN/ before the vellum opens the
passage to the nasal cavity?

The form *we'?iN apparently does exist in the term shoN'geweiN, meaning
'harness' ['thing-by-means-of-which-a-horse-draws-with-its-shoulders'],
as given in Fletcher & LaFlesche on page 621.

Rory


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Aug 28 22:19:23 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:19:23 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.171923.0500.>

John wrote:
> I wondered about fast speech and contraction, but elision usually
> affects dh and simple stops, not the tense series.

What are you referring to as "simple stops" here?  My understanding
has been that there are three series in Omaha: voiced unaspirated;
voiceless unaspirated, or tense; and voiceless aspirated.  Am I
missing a set?

Thanks,
Rory


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 00:19:17 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:19:17 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <OF4C9B2403.99D878AC-ON86256C23.00799B9D@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.181917.0600.>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> What are you referring to as "simple stops" here?  My understanding
> has been that there are three series in Omaha: voiced unaspirated;
> voiceless unaspirated, or tense; and voiceless aspirated.  Am I
> missing a set?

Only the ejectives, but I always overlook them in this context, too, so
essentially, no, you have them all.  Some might prefer to call the tense
series voiceless geminate or voiceless preaspirated (not really true in
OP, but mostly so in Osage).  They are, strictly speaking voiceless
unaspirated, too, and that is often the most perceptible quality they have
in OP.  However, they are not historically the voiceless unaspirated
series.  What is now the voiced series was formerly the voicless
unaspirated series *p > b, etc.  The corresponding series in Dakotan and
Osage are still voiceless aspirated.  I forget with Quapaw, but it's
complex there.

The tense series correspond to Dakotan clusters (OP tte vs. Da pte) or
aspirates (OP tta vs. Da tha).  Since I look at things historically a lot,
I tend to avoid calling the OP tense series the voiceless unaspirated
series.  It only confuses things in that context.  It's a perfectly valid
assessment, though, as far as things go synchronically in OP.

I also wouldn't call the voiced series voiced unaspirated, because, while
it's quite true, there aren't any voiced aspirated series in languages of
the region.  You might also call the voiced series lax (in opposition to
the tense series).

Simple, the term you asked about, is another term for voiced.  The
terminology arises from the fact that the other series behave like
clusters in syllable canons.  So, some people might treat the other series
as clusters or complex.  Or maybe only one of them, depending on what
school they followed.  I think most people don't treat them as clusters
today, or at least not Dakotan aspirates, but I decided sometime around
1980 that I didn't care one way or another - that it was primarily a
matter of intellectual fashion.  Still, fashion or not, I think in the 60s
you could lose your job and degree ex post facto for thinking incorrectly
on this.

There's also the old conundrum about neutralization, too, of course.  Are
the stops that combine with fricatives or resonants in clusters like sp or
bdh the same as the b that occurs alone as a syllable onset?  Or are they
neutralizations of the opposition b vs. ph vs. pp vs. p?.  Might they be
really positional variants of the tense series?  After all they are
unvoiced in sp, s^p, xp, etc.!  I also now refuse to get overly excited
about this.  I treat the p in sp and the b in bdh as variants of the b
that occurs alone, and don't worry too much about spelling one of the
variants with a p and the others with b.

I do notice that Ken Miner writes sg in Winnebago.  Maybe he got sick of
the argument, too.  Maybe he just wanted to be consistent.  You can get in
trouble that way, too.  At one point I wrote p for b, t for d, and k for g
in OP, arguing that voicing was predictable.  It also saved me having the
explain why it's ppethaN and.s^pethaN but bethaN.  Or so I thought, On the
other hand, I've spent the rest of my life saying, "No, p is pronounced
b!" to non-Omahas and "Sorry, it really is a b." to Omahas.

You can't win with this sort of thing ...


From are2 at buffalo.edu  Thu Aug 29 01:54:05 2002
From: are2 at buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:54:05 -0400
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208281750040.2502-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.215405.0400.>

I've transcribed waiiN as waiN and waiN: in my notes.
There is no glottal stop in the modern pronunciation.  It is frequently
used and can mean shawl, robe or blanket.  It comes up a lot at doings.
Regards,
Ardis

PS I don't think it is a loss of a glottal stop in fast speech, either.
Wa'u woman never becomes wau.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 06:41:13 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:41:13 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10208282149280.12334-100000@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.004113.0600.>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Ardis R Eschenberg wrote:
> PS I don't think it is a loss of a glottal stop in fast speech, either.
> Wa'u woman never becomes wau.

I agree.  The paradigm that are called glottal stop stems in Siouan
studies, the ones that inflect miN, z^iN, iN, aNiN in Omaha-Ponca, never
have any trace of [?].  Similarly, eaN 'how', which is presumably from e +
aN 'to do', where aN is a glottal stop stem, also never has [?].  I
included a (?) in the form only to draw attention to the root.

The only phonetic ? manifested in OP is ? from *k? or *x?.  Thus ?i 'to
give' has a?i as first person.  This matches Dakotan k?u. first person
wak?u.  For that matter, Osage has k?u, ak?u (Osage u is [u"]). Examples
with *x? are a bit harder to turn up, but wa?u that Ardis cites is one,
cf. Osage wak?o and Quapaw wax?o.  I believe that the CSD project
uncovered evidence that this characteristic Dhegiha 'woman' word derives
from an earlier form meaning something like 'matron, married woman'.  The
? here is not detectable except between vowels, since all V-initial words
have an epenthetic ?.  (At least I didn't notice any difference.)

There aren't any traces of *k or *s^ plus glottal stop stem leading to *k?
or *s^? in OP, either, these being the usual ways in which *? is
manifested phonetically in Siouan languages, apart from the any tendency
of ? to appear word initially or between vowels.  Essentially all the
Siouan languages have an epenthetic ? before word initial vowels, the
exception being Winnebago, which has epenthetic h instead.  (The Winnebago
are the Cockneys of the Siouan world.)  Interestingly, Winnebago doesn't
add h to ?-stems.  Somehow they know (or knew) ...  which makes you wonder
about the assertion that organic initial ? is indistinguishable from
epenthetic ?.  Perhaps by knowing what happens when prefixes are added?
At least in those languages where ? < *? is not observed between vowels.
Winnebago also has s^?  in the second person of ?-stems.

The main language with k? (in datives and inclusives) is Dakotan.  In OP
and other Dhegiha languages the first person in m- (< *w perhaps) and
second person in z^ (< *y perhaps, as that is a regular development) look
very "unglottalic."  Dakotan's second persons of ?-stems in n- look like
either *r-, i.e., n- < *r-VN... or, perhaps more likely, contamination
from *r-stems, i.e., n- < *s^-n....  In Omaha-Ponca this is the pattern of
verbs like 'the (sitting)', which is miNkhe, (s^)niNkhe, dhiNkhe and 'to
ask (a question)', which is imaNghe, i(s^)naNghe, idhaNghe ~ iwaNghe.
(That's the whole list of such verbs, I think.)

The precise nature of the initials of the ?-stems in Proto-Siouan remains
obscure.  In any event, *? figures in Proto-Siouan in ejectives,
glottalized fricatives, and the initials of glottal stop stems.  It
doesn't seem to occur, say, within roots between vowels.  Nothing like
Tahitian fa?a 'to make' (< PP *faka, I think).


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Thu Aug 29 15:11:41 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:11:41 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.101141.0500.>

> I've transcribed waiiN as waiN and waiN: in my notes.
> There is no glottal stop in the modern pronunciation.  It is frequently
> used and can mean shawl, robe or blanket.  It comes up a lot at doings.
> Regards,
> Ardis

> PS I don't think it is a loss of a glottal stop in fast speech, either.
> Wa'u woman never becomes wau.

Thanks, Ardis!

Wa?u' comes from wak?o', with the glottal stop being derived
fairly recently from /k?/.  Could someone remind me where OP
?iN, meaning to wear or draw with the shoulders, comes from?
Is that from *k?iN, or is there some other source for that
glottal?

Rory


From jmcbride at kayserv.net  Thu Aug 29 15:41:15 2002
From: jmcbride at kayserv.net (Justin McBride)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:41:15 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.104115.0500.>

> Wa?u' comes from wak?o', with the glottal stop being derived
> fairly recently from /k?/.  Could someone remind me where OP
> ?iN, meaning to wear or draw with the shoulders, comes from?
> Is that from *k?iN, or is there some other source for that
> glottal?

I assume so.  I know that the Kaw form k?iN means 'to pack or carry on the
back.'  It shows up in a few of the Dhegiha clan names, too.  Incidentally,
there are some good analogs for some of these clans throughout the family.
Here are just a scant few.

KAW
ke k?iN    'turtle carriers'
miN k?iN    'sun (or blanket?) carriers'

OMAHA
iNkesabe  (sp???) 'black shoulder'

-Justin


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 16:34:21 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:21 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <OF2FAF1F57.C48C8B42-ON86256C24.0052C88B@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.103421.0600.>

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> Wa?u' comes from wak?o', with the glottal stop being derived fairly
> recently from /k?/.  Could someone remind me where OP ?iN, meaning to
> wear or draw with the shoulders, comes from? Is that from *k?iN, or is
> there some other source for that glottal?

No, that's a separate verb, though possibility of a derivational
relationship exists.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 17:16:33 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:16:33 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <004f01c24f72$8315b860$1a77f0c7@Language>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.111633.0600.>

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Justin McBride wrote:
> I assume so.  I know that the Kaw form k?iN means 'to pack or carry on the
> back.'  It shows up in a few of the Dhegiha clan names, too.  Incidentally,
> there are some good analogs for some of these clans throughout the family.
> Here are just a scant few.
>
> KAW
> ke k?iN    'turtle carriers'
> miN k?iN    'sun (or blanket?) carriers'
>
> OMAHA
> iNkesabe  (sp???) 'black shoulder'

iNkhesabe (this k's one of the few aspirates).  The Omaha Schools scheme
has raised h for aspirates, which I've been writing H in email, by analogy
with N for raised n (or a nasal hook), so they would render this iNkHesabe
(with the appropriate substitutions for N and H).  This is a nice example
of a truncated (old C-final?) root in compounding, since the free form of
'shoulder' is iNkhede.  I've always been interested that the initial
syllable is nasalized, since the Proto-Siouan form is *khet-, and the
potential source for the iN that occurs to me is a 3rd person possessive
i-.

On the actual subject of this post, it is indeed strikign the way so many
Dhegiha clan names and sub-clan names go right across the various Dhegiha
groups.  This is a large part of what LaFlesche meant in refering to them
as "cognate tribes."  It must still produce a distinct feeling of
relatedness among the several groups, perhaps just as much as the degree
of linguistic association.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 17:21:11 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:21:11 -0600
Subject: OP waiiN 'robe'
In-Reply-To: <OF80F95E7E.8A74377C-ON86256C23.006D37E2@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.112111.0600.>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> Could it just be wa?iN' meaning 'that which is worn', with the glottal
> stop being elided for lazy speech, while the moment originally alotted
> to it is epenthetically taken up with oral /i/ as the jaw and tongue
> move into position for the following /iN/ before the vellum opens the
> passage to the nasal cavity?

I think that the "original" glottal stop (from *?, not *k?) is probably
simply never pronounced in Omaha-Ponca, so that its omission is not a fast
speech thing.  But the explanation of Dorsey's extra i as an epenthetic
sound, a transition between wa and iN, makes sense to me and seems
consistent with the forms Rory and Ardis are citing from personal
observation and other sources.  It offers a bit of insight into Dorsey's
transcriptional practices, too.


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 29 18:10:33 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:10:33 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.131033.0500.>

WaiN is just from *wa-?iN with an organic glottal stop.
I take it that Omaha never keeps those glottals -- only
the peculiar conjugation that went with them (compare
zha-miN,
zha-zhiN, zhiN  'think').

Proto-Siouan glottal stop only remains after consonants
in Omaha then, as far as I know.  And about the only
example(s) I can come up with right off is/are naNp?iN
and
wanaNp?iN 'wear about the neck', which contains the
same etymon as *wa?iN.

As far as I know the /?/ from /k?/ always remains in
Omaha and Ponca.  And of course it's preserved as /k?/
(or sometimes an original /x?) in Kaw, Osage and
Quapaw.  QU is the only one that preserves /x?/, the
other 2 merge it with /k?/.

Note that sequences of aNk-/aNg- '1st du/pl' followed
by ?V do not retain any trace of the glottal in Dhegiha
but do in Dakotan.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: <rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: waiN


>
> > I've transcribed waiiN as waiN and waiN: in my
notes.
> > There is no glottal stop in the modern
pronunciation.  It is frequently
> > used and can mean shawl, robe or blanket.  It comes
up a lot at doings.
> > Regards,
> > Ardis
>
> > PS I don't think it is a loss of a glottal stop in
fast speech, either.
> > Wa'u woman never becomes wau.
>
> Thanks, Ardis!
>
> Wa?u' comes from wak?o', with the glottal stop being
derived
> fairly recently from /k?/.  Could someone remind me
where OP
> ?iN, meaning to wear or draw with the shoulders,
comes from?
> Is that from *k?iN, or is there some other source for
that
> glottal?
>
> Rory
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 29 18:14:37 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:14:37 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.131437.0500.>

> I assume so.  I know that the Kaw form k?iN means 'to
pack or carry on the
> back.'  It shows up in a few of the Dhegiha clan
names, too.  Incidentally,
> there are some good analogs for some of these clans
throughout the family.

There are two distinct roots under discussion here.

Proto-Siouan *?iN   'to wear' (&homophone 'think') and

Proto-Siouan *k?iN 'to pack on the back, carry'

In Omaha, these two should come out /iN/ and /?iN/.
Someone with a bent toward instrumental phonetics might
want to make some recordings and see what they look
like.

bob


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Thu Aug 29 19:19:40 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:19:40 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.141940.0500.>

> There are two distinct roots under discussion here.

> Proto-Siouan *?iN   'to wear' (&homophone 'think') and

> Proto-Siouan *k?iN 'to pack on the back, carry'

> In Omaha, these two should come out /iN/ and /?iN/.
> Someone with a bent toward instrumental phonetics might
> want to make some recordings and see what they look
> like.

> bob

Thanks, Bob.  That clarifies things a lot.  I was
obviously confusing these two, which must be pronounced
identically in Omaha in the third person.

The meanings also seem close enough to be variants of a
single verb concept.  Just out of curiosity, suppose we
had an original Proto-Siouan verb *?iN, meaning to bear
on the back.  This verb then becomes used for robes and
other clothing that people generally bear on their backs,
so that it takes on the primary sense of 'wear'.  Then
when speakers want to refer to the original sense of
carrying things on the back in the sense of laboring
rather than wearing, they try to clarify their reference
by adding some sort of /ki-/ particle in front to get
*ki?iN' or some such, meaning literally 'carry one's own',
but in practice meaning 'carry a pack or a child', as
distinct from 'wear a robe'.  The accent is on the verb
root, and the /i/ in /ki-/ is eventually schwa-ed and
elided, leaving *k?iN, to pack something on the back,
vs. *?iN, meaning to wear on the back, as two separate
verb roots.  Does this hypothesis sound at all
plausible?

Rory

(Still slightly confused, but getting better!)


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 29 20:19:34 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:19:34 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.151934.0500.>

> > There are two distinct roots under discussion here.
> > Proto-Siouan *?iN   'to wear' (&homophone 'think')
and
> > Proto-Siouan *k?iN 'to pack on the back, carry'
> > In Omaha, these two should come out /iN/ and /?iN/.

> That clarifies things a lot.  I was
> obviously confusing these two, which must be
pronounced
> identically in Omaha in the third person.

Maybe.  That's my question.  Morphophonologically they
are distinct -- i.e., they conjugate very differently.
Phonemically, it would be interesting to run some tests
in the 3rd person in different contexts and find out
for sure.

> The meanings also seem close enough to be variants of
a
> single verb concept.  Just out of curiosity, suppose
we
> had an original Proto-Siouan verb *?iN, meaning to
bear
> on the back.

> . . . adding some sort of /ki-/ particle in front to
get
> *ki?iN' or some such, meaning literally 'carry one's
own',
> . . . the /i/ in /ki-/ is eventually schwa-ed and
> elided, leaving *k?iN, to pack something on the back,
> vs. *?iN, meaning to wear on the back, as two
separate
> verb roots.  Does this hypothesis sound at all
> plausible?

We do know that the vowel of pronominal prefixes and
certain other prefixes like ki- is lost in much of
Siouan.  So, phonologically, it is plausible.  But I
don't think there is any real evidence for it here.
Some of the languages that don't seem to lose the
requisite prefix vowel would have to retain evidence to
convince me.  Otherwise it's a bit like trying to
derive Romance vulpe 'fox' from vol- 'to fly' plus pes
'foot' because foxes are swift of foot. Something that
was tried by Roman grammarians.  :-)

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 21:56:17 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:17 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <OF701E26B3.21A135ED-ON86256C24.0066F527@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.155617.0600.>

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> > There are two distinct roots under discussion here.
> > Proto-Siouan *?iN   'to wear' (&homophone 'think') and
> > Proto-Siouan *k?iN 'to pack on the back, carry'
>
> The meanings also seem close enough to be variants of a
> single verb concept.  ...

I was thinking somewhat along these lines myself, though more abstractly.
The same verbs that have "short" or "syncopated" pronominals (b, p/t/k, m
for a; s^, z^ for dha) generally have "short" or "syncopated" possessive
prefixes, too, i.e., (g, k for gi).  For example, bdha'the 'I ate it' and
gdha'the 'he ate his own'.  I just picked a verb and ran it through the
rules, but I'm not sure this one would meet the approval of a native
speaker.

The problem would probably be that gdhathe would have to mean 'eat one's
own (relative)' not 'eat one's own (sandwich)'.  Possibly not, but I
thought I'd better admit that up front!

I believe I'm correct in recalling that dha-stems take g-dha- in
possessives, while ga-stems take gi-g-dha-, which seems to have something
to do with Mississippi Valley's *ka- instrumental being *(r)aka- in other
branches of Siouan.  Except for the dh-stems, where it's g-, the
syncpating possessive is gi-g-, though with the -g- fairly heavily fused
with the stem, initial, e.g., gikkaghe < gaghe, inflected agippaghe,
dhagis^kaghe, gikkaghe.  This is almost the sort of double inflection you
get with daNbe 'to see', e.g., attaNbe, dhas^daNbe, daNbe, but with the
addition of the intervening gi and the tensing of the stem initial in the
third person.

So, anyway, one might expect that a verb iN with first person miN might
have *kiN > giN or perhaps *k?iN > ?iN as its possessive form.  However,
I'm not aware of any (other?) ?-stems with possessives, so it's hard to
say if k?iN is one.

I do know that the dative of such stems is particularly weird, with the
morphosyntax gi-PRO-root, e.g., egimaN, egiz^aN, egaN 'I/you/he do so
(to/for someone)'.  Similarly, with h-stems, egiphe, egis^e, ege 'I/you/he
say (to someone)'.  Normally PRO would precede gi.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug  1 00:16:22 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:16:22 -0600
Subject: Caddo ethnic terms
In-Reply-To: <4294032881.1028107450@[192.168.2.36]>
Message-ID: <WED.31.JUL.2002.181622.0600.>

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote:
> Unlike John, I find it hard to let go of Mexicanos as the origin of ka:nos
> etc. It seems relevant that among the Tonkawas ka:nos did in fact mean
> Mexicans.

That information would change matters considerably.  I missed it earlier.
I thought the term was only attested as 'Frenchman'.

> So we have the Tonkawas with that meaning, and their neighbors,
> Caddos and others, with the meaning Frenchmen for what seems obviously to
> be the same word. Exactly how that happened, historically and
> sociopolitically, may be a puzzle, but clearly we need to know a lot more
> about how the name Mexicanos was being used where and at what time.

It occurs to me to wonder if the Caddo form means anything besides
'Frenchman'.  Any chance it means 'people who don't have a specific name'?


From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Thu Aug  1 02:28:36 2002
From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:28:36 -0700
Subject: Caddo ethnic terms
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0207311813330.23225-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.31.JUL.2002.192836.0700.>

On this one point, nope, it only means Frenchman. But that's only in modern
times. There has to have once been a period when it meant something more
general, I should think, in order to explain the switch, if that's indeed
what happened.

> It occurs to me to wonder if the Caddo form means anything besides
> 'Frenchman'.  Any chance it means 'people who don't have a specific name'?


From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu  Thu Aug  1 15:15:16 2002
From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:15:16 -0500
Subject: flat structures
Message-ID: <THU.1.AUG.2002.101516.0500.>

Shannon -- Williamson has configurational trees for Lakhota in her article
on internal-headed relative clauses.  (Janis S. Williamson, An
Indefiniteness Restriction for Relative Clauses in Lakhota, in E. Reuland
and A.G.B. ter Meulen (eds), The Representation of Indefiniteness.  MIT
Press 1987).   Also in her dissertation (Williamson 1984 Studies in Lakhota
Grammar, UC San Diego) there are trees which look configurational to me,
though she states in the introduction that Lakhota has "flat structure" and
"nonconfigurational phrase structure rules".  Maybe I don't understand what
"flat" means!!!   Or at least what W. means by it.

 I've assumed configurational structures for both nominal phrases (DP) and
clauses in various papers on Omaha-Ponca, though it's not clear to me just
HOW configurational it is --  the type of trees David and I both presented
in Boulder lst fall, with layers of functional heads, seem very plausible,
but I'd hesitate to try to argue for e.g. a VP constituent.  Williamson
does show a VP in some of her trees.

What are your thoughts on the issue?  I'd love to know.  Or do we have to
wait for your dissertation?

Catherine
-----------------------------------------




                      "Shannon West"
                      <shanwest at uvic.ca>          To:       "Siouan \(E-mail\)" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
                      Sent by:                    cc:
                      owner-siouan at lists.c        Subject:  flat structures
                      olorado.edu


                      07/24/02 03:42 PM
                      Please respond to
                      shanwest






I'm looking for references that refer to Siouan syntax as 'flat' or
'nonconfigurational'. Dakotan would be best, but all others are welcome
too.
I have a few, but the more I can get, the better.

Actually, any that say the structure is hierarchical would be nifty to have
too. I'm finding very little on that kind of syntax.

Any ideas?
Thanks.

Shannon


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Thu Aug  1 18:55:48 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:55:48 -0700
Subject: flat structures
In-Reply-To: <OF416BA23D.9BDD6957-ON86256C08.0051B4EA@wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.1.AUG.2002.115548.0700.>

Hi Catherine. Thanks for the reminder on the relative clause paper, I'd
forgotten that one.

>
> Shannon -- Williamson has configurational trees for Lakhota in her article
> on internal-headed relative clauses.  (Janis S. Williamson, An
> Indefiniteness Restriction for Relative Clauses in Lakhota, in E. Reuland
> and A.G.B. ter Meulen (eds), The Representation of Indefiniteness.  MIT
> Press 1987).   Also in her dissertation (Williamson 1984 Studies
> in Lakhota
> Grammar, UC San Diego) there are trees which look configurational to me,
> though she states in the introduction that Lakhota has "flat
> structure" and
> "nonconfigurational phrase structure rules".  Maybe I don't
> understand what
> "flat" means!!!   Or at least what W. means by it.

She's got a bunch of things called virtual structures, in which she needs
the VP, but says that there is no surface structure difference between
Subject and Object. I've been having fun with her work. :)

>  I've assumed configurational structures for both nominal phrases (DP) and
> clauses in various papers on Omaha-Ponca, though it's not clear to me just
> HOW configurational it is --  the type of trees David and I both presented
> in Boulder lst fall, with layers of functional heads, seem very plausible,
> but I'd hesitate to try to argue for e.g. a VP constituent.  Williamson
> does show a VP in some of her trees.

I love the functional categories, they work so well for so many things. I'm
not using a whole pile of them (I'm very carefully avoiding the issue), but
that's just because I don't need this thing turning into a 1000 page volume.

> What are your thoughts on the issue?  I'd love to know.  Or do we have to
> wait for your dissertation?

Heh. It's directly tied into the pronominal argument stuff I was talking
about last year. I'm trying very hard to make a case for DP arguments *and*
pronominal arguments, the explanation Randy favours. It makes the most sense
intuitively, but it's hard to get the theory to work. It would require that
sentences with 1st and 2nd person arguments be somehow non-configurational.
The verb would have to check features via movement. In the event of 3rd
person arguments, those occupy the normal configurational structure argument
positions (or possibly heads of discourse functional categories)

Something hit me a while back. It doesn't matter which way you look at it
(lexical arguments or pronominal arguments), 1st and 2nd person are
mandatorily pronominal arguments. In a lex.arg. theory, they're pro. In a
pro.arg. theory, they're affixes. I've pretty much satisfied myself that DPs
are in argument position (Binding Condition C, no apparent Wh-movement, and
whatnot), so it really is a split system. I just had to decide whether I
wanted the 1st and 2nd person arguments to be pro or affixes. And it makes
more sense to me, that they would be affixes. If they were pro, then the
affixes would be agreement, and it would be nice to remove that layer of
abstraction.

I say that I've "pretty much satisfied myself" with regard to the position
of DPs, because I just read something else that seemed wonderfully plausible
(Gotta both love and hate it when that happens). Russell and Reinholtz
(1999) wrote a fantastic article about configurationality and pronominal
arguments in Cree. Cree has long been touted as the posterboy for
non-configurational languages. Almost no one argues against the pronominal
arguments in it. But R&R say that just because the arguments are pronominal,
that doesn't necessarily make the DPs adjuncts. Instead, they put them into
configurationally  structured trees under the functional categories of Topic
and Focus. I'm trying to work out all the implications of that idea before I
jump on it, but it seems like a nifty alternative, especially since in
Nakota the only way to have an OSV structure is if the object is the focus.
But I've not got any of the details worked out.

My advisor just got back in town after a year's leave, so I'll have lots of
things to work out with her. I'll get back to you once I cement my ideas at
least a little. :)

All the best,
Shannon


From mmccaffe at indiana.edu  Fri Aug  2 21:43:04 2002
From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:43:04 -0500
Subject: Caddo ethnic terms
In-Reply-To: <E17ZeLl-0003XD-00@gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.AUG.2002.164304.0500.>

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote:

>
> >> What I do wonder about, now that I think about it, is the s^aglas^a family of
> >> terms, though probably not via this Dakotan version.  In other words, maybe
> >> the term originally was something like zakanas^, and lost its first syllable.
> >> I think zakanas^ or something like it is found in some Algonquian languages.
>
> Okay, duty calls again... :-)
>
> I think I might have talked about this with John K. many years ago, but the
> "(les) Anglais" term for Englishmen is all over non-Eastern and non-Plains
> Algonquian. The great majority of the time it still means 'Englishman', and
> *not* 'white person':
>
> Miami /aakalaah$ima/, /aanhkalaah$ima/
> Fox /sa:kana:$a/, Sauk /0a:kana:$a/, Kickapoo /0aakanaasa/
> Menominee /sa:kana:s/
>
> Ojibwean:
>
> Southwest Ojibwe /zhaaganaash/
> Ottawa /zhaagnaash/ 'whiteman, Englishman'
> Maniwaki /a:gane:$a:/ & /zha:gana:sh/
> Potawatomi /zhagnash/ 'Englishman'
>
> Cree-Montagnais:
>
> Plains Cree /akaya:siw/, Attikamek /e:kare:$$a:w/, Montagnais /ak at li$aw/ &
> Naskapi /ka:kiya:sa:w/.
>
> ($ = s-hacek, @ = schwa, 0 = theta)
>
> Note that while most of the languages retain a trace of the sibilant in the
> French article 'les', the article is missing from the Miami, Maniwaki
> Ojibwe, and the various Cree dialect forms.
>
> The odd one out here is Shawnee, which has an old word for 'Englishman'
> which can probably be phonemicized as /me:kilesima:na/. This seems to be
> taken straight from the English word "Englishman"; I admittedly can't really
> explain the initial /m/, unless it's influenced by the initial /m/ of
> Shawnee's word for 'white man', /mtekohsiya/ (/tekohsiya/ by the 20th
> century). Either way, this is yet another example of Shawnee NOT borrowing
> from French when everyone else did.
>
> David


The initial m- in this term could be a Shawnee attempt to catch the
indefinite article 'an' that is elided with the first syllable of
"Englishman," i.e., [@ nINglI$m at n]. In other words maybe it is
*Nenglishman that became Shawnee */me:kilesima:na/.

But yes, the Shawnee had little opportunity to borrow from the French in
early historical times. Even in 1671-2, when Marquette was learning
Illinois from a Illinois slave boy held by the Ojibwa, the French had not
yet encountered the Shawnee. The first Shawnee-French meeting I'm aware of
was on the banks of the St. Josephy River (of Lake Michigan) around 1680,
when a small band of Shawnee met La Salle there.

Michael


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sat Aug  3 21:01:09 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 15:01:09 -0600
Subject: Assiniboine verbs with verbal complements requiring -pi
In-Reply-To: <200207301853.NAA23208@iupui.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.3.AUG.2002.150109.0600.>

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Linda Cumberland wrote:
> This is a follow-up to the list I distributed at the conference last
> month, of verbs that require either -pi or -kta on verbal
> complements, e.g.:
>
>     wachipi wachi~ka     'I want to dance'
>     wachikta washka~     'I'm trying to dance'
>     wachipi i~mnushki~   'I enjoy dancing'

I looked at some of these in OP without turning anything new up.

I did notice that OP verbs under imperatives don't repeat the subject,
something I hadn't realized before (or had forgotten):

iNwiN'kkaN    was^kaN'=ga                  JOD 1890:642.3
(you)-me-help try      IMP

a'kkihide           was^kaN' gi'=i= ga     JOD 1890:695.4-5
(you) attend to it try      return IMP

I also noticed that was^kaN often has an instrumental and suffix (not the
causative, as it isn't inflected itself) attached, though I couldn't
discern why:

aNwaN'dhittaN  aNwaNgas^kaNdha=i           JOD 1890:680.12
we work        we try it
< wa-dhittaN   < wa-ga-s^kaN-dhe

I also noticed an interesting case in which an instrumental was repeated,
apparently to clarify or make more transparent irregular morphology:

u's^kaN  i'kkigdhagas^kaNdha=bi= ama       JOD 1890:230.19
deed     he tried it for himself QUOTE

Here the underlying stem is ga-s^kaN-dhe as in the preceding example.
Adding the reflexive kki (here with benefactive sense) to ga- should
produce kki-g-dha-, with transformation of ga- to g-dha-, but kki-g-dha-ga
is what appears.  (There is also a locative i- in the actual verb.)  This
is analogous to the change of ka- to g-la- in Dakotan, in the suus.  In
Omaha-Ponca, ga- changes to gi-g-dha- there.  The additional gi- then
distinguishes this from the case of dha-, which becomes just g-dha-,
comparable to Dakotan ya- becoming g-la-.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug  8 06:59:08 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:59:08 -0600
Subject: Black Again
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.005908.0600.>

Here's a little comparative footnote that might particularly interest Bob
Rankin.  Leaving aside the issue of sound symbolism, Siouan languages tend
to have two roots for 'black'.  One is *sap(e), the other is *sep(e),
yielding, e.g., Da sapa or OP sabe and IO sewe or Wi seep.  A few
languages have both, e.g., Qu sa 'black (near)', s^ape 'black (disant)',
sewe 'black'.  Some languages conract things to -sp-.

I can now transfer Omaha-Ponca to the two term category.  The other day I
noticed in Fletcher & LaFlesche, p. 177, a female name Mi'sebe (Mi'c,ebe)
glossed 'dark or shadowy moon'.  This is a name in the TesiNde clan.

Of course, names can be borrowed, so one might argue that the name was
adapted from, say, Ioway-Otoe, but, one might as easily argue, at this
point, anyway, that the stative verb se'be is a relict preserved only in
this name.  I haven't noticed it elsewhere, certainly, and it doesn't
occur in the Dorsey texts.  Perhaps evidence of a pattern of borrowing
names in the TesiNde clan might sway matters in favor of a loan, but I
don't know of any such evidence, and at our present state of Siouan
philology such evidence might be difficult produce.

SInce this is the second case of both *sap(e) and *sep(e) in a Dhegiha
language, perhaps the presence of both forms is characteristic of Dhegiha?


From alber033 at tc.umn.edu  Thu Aug  8 17:17:19 2002
From: alber033 at tc.umn.edu (Patricia Albers)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:17:19 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.121719.0500.>

Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
gypsum, also loosely called mica?

Pat Albers
Chair, Department of American Indian Studies
2 Scott Hall
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612)-625-8050


From jggoodtracks at juno.com  Thu Aug  8 17:38:55 2002
From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:38:55 -0500
Subject: Proverbs (whistling)
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.123855.0500.>

I was going through some old EM's, and came to your responce below.  I
would be interested in a list of these "sayings" from the older Ponca in
White Eagle.  I wonder how many I would recognize, and how similar/
different they may be from Otoe-Missouria, Ioways and Pawnees?
Jimm GoodTracks

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:26:28 -0600 "TLeonard-tulsa.com"
<tleonard at prodigy.net> writes:
>  JEK wrote:
>  I seem to recall a comparable warning for either Dakota or Omaha along
the
> lines of "Don't whistle, you sound like a ghost."  Presumably sounding
like
> a ghost is bad because one either becomes one or summons one.
>
>  I've heard similar admonishments from older Ponca folks around White
Eagle,
> Oklahoma. The one I always heard was: "Don't whistle while your outside
at
> night. You'll attract ghosts."
>  The one I always loved was: "Don't eat too much fish. They'll make
your
> hair  grey."
>
>  Have recordings of these and others in Ponca.
>  TML


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Aug  9 03:21:15 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:21:15 -0600
Subject: Black Again (fwd)
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.212115.0600.>

Anthony asked me to pos tthis for him:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:45:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: Koontz John E <koontz at spot.colorado.edu>
To: Anthony Grant <Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Black Again

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Anthony Grant wrote:
> an interesting note!  Given the nature of subgrouping within Dhegiha, I
> think the sapa/sepe distinction can be safely projected back to
> Proto-Dhegiha.  (But then its existence in Quapaw would have pretty much
> suggested this anyway).  It's a pair I've often wondered about myself.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Aug  9 04:35:35 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:35:35 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330101b9785792100c@[160.94.64.17]>
Message-ID: <THU.8.AUG.2002.223535.0600.>

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
> Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
> gypsum, also loosely called mica?

Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?

Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.

I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
below.)

The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:

khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
     River)
wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'

Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.

A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).

Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
(mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.

The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.

===

I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:

moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')

iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
     (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
     The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.

I also noticed:

iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'

===

Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:

ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')

And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).

===

The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
clear'.

I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
you need to know more standard lettering.

JEK


From alber033 at tc.umn.edu  Fri Aug  9 17:21:47 2002
From: alber033 at tc.umn.edu (Patricia Albers)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:21:47 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208082129320.7422-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.9.AUG.2002.122147.0500.>


I have also explored all of these sources and came up with what you
kindly shared from Lakota/Dakota sources but the Osage words I did
not know. There is really a derth of linguistic material, as far as I
can tell, on words for varieties of stone, clay, and mineral in
Lakota and Dakota dictionary sources. In this regard,  I have  been
trying to track down the term icage, which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221,
222-223, 227-228) gives to describe 'white fruits' growing under the
earth, suggesting the crystalline formations in caves. In Walker's
literary rendition of the Lakota genesis story, Taku Skan Skan made
entrails from these fruits and molded a male and a female figure (pp.
225-226). Like the Cheyennes, the Lakotas sprinkled powdered gypsum
on the ground to mark off the altar at their Sun Dance (Densmore
1918, p. 122. The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as "frost."
Could icage  come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84; Buechel
1970, p. 113). Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs
1968, p.171; Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related
word, icago, refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on
something (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name
for a sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835).
	Yes, yuwi'pi are transparent stones,including the crystalline
ones that ants push up from their underground tunnels.  Another word
used for stones with transparent qualities was Inyan zanzan in
Williamson and also in one of the texts in the Buechel collection.




>On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
>>  Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
>>  gypsum, also loosely called mica?
>
>Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
>When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
>Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?
>
>Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.
>
>I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
>this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
>below.)
>
>The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:
>
>khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
>      River)
>wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'
>
>Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
>me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
>not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
>hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
>dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.
>
>A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
>Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
>in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
>know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).
>
>Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
>(mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
>now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
>That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
>means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.
>
>The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
>that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
>compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.
>
>===
>
>I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:
>
>moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')
>
>iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
>      (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
>      The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.
>
>I also noticed:
>
>iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'
>
>===
>
>Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:
>
>ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')
>
>And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).
>
>===
>
>The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
>stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
>clear'.
>
>I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
>you need to know more standard lettering.
>
>JEK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020809/4fa6dd2e/attachment.htm>

From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Fri Aug  9 20:51:41 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:51:41 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330100b979a3367e59@[128.101.249.209]>
Message-ID: <FRI.9.AUG.2002.145141.0600.>

I don't know much about ceremonial affairs, including vocabulary, but
etymologically _icaga_ is the verb _kaga_ 'make' with an instrumental
prefix, so it literally means 'to make with, to use to make', and should
take objects that are tools or ingredients.  Any verb with this extremely
vague meaning is of course subject to many kinds of specialization.
It sounds like the meanings you've uncovered are exactly the kinds
of semantic narrowings one would expect -- and the eytmology is, of
course, no help whatsoever when that happens.



David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:

>
> I have also explored all of these sources and came up with what you
> kindly shared from Lakota/Dakota sources but the Osage words I did
> not know. There is really a derth of linguistic material, as far as I
> can tell, on words for varieties of stone, clay, and mineral in
> Lakota and Dakota dictionary sources. In this regard,  I have  been
> trying to track down the term icage, which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221,
> 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe 'white fruits' growing under the
> earth, suggesting the crystalline formations in caves. In Walker's
> literary rendition of the Lakota genesis story, Taku Skan Skan made
> entrails from these fruits and molded a male and a female figure (pp.
> 225-226). Like the Cheyennes, the Lakotas sprinkled powdered gypsum
> on the ground to mark off the altar at their Sun Dance (Densmore
> 1918, p. 122. The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as "frost."
> Could icage  come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84; Buechel
> 1970, p. 113). Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs
> 1968, p.171; Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related
> word, icago, refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on
> something (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name
> for a sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835).
> 	Yes, yuwi'pi are transparent stones,including the crystalline
> ones that ants push up from their underground tunnels.  Another word
> used for stones with transparent qualities was Inyan zanzan in
> Williamson and also in one of the texts in the Buechel collection.
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
> >>  Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
> >>  gypsum, also loosely called mica?
> >
> >Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
> >When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
> >Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?
> >
> >Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.
> >
> >I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
> >this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
> >below.)
> >
> >The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:
> >
> >khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
> >      River)
> >wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'
> >
> >Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
> >me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
> >not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
> >hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
> >dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.
> >
> >A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
> >Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
> >in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
> >know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).
> >
> >Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
> >(mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
> >now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
> >That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
> >means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.
> >
> >The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
> >that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
> >compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.
> >
> >===
> >
> >I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:
> >
> >moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')
> >
> >iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
> >      (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
> >      The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.
> >
> >I also noticed:
> >
> >iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'
> >
> >===
> >
> >Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:
> >
> >ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')
> >
> >And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).
> >
> >===
> >
> >The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
> >stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
> >clear'.
> >
> >I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
> >you need to know more standard lettering.
> >
> >JEK
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Aug  9 20:53:36 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:53:36 -0500
Subject: Siouan "khagha" ~ "ichagha"
Message-ID: <FRI.9.AUG.2002.155336.0500.>

Re: gypsum or "mica"This verb apparently meant 'make marks' originally.  In the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages it has been generalized to 'make' in the modern languages.  The older, common Siouan verb 'make, so' is/was ?uN.  

Sorry I can't help with the mineral terms.  It is a real problem for all of us that cultural vocabulary has not been collected in sufficient detail in most Siouan languages.  In a few instances, such as ethnobotany, talented scientists of particular disciplines (in this case botany) have visited communities and collected a good many more terms than linguists did.  I haven't heard of any mineralogists who have done that however.  

Bob

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Patricia Albers 
  To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu 
  Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:21 PM
  Subject: Re: gypsum or "mica"




  I have also explored all of these sources and came up with what you kindly shared from Lakota/Dakota sources but the Osage words I did not know. There is really a derth of linguistic material, as far as I can tell, on words for varieties of stone, clay, and mineral in Lakota and Dakota dictionary sources. In this regard,  I have  been trying to track down the term icage, which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221, 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe 'white fruits' growing under the earth, suggesting the crystalline formations in caves. In Walker's literary rendition of the Lakota genesis story, Taku Skan Skan made entrails from these fruits and molded a male and a female figure (pp. 225-226). Like the Cheyennes, the Lakotas sprinkled powdered gypsum on the ground to mark off the altar at their Sun Dance (Densmore 1918, p. 122. The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as "frost."  Could icage  come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84; Buechel 1970, p. 113). Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs 1968, p.171; Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related word, icago, refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on something (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name for a sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835). 
          Yes, yuwi'pi are transparent stones,including the crystalline ones that ants push up from their underground tunnels.  Another word used for stones with transparent qualities was Inyan zanzan in Williamson and also in one of the texts in the Buechel collection.
          


          


    On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
    > Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
    > gypsum, also loosely called mica?

    Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
    When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
    Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?

    Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.

    I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
    this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
    below.)

    The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:

    khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
         River)
    wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'

    Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
    me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
    not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
    hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
    dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.

    A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
    Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
    in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
    know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).

    Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
    (mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
    now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
    That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
    means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.

    The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
    that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
    compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.

    ===

    I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:

    moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')

    iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
         (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
         The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.

    I also noticed:

    iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'

    ===

    Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:

    ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')

    And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).

    ===

    The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
    stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
    clear'.

    I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
    you need to know more standard lettering.

    JEK


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020809/d66120e7/attachment.htm>

From rankin at ku.edu  Sat Aug 10 15:39:18 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:39:18 -0500
Subject: Siouan "khagha" ~ "ichagha"
Message-ID: <SAT.10.AUG.2002.103918.0500.>

Re: gypsum or "mica"Sorry, my slip.  I meant Dakota /ka'gha/, not with an aspirated /kh/.  

Bob

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: R. Rankin 
  To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu 
  Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Siouan "khagha" ~ "ichagha"


  This verb apparently meant 'make marks' originally.  In the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages it has been generalized to 'make' in the modern languages.  The older, common Siouan verb 'make, so' is/was ?uN.  

  Sorry I can't help with the mineral terms.  It is a real problem for all of us that cultural vocabulary has not been collected in sufficient detail in most Siouan languages.  In a few instances, such as ethnobotany, talented scientists of particular disciplines (in this case botany) have visited communities and collected a good many more terms than linguists did.  I haven't heard of any mineralogists who have done that however.  

  Bob

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Patricia Albers 
    To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu 
    Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:21 PM
    Subject: Re: gypsum or "mica"




    I have also explored all of these sources and came up with what you kindly shared from Lakota/Dakota sources but the Osage words I did not know. There is really a derth of linguistic material, as far as I can tell, on words for varieties of stone, clay, and mineral in Lakota and Dakota dictionary sources. In this regard,  I have  been trying to track down the term icage, which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221, 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe 'white fruits' growing under the earth, suggesting the crystalline formations in caves. In Walker's literary rendition of the Lakota genesis story, Taku Skan Skan made entrails from these fruits and molded a male and a female figure (pp. 225-226). Like the Cheyennes, the Lakotas sprinkled powdered gypsum on the ground to mark off the altar at their Sun Dance (Densmore 1918, p. 122. The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as "frost."  Could icage  come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84; Buechel 1970, p. 113). Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs 1968, p.171; Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related word, icago, refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on something (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name for a sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835). 
            Yes, yuwi'pi are transparent stones,including the crystalline ones that ants push up from their underground tunnels.  Another word used for stones with transparent qualities was Inyan zanzan in Williamson and also in one of the texts in the Buechel collection.
            


            


      On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
      > Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
      > gypsum, also loosely called mica?

      Interesting!  I'd never heard of a connection in English terminology.
      When you read of mica as something traded, say, within the Hopewell
      Interaction Sphere (term?), which do they mean?

      Here are a few ideas struggling toward being a non-answer.

      I checked in Ingham, Buechel, and Williamson without any luck.  I suspect
      this simply reflects a hole in these dictionaries' coverage.  (See Osage
      below.)

      The only minerals listed in Buechel (under stones) are:

      khaNghi't[h]ame 'black shale' (a black. smooth stone found along the White
           River)
      wahiN ~ waNhi 'flint'

      Yuwi'pi is defined as 'transparent stones' in the same article, which to
      me suggests quartz or some other mineral at least translucent, but I am
      not a student of yuwipi.  I did notice yuwi'pi was^i'c^uN 'a sacred round
      hard stone that is supposed to have power in the hands of those who have
      dreamed' - for those who have been following the was^i'c^uN discussion.

      A syllable like 'me' is quite unusual in Lakota.  It reflects
      Proto-Mississippi Valley *W ((as opposed to *w), which normally becomes b
      in Santee as depicted in Riggs and turns up as w or m in Buechel.  I don't
      know why sometimes m (maybe when the underlying stem is BaN? - cf. Riggs).

      Since Riggs gives be 'to hatch, as fowls.  Same as maN" I assume that me
      (mAN, a nasal ablauting stem?) had a similar gloss at some point, but is
      now moribund.  It doesn't occur in Buechel - and neither does we or maN.
      That suggests that khaNghi' ['crow'] tha [ALIENABLE] me {cf. be or baN?)
      means something like 'crow('s) egg(s)' or 'crow('s) hatchling(s)'.

      The root hiN in 'flint' is pan-Siouan and tends not to change much, except
      that it is sometimes hard hit by contracting and largely hidden in
      compound terms for 'knife' or 'projectile point'.

      ===

      I found both terms in LaFlesche's Osage Dictionary:

      moNiN'hka ska 'gypsum' (literally 'white earth' or 'white clay')

      iN'hkoNpa 'mica; a tumbler for drinking water'
           (literally iN 'stone' + hkoNpa 'be light, transparent')
           The stem hkoNpa is not listed separately.

      I also noticed:

      iN'hkoNhkoNdha 'friable rock or stone.  A symbol used in rituals.'

      ===

      Back tracking these in Lakota, I did find in Buechel:

      ma[n]k[h]a saN 'whitish or yellowish clay'  (Vermillion is 'red clay')

      And then, of course, yuwi'pi is/are described as (a) transparent stone(s).

      ===

      The Omaha Pebble Society refers to the pebble as iN'kkugdhi 'translucent
      stone'.  The form kku'gdhi is cognate with Lakota khogli 'translucent,
      clear'.

      I apologize for the use of "NetSiouan" orthogaphy.  I can clarify it if
      you need to know more standard lettering.

      JEK


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020810/da888eb7/attachment.htm>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sat Aug 10 21:30:08 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:30:08 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330100b979a3367e59@[128.101.249.209]>
Message-ID: <SAT.10.AUG.2002.153008.0600.>

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
> ... In this regard, I have been trying to track down the term icage,
> which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221, 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe
> 'white fruits' growing under the earth, suggesting the crystalline
> formations in caves. ... The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as
> "frost."  Could icage come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84;
> Buechel 1970, p. 113).

It may help to realize that c^ha'gha 'ice' (compounding form is c^hax) has
an initial aspirated c^ (usually written just c in Buechel) as opposed to
the unaspirated c^ of -c^aghe in ic^a'ghe, usually written with c-overdot
in Buechel.

Note:  Actually ptck with no marking would be in principle ambiguous in
Buechel.  A ptck with an opening apostrophe (or half circle) adjacent
upper right would be unambiguously aspirated, and a ptck with an overdot
would be unambiguously unaspirated.  It's a two-way contrast encoded in
three series of symbols, representing Buechel's attempt to improve upon
the Riggs system which uses only a single ambiguous series.  However,
hearing aspiration with c^ is harder (and I believe c^ never receives the
velarized aspiration characteristic of Teton Lakota), so c essentially
never receives the aspiration mark.  Usually, however, an undotted c is
c^h.

Note:  Also, gh is not aspirated.  It's just a fumbling attempt to
represent gamma (voiced velar fricative).  Buechel uses g-overdot or, in
the English index, just g.  We can't do that easily on this list because
too many Siouan languages have g as a voiced stop.  I guess it depends
what type of confusion you like.  The list is somewhat dominated by
comparativists trying to use a single scheme across all the languages.
But you will find lots of examples of use of popular orthographies that
fit ASCII better, too!

Returning to the subject, icage written just like that (assuming no
diacritics are missing) could be either ic^ha'ghe or ic^a'ghe.  Only a
native speaker familiar with Walker's usage could say which.  If the first
form exists, but is specialized usage, not widely known, it's possible a
native speaker might assume the latter incorrectly.  If the first form
exists, it's possible it has something to do with c^ha'gha 'ice'.

Note:  However, 'frost' is given in Ingham and Buechel (for Teton) as
xeyuN'ka.  The Santee form is xewaN'ka or wo{']tasaka in Williamson, while
Riggs gives xewaN'ke and says Teton has xeyuN'ke.  That's as much
difference among the sources as I've noticed in some time.  The yuNk- ~
waN'k- alternation reflects dialect variants of the 'sitting' positional
auxiliary.

Although the Riggs vs. Buechel and the others' testimony on the final
vowel reminds us that there are contexts in which final a alternates with
final e, there are no attested -e variants with the c^hax- root that I
know of, and xe-SIT-e vs. xe-SIT-a variation is the only suggestion that
such a variation is possible in something like this context.  (Of course,
OP nughe, Osage naNghe, IO nuxe ~ noNxe 'ice' show that there is an
e-final version of this somewhat irregular stem set in Mississippi Valley
Siouan general.)  In Dakotan specifically, usually you find final a ~ e in
connection with non-possessed vs. possessed, e.g.  s^uN'ka vs. thas^uN'ke
'his particular horse' (said to be an obsolete form).  Supporting this,
many body part terms take final -e', but have a compounding stem that is
consonant final.  There are some other a ~ e alternation contexts but I
don't feel I understand the details.  To some extent e makes sense as
marker of 'specificity'.

To summarize, ic^haghe having something to do with c^ha'gha 'ice' is not
impossible, but probably would require more support.  There's also the
issue of explaining the i- in this case.  The best I could come up with is
an irregularly denasalized iN- , the compounding form if 'stone', i.e.,
perhaps something like 'frozen stone'.

The possibility ic^a'gha from ka'gha (see below) makes more sense.

> Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs 1968, p.171;
> Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related word, icago,
> refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on something
> (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name for a
> sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835).

Here it's ic^a'ghe from ka'gha 'to make', as David Rood points out.  The
shift of k to c^ or kh to c^h after i is essentually regular.  This form
is essentially a nominalization of ic^agha 'to make something with
soething'.  (This is one of those a ~ e contexts I'm not sure of.)  If you
look in the surrounding articles, you can see that ic^a'gha has other less
transparent meanings:  'to spring up (as grass, a child, etc.); to
become'. Also 'to skim off', perhaps only compounded with ic^hu', i.e.,
ic^a'ghe ic^hu'.  It also participates in some constructions meaning
'together', e.g., ic^a'gheya 'together'.  I don't think any of these are
relevant, though the specific example of 'to become' given was iN'yaN
ic^agha 'to become a stone'.

Note:  Ic^a'gha is a stative verb inflectionally - imac^agha - though
plainly it takes two arguments in syntactic terms, so this is one of the
somewhat overlooked Siouan experiencer verbs.

I think ic^a'gho 'to make a mark, draw a line, sketch' (or the thing so
produced, as a noun) is simply a different stem, probably the root is gho,
with prefixed ka 'by force' (which becomes c^a after i). It does occur to
me that the 'make marks' version of *kax that appears in Ioway-Otoe and
Winnebago might owe something of its semantics to interactions with a
Proto-Siouan version of this stem.  There's no "change to o" or "add o
suffix" morphological rule in Dakotan.  If one added ic^ax to a verb stem
o, one would get ic^axo, not ic^agho.

Waki'c^agha < wa - ki - kagha is 'to make something for someone; what is
made for someone', the detransitivized form waki'c^agha from the dative
ki'c^agha from ka'gha.

In checking into this form I notice that Buechel gives kic^a'gha (with
c-overdot, so explicit lack of aspiration) as 'to become ice again'. Is
this correct?


From rankin at ku.edu  Sat Aug 10 22:10:15 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:10:15 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <SAT.10.AUG.2002.171015.0500.>

> I think ic^a'gho 'to make a mark, draw a line,
sketch' (or the thing so
> produced, as a noun) is simply a different stem,
probably the root is gho,
> with prefixed ka 'by force' (which becomes c^a after
i).

Yes, the Kaw stem is igazo w/ a Quapaw cognate.
Substituting -zo instead of -gho.  And the prefix is
the instrumental.

In kaghe~a 'make (marks)' the ka- is part of the verb
root, not a prefix.  This stem refers to making marks
and/or scratches in languages as different and as
distant as Crow and Winnebago-Chiwere.  And in Quapaw
the redup form, wakakaghe is 'movie'.  So it would seem
that the original semantics were more specific than
just 'make' alone.

Alas, this doesn't help us with the 'mica' problem
much.  Best thing to do is find speakers who know and
ask them for help.

Bob


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Sun Aug 11 15:23:55 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 09:23:55 -0600
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208101405400.12357-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.11.AUG.2002.092355.0600.>

First, I resist writing the "gh" for the gamma; the letter g unambiguously
spells gamma before a vowel and the voiced velar stop in other positions;
the only reason for ever using a diacritic is to help you remember
that rule.

Second, neither Buechel nor Riggs ever, to my knowledge, acknowledged that
there is an aspiration contrast for "c".  You can't rely on either one of
them for that distinction.  Buechel's three-way distinction for ptk that
John describes is a consequence of evolution.  His early notes leave
aspirated forms unmarked and put the dots on the unaspirated ones.  His
later notes put the aspiration mark on the aspirated ones and leave the
plain ones unmarked.  But when they typed his notes to produce the
dictionary, they didn't tell us which ones were new and which ones were
old, so we can't tell whether an unmarked letter is an old aspiration or a
new plain recording.  Riggs never marked aspiration regularly at all.


Third, while "ice" is always aspirated, as John points out, you'll have
to check with the native speakers for the "icaga" pronunciatiion -- and it
may not help.  Unfortunately, all the palatalized forms of "kaga" that I'm
familiar with EXCEPTIONALLY aspirate that initial when it changes from "k"
to "c"; the best examples are the dative/benefactives, which go from kaga
to kichaga.  My little note in the volume of IJAL that was dedicated to
Eric Hamp speculates, on the basis of comparative evidence, that the "ch"
in this case is not from the "k" at all, but from PSI *y.  There is a
tendency that I haven't been able to find rules for for "k" to disappear
between vowels in derived forms.  I speculate that that's what happened to
kicaga.  Since PSi *y regularly gives aspirated "ch" in Dakotan (cf.
heart, wood, etc.), the sequence is: ***ki-kaga > **ki-aga > *ki -yaga
(epenthetic y; note that this is "edh" in Dhegiha) > ki-chaga.
	The problem is that I don't know whether "icaga" is old enough to
follow this sequence, or whether it's a newer form from i-kaga which, if
productively derived by currently used rules, would give unaspirated "c".
	The point is that even if the "c" of the 'stones' form is
aspirated, we still don't know whether it's from 'ice' or 'make'.

Frankly, I forgot about 'ice' when this discussion first came up, but
semantically that's a much more likely source than 'make'.  Chaga can be a
verb meaning 'for ice to form' (amachaga 'little bits of ice formed on
me'), but I'm not coming up with any good ideas to explain the use of "i-"
here.  Aren't there any native speakers out there reading this who can
help us?


David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Patricia Albers wrote:
> > ... In this regard, I have been trying to track down the term icage,
> > which Walker (1983, pp. 220-221, 222-223, 227-228) gives to describe
> > 'white fruits' growing under the earth, suggesting the crystalline
> > formations in caves. ... The Cheyenne sometimes refer to gypsum as
> > "frost."  Could icage come from the word caga (Riggs 1968, p. 84;
> > Buechel 1970, p. 113).
>
> It may help to realize that c^ha'gha 'ice' (compounding form is c^hax) has
> an initial aspirated c^ (usually written just c in Buechel) as opposed to
> the unaspirated c^ of -c^aghe in ic^a'ghe, usually written with c-overdot
> in Buechel.
>
> Note:  Actually ptck with no marking would be in principle ambiguous in
> Buechel.  A ptck with an opening apostrophe (or half circle) adjacent
> upper right would be unambiguously aspirated, and a ptck with an overdot
> would be unambiguously unaspirated.  It's a two-way contrast encoded in
> three series of symbols, representing Buechel's attempt to improve upon
> the Riggs system which uses only a single ambiguous series.  However,
> hearing aspiration with c^ is harder (and I believe c^ never receives the
> velarized aspiration characteristic of Teton Lakota), so c essentially
> never receives the aspiration mark.  Usually, however, an undotted c is
> c^h.
>
> Note:  Also, gh is not aspirated.  It's just a fumbling attempt to
> represent gamma (voiced velar fricative).  Buechel uses g-overdot or, in
> the English index, just g.  We can't do that easily on this list because
> too many Siouan languages have g as a voiced stop.  I guess it depends
> what type of confusion you like.  The list is somewhat dominated by
> comparativists trying to use a single scheme across all the languages.
> But you will find lots of examples of use of popular orthographies that
> fit ASCII better, too!
>
> Returning to the subject, icage written just like that (assuming no
> diacritics are missing) could be either ic^ha'ghe or ic^a'ghe.  Only a
> native speaker familiar with Walker's usage could say which.  If the first
> form exists, but is specialized usage, not widely known, it's possible a
> native speaker might assume the latter incorrectly.  If the first form
> exists, it's possible it has something to do with c^ha'gha 'ice'.
>
> Note:  However, 'frost' is given in Ingham and Buechel (for Teton) as
> xeyuN'ka.  The Santee form is xewaN'ka or wo{']tasaka in Williamson, while
> Riggs gives xewaN'ke and says Teton has xeyuN'ke.  That's as much
> difference among the sources as I've noticed in some time.  The yuNk- ~
> waN'k- alternation reflects dialect variants of the 'sitting' positional
> auxiliary.
>
> Although the Riggs vs. Buechel and the others' testimony on the final
> vowel reminds us that there are contexts in which final a alternates with
> final e, there are no attested -e variants with the c^hax- root that I
> know of, and xe-SIT-e vs. xe-SIT-a variation is the only suggestion that
> such a variation is possible in something like this context.  (Of course,
> OP nughe, Osage naNghe, IO nuxe ~ noNxe 'ice' show that there is an
> e-final version of this somewhat irregular stem set in Mississippi Valley
> Siouan general.)  In Dakotan specifically, usually you find final a ~ e in
> connection with non-possessed vs. possessed, e.g.  s^uN'ka vs. thas^uN'ke
> 'his particular horse' (said to be an obsolete form).  Supporting this,
> many body part terms take final -e', but have a compounding stem that is
> consonant final.  There are some other a ~ e alternation contexts but I
> don't feel I understand the details.  To some extent e makes sense as
> marker of 'specificity'.
>
> To summarize, ic^haghe having something to do with c^ha'gha 'ice' is not
> impossible, but probably would require more support.  There's also the
> issue of explaining the i- in this case.  The best I could come up with is
> an irregularly denasalized iN- , the compounding form if 'stone', i.e.,
> perhaps something like 'frozen stone'.
>
> The possibility ic^a'gha from ka'gha (see below) makes more sense.
>
> > Icage means "something to make with" (Riggs (Riggs 1968, p.171;
> > Buechel 1970, p. 199).  Another and probably related word, icago,
> > refers to a mark or line that is drawn or sketched on something
> > (Buechel, p. 199),and Buechel also gives wakicaga as a name for a
> > sacred ceremony (Buechel 1970, p. 835).
>
> Here it's ic^a'ghe from ka'gha 'to make', as David Rood points out.  The
> shift of k to c^ or kh to c^h after i is essentually regular.  This form
> is essentially a nominalization of ic^agha 'to make something with
> soething'.  (This is one of those a ~ e contexts I'm not sure of.)  If you
> look in the surrounding articles, you can see that ic^a'gha has other less
> transparent meanings:  'to spring up (as grass, a child, etc.); to
> become'. Also 'to skim off', perhaps only compounded with ic^hu', i.e.,
> ic^a'ghe ic^hu'.  It also participates in some constructions meaning
> 'together', e.g., ic^a'gheya 'together'.  I don't think any of these are
> relevant, though the specific example of 'to become' given was iN'yaN
> ic^agha 'to become a stone'.
>
> Note:  Ic^a'gha is a stative verb inflectionally - imac^agha - though
> plainly it takes two arguments in syntactic terms, so this is one of the
> somewhat overlooked Siouan experiencer verbs.
>
> I think ic^a'gho 'to make a mark, draw a line, sketch' (or the thing so
> produced, as a noun) is simply a different stem, probably the root is gho,
> with prefixed ka 'by force' (which becomes c^a after i). It does occur to
> me that the 'make marks' version of *kax that appears in Ioway-Otoe and
> Winnebago might owe something of its semantics to interactions with a
> Proto-Siouan version of this stem.  There's no "change to o" or "add o
> suffix" morphological rule in Dakotan.  If one added ic^ax to a verb stem
> o, one would get ic^axo, not ic^agho.
>
> Waki'c^agha < wa - ki - kagha is 'to make something for someone; what is
> made for someone', the detransitivized form waki'c^agha from the dative
> ki'c^agha from ka'gha.
>
> In checking into this form I notice that Buechel gives kic^a'gha (with
> c-overdot, so explicit lack of aspiration) as 'to become ice again'. Is
> this correct?
>


From alber033 at tc.umn.edu  Sun Aug 11 17:58:12 2002
From: alber033 at tc.umn.edu (Patricia Albers)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:58:12 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <SUN.11.AUG.2002.125812.0500.>

I'd like to thank everyone for helping me think about this.  I will
be  away from my computer for the next two weeks and unable to
further participate in this discussion until I return.  Pat Albers


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Aug 11 22:22:37 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:22:37 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated c
Message-ID: <SUN.11.AUG.2002.172237.0500.>

> Second, neither Buechel nor Riggs ever, to my
knowledge, acknowledged that there is an aspiration
contrast for "c".

My recollection is that Buechel's 1939 grammar does
make the distinction, but I don't have it here at home.
That's the place to look though.  He was very
consciencious about marking aspiration there.  I blame
the dictionary problems on Paul Manhart's editing, or
lack thereof, after B's death.  I could be wrong
though.

Bob


From mosind at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 12 03:56:09 2002
From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:56:09 -0700
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208110857540.29754-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.11.AUG.2002.205609.0700.>

--- ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:

> Second, neither Buechel nor Riggs ever, to my
> knowledge, acknowledged that
> there is an aspiration contrast for "c".  You can't
> rely on either one of
> them for that distinction.

--Buechel does it both in "Grammar" and in
"Dictionary", although uses it inconsistently, e.g.
spelling all A1S2 chi- as unaspirated ci- thoughout
the "Grammar".
However he contrasts "c" ("c*" in a Dictionary) "as in
'joy'" to
"c`" ("c" in a Dictionary) "as in 'chair'".

The dictionary also has some forms with unaspirated
"c*" in contrast to aspirated "c", also with numerous
inconsistencies:

c*i'k?ala "little", c*o'nala "a few", co'la "destitue,
without.."

Talking about c- / ch- pairs I'd add to the discussion
a quote from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar":

Page 101

? 131. kuN'za to decree, ka'g^a to make

ka'g^a to make, lacks the series waki- and has instead
we'cag^a I make for him, chi'cag^a I make it for you
(without your sanction), miye'cag^a you make it for
me, etc.; and chi'cicag^a I make yours or I make it
for you with your sanction (etc.). The possessive
forms are irregular insofar as they aspirate the c,
we'chaga I make my own.

wakuN'za to decree something, also lacks the series
waki- and has instead wawe'cuNza I decree something
for him without his sanction and wawe'cicuNza with his
sanction, or in place of another one. The other forms
follow the same pattern. As in ka'g^a the possessive
has aspirate ch, we'chuNza I decree something my own,
mic?i'chuNza for myself.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Aug 12 06:04:07 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:04:07 -0600
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <20020812035609.36829.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.000407.0600.>

What about that kic*aga 'to freeze again'?  Should that be kic`aga?
With an aspirate?  I expect this is an outright error, in other words, or
a very interesting sound change otherwise.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Constantine Xmelnitski wrote:
> Talking about c- / ch- pairs I'd add to the discussion
> a quote from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar":
>
> Page 101
>
> ? 131. kuN'za to decree, ka'g^a to make
>
> ka'g^a to make, lacks the series waki- and has instead
> we'cag^a I make for him, chi'cag^a I make it for you
> (without your sanction), miye'cag^a you make it for
> me, etc.; and chi'cicag^a I make yours or I make it
> for you with your sanction (etc.). The possessive
> forms are irregular insofar as they aspirate the c,
> we'chaga I make my own.
>
> wakuN'za to decree something, also lacks the series
> waki- and has instead wawe'cuNza I decree something
> for him without his sanction and wawe'cicuNza with his
> sanction, or in place of another one. The other forms
> follow the same pattern. As in ka'g^a the possessive
> has aspirate ch, we'chuNza I decree something my own,
> mic?i'chuNza for myself.

I thought that was what I remembered. In other words, the regular and
dative stems of ka'gha and kuN'za are unaspirated (and affricate to c^
after ki in the dative), and the possessive or suus forms are aspirated
-khagha and -khuNza, but also affricate after ki, so that you get
(actually) -c^hagha and -c^huN'za?

Since the discussion here carefully gives the inflected forms but assumes
the user is familiar enough with Dakota to know the third person stem
forms, may I also verify that those forms are:

Transitive      Dative      Possesive
ka'gha          ki'c^agha   kic^ha'gha
kuN'za          ki'c^uNza   kic^huN'za

For comparison's sake, the OP forms are:

g(a)a'ghe       giaghe      gikkaghe
g(aN)aN'ze      giaNze      gikkaNze

The middle forms have the loss of the stem initial *k that David
mentioned, which is also exhibited with the ga- instrumental.  My
understanding is that Osage has something like ks^i'ghe and ks^iaNze here,
or just what LaFlesche reports, wildly improbable though it seems to the
uninitiated!

Note:  Though David is also prefectly correct in saying that it is
unnecessary to write gh for gamma in Dakotan, since gamma only occurs
before vowels and that's all a g before a vowel could be, I tend to write
it anyway, under what I might call an internationalist impulse, because in
Omaha-Ponca all unaspirated k's are voiced before vowels as before dh
(comparable to l, etc.), so there is a contrast between g and gh before
vowels, as in gaghe or gage (ga=ge), the former being 'to make', of
course, and the latter being 'those scattered things', which I think
Clifford Wolf once used in referring to the bits of shrapnel in his body,
courtesy of the Germany army.  The one place *ptc^k are not voiced is
after fricatives ss^x, and there, perhaps in defiance of consistency
all speakers of and students of Omaha seem to agree on writing ptc^k (or
whatever they write for c^).  So it's gaghe, but s^kaghe (second person).
There's a phonetic contrast between g and k, but no phonemic one.

In the same way I try to always write c^ and j^, because there are Siouan
languages where c and j are ts and dz.  A particular language can cut
orthographic corners that a family can't.


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Aug 12 12:53:41 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 06:53:41 -0600
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <20020812035609.36829.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.065341.0600.>

Thanks to Connie for looking things up and getting the details right, as
usual.  I apologize for submitting only partially complete information.  I
have to look up the details about possessive vs. dative -ki- every time,
and since I wrote that note at home, without my books handy, I missed a
big part of the story.

As for John's question about the ki- derivative of 'ice': I think it must
be aspirated; I don't know of any way for de-aspiration to occur between
vowels.



David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Constantine Xmelnitski wrote:

>
> --- ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>
> > Second, neither Buechel nor Riggs ever, to my
> > knowledge, acknowledged that
> > there is an aspiration contrast for "c".  You can't
> > rely on either one of
> > them for that distinction.
>
> --Buechel does it both in "Grammar" and in
> "Dictionary", although uses it inconsistently, e.g.
> spelling all A1S2 chi- as unaspirated ci- thoughout
> the "Grammar".
> However he contrasts "c" ("c*" in a Dictionary) "as in
> 'joy'" to
> "c`" ("c" in a Dictionary) "as in 'chair'".
>
> The dictionary also has some forms with unaspirated
> "c*" in contrast to aspirated "c", also with numerous
> inconsistencies:
>
> c*i'k?ala "little", c*o'nala "a few", co'la "destitue,
> without.."
>
> Talking about c- / ch- pairs I'd add to the discussion
> a quote from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar":
>
> Page 101
>
> ? 131. kuN'za to decree, ka'g^a to make
>
> ka'g^a to make, lacks the series waki- and has instead
> we'cag^a I make for him, chi'cag^a I make it for you
> (without your sanction), miye'cag^a you make it for
> me, etc.; and chi'cicag^a I make yours or I make it
> for you with your sanction (etc.). The possessive
> forms are irregular insofar as they aspirate the c,
> we'chaga I make my own.
>
> wakuN'za to decree something, also lacks the series
> waki- and has instead wawe'cuNza I decree something
> for him without his sanction and wawe'cicuNza with his
> sanction, or in place of another one. The other forms
> follow the same pattern. As in ka'g^a the possessive
> has aspirate ch, we'chuNza I decree something my own,
> mic?i'chuNza for myself.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> http://www.hotjobs.com
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Aug 12 14:34:44 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:34:44 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.093444.0500.>

>The middle forms have the loss of the stem initial *k
that David
mentioned, which is also exhibited with the ga-
instrumental.  My
understanding is that Osage has something like ks^i'ghe
and ks^iaNze =
here, or just what LaFlesche reports, wildly improbable
though it seems to =
the uninitiated!

The corresponding Kaw forms are kki:'ghe ~ kki:aghe
'make for someone' [the only form I have] (with a long
V or diphthong) and khi'aNze 'teach'.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: aspirated and unaspirated caga


> This message uses a character set that is not
supported by the Internet
> Service.  To view the original message content,  open
the attached
> message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save
the attachment to
> disk, and then open it using a viewer that can
display the original
> character set. <<message.txt>>
>


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Mon Aug 12 14:31:03 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:31:03 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.093103.0500.>

> Third, while "ice" is always aspirated, as John points out, you'll have
> to check with the native speakers for the "icaga" pronunciatiion -- and
it
> may not help.  Unfortunately, all the palatalized forms of "kaga" that
I'm
> familiar with EXCEPTIONALLY aspirate that initial when it changes from
"k"
> to "c"; the best examples are the dative/benefactives, which go from kaga
> to kichaga.  My little note in the volume of IJAL that was dedicated to
> Eric Hamp speculates, on the basis of comparative evidence, that the "ch"
> in this case is not from the "k" at all, but from PSI *y.  There is a
> tendency that I haven't been able to find rules for for "k" to disappear
> between vowels in derived forms.  I speculate that that's what happened
to
> kicaga.  Since PSi *y regularly gives aspirated "ch" in Dakotan (cf.
> heart, wood, etc.), the sequence is: ***ki-kaga > **ki-aga > *ki -yaga
> (epenthetic y; note that this is "edh" in Dhegiha) > ki-chaga.

Interesting!  Actually, the OP (Dorsey) equivalent of this is gi-agha,
derived from gaghE, to make or do.  The equivalent sequence is:
***gi-gagha > gi-agha = gi-yagha, but NOT > *gi-dhagha.

We might need to distinguish two kinds of "epenthetic" here.  Sometimes
ease of speaking causes a new sound to arise, which can then function
as a new phoneme.  In this case, however, there is probably no
difference in actual pronunciation between *ki-aga and *ki-yaga, or
between *gi-agha and *gi-yagha; whether or not there is a y there is
entirely the listener's interpretation.  Apparently the Dakotans heard
a y and carried this word along with other y's to get ki-chaga, while
the Dhegihans did not count it as a y and left it alone as gi-agha.


Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Aug 12 14:36:13 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:36:13 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.093613.0500.>

John:  David's message, like yours, came through with
the "This message uses a character set..." note and an
attachment.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: aspirated and unaspirated caga


> This message uses a character set that is not
supported by the Internet
> Service.  To view the original message content,  open
the attached
> message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save
the attachment to
> disk, and then open it using a viewer that can
display the original
> character set. <<message.txt>>
>


From cqcqcq at pgtv.net  Mon Aug 12 14:43:12 2002
From: cqcqcq at pgtv.net (Carolyn Quintero)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:43:12 -0500
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <OF20F848CF.94D9BB19-ON86256C13.004D0554@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.094312.0500.>

Off the top of my head, I think this is the same phenomenon in Osage:
:
OS ki-ka:'ghe -> ks^i'ghe
 dative - make/do

OS ki-hkoN'ze -> ks^i'oNze
  dative-teach

OS ki -ki'dhe -> ks^i'dhe
  dat - cause to do  -> cause to do [? for that person's own good]

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of
rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 9:31 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: aspirated and unaspirated caga



> Third, while "ice" is always aspirated, as John points out, you'll have
> to check with the native speakers for the "icaga" pronunciatiion -- and
it
> may not help.  Unfortunately, all the palatalized forms of "kaga" that
I'm
> familiar with EXCEPTIONALLY aspirate that initial when it changes from
"k"
> to "c"; the best examples are the dative/benefactives, which go from kaga
> to kichaga.  My little note in the volume of IJAL that was dedicated to
> Eric Hamp speculates, on the basis of comparative evidence, that the "ch"
> in this case is not from the "k" at all, but from PSI *y.  There is a
> tendency that I haven't been able to find rules for for "k" to disappear
> between vowels in derived forms.  I speculate that that's what happened
to
> kicaga.  Since PSi *y regularly gives aspirated "ch" in Dakotan (cf.
> heart, wood, etc.), the sequence is: ***ki-kaga > **ki-aga > *ki -yaga
> (epenthetic y; note that this is "edh" in Dhegiha) > ki-chaga.

Interesting!  Actually, the OP (Dorsey) equivalent of this is gi-agha,
derived from gaghE, to make or do.  The equivalent sequence is:
***gi-gagha > gi-agha = gi-yagha, but NOT > *gi-dhagha.

We might need to distinguish two kinds of "epenthetic" here.  Sometimes
ease of speaking causes a new sound to arise, which can then function
as a new phoneme.  In this case, however, there is probably no
difference in actual pronunciation between *ki-aga and *ki-yaga, or
between *gi-agha and *gi-yagha; whether or not there is a y there is
entirely the listener's interpretation.  Apparently the Dakotans heard
a y and carried this word along with other y's to get ki-chaga, while
the Dhegihans did not count it as a y and left it alone as gi-agha.


Rory


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Aug 12 15:59:14 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:59:14 -0600
Subject: aspirated and unaspirated caga
In-Reply-To: <AGEMKAHBJICALMADFKLOAEIECAAA.cqcqcq@pgtv.net>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.095914.0600.>

Except that, though these forms pattern alike in Osage, they pattern
differently in Omaha-Ponca:

Dakotan          Omaha-Ponca     Osage

kagha/kic^agha   gaghe/giaghe    gaghe/ks^ighe       'make'

kuNza/kic^uNza   gaNze/giaNze    koNze/ks^ioNze      'demonstrate, teach'

ya/khiya         dhe/khidhe      dhe/ks^idhe          causative

It certainly looks like these forms have been analogized to the causative
pattern in Osage, and Bob's khiaNze in Kaw tends to confirm this, showing
that ks^ is *kh (the normal situation in Osage) and not some special
treatment of *ky (which was what I had actually been thinking).  I'd have
expected the Kaw form for 'to make' to be khi(i/a)ghe, too, but since it
isn't I wonder what's up there?

OP and Da treat the causative as if the dative were formed on a suppletive
stem *hirE, handled as an h-stem.  Presumably the same pattern was
inherited in Osage.  I believe it occurs in Kaw and Quapaw, too.  But,
while Da africates (palatalized k after i) and OP deletes the stem initial
g (< *k), Osage and Kaw seem to have remodelled things on a basis of the
causative, substituting hiV for kV in the stem underlying the dative.  I
wonder if we have here some trace of the logic that underlies the
replacement of *ka by *ki in Ioway-Otoe and Winnebago?


On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Carolyn Quintero wrote:

> Off the top of my head, I think this is the same phenomenon in Osage:
> :
> OS ki-ka:'ghe -> ks^i'ghe
>  dative - make/do
>
> OS ki-hkoN'ze -> ks^i'oNze
>   dative-teach
>
> OS ki -ki'dhe -> ks^i'dhe
>   dat - cause to do  -> cause to do [? for that person's own good]
>
> Carolyn


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Aug 12 21:13:00 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:13:00 -0500
Subject: reflexive vs. suus 'make'.
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.161300.0500.>

The reason I included the statement [the only form I
have] in my posting is that there ought to be at least
two different forms at stake here: 'to make for
oneself' and 'to make ones own'.  They ought to have
different reflexes, but I'm not sure we're keeping them
straight in our discussion.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: Siouan List <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: aspirated and unaspirated caga


> Except that, though these forms pattern alike in
Osage, they pattern
> differently in Omaha-Ponca:
>
> Dakotan          Omaha-Ponca     Osage
>
> kagha/kic^agha   gaghe/giaghe    gaghe/ks^ighe
'make'
>
> kuNza/kic^uNza   gaNze/giaNze    koNze/ks^ioNze
'demonstrate, teach'
>
> ya/khiya         dhe/khidhe      dhe/ks^idhe
causative
>
> It certainly looks like these forms have been
analogized to the causative
> pattern in Osage, and Bob's khiaNze in Kaw tends to
confirm this, showing
> that ks^ is *kh (the normal situation in Osage) and
not some special
> treatment of *ky (which was what I had actually been
thinking).  I'd have
> expected the Kaw form for 'to make' to be
khi(i/a)ghe, too, but since it
> isn't I wonder what's up there?
>
> OP and Da treat the causative as if the dative were
formed on a suppletive
> stem *hirE, handled as an h-stem.  Presumably the
same pattern was
> inherited in Osage.  I believe it occurs in Kaw and
Quapaw, too.  But,
> while Da africates (palatalized k after i) and OP
deletes the stem initial
> g (< *k), Osage and Kaw seem to have remodelled
things on a basis of the
> causative, substituting hiV for kV in the stem
underlying the dative.  I
> wonder if we have here some trace of the logic that
underlies the
> replacement of *ka by *ki in Ioway-Otoe and
Winnebago?
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Carolyn Quintero wrote:
>
> > Off the top of my head, I think this is the same
phenomenon in Osage:
> > :
> > OS ki-ka:'ghe -> ks^i'ghe
> >  dative - make/do
> >
> > OS ki-hkoN'ze -> ks^i'oNze
> >   dative-teach
> >
> > OS ki -ki'dhe -> ks^i'dhe
> >   dat - cause to do  -> cause to do [? for that
person's own good]
> >
> > Carolyn
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Aug 12 22:37:06 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:37:06 -0600
Subject: reflexive vs. suus 'make'.
In-Reply-To: <000f01c24245$0adc94c0$d1b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <MON.12.AUG.2002.163706.0600.>

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> The reason I included the statement [the only form I have] in my
> posting is that there ought to be at least two different forms at
> stake here: 'to make for oneself' and 'to make ones own'.  They ought
> to have different reflexes, but I'm not sure we're keeping them
> straight in our discussion.

In OP

base       dative         possessive (suus)    reflexive

gaghe      giaghe         gikkaghe             kkikkaghe

make       make for s.o.  make one's own       make for oneself

The forms for gaNze : giaNze etc, are analogous, but the root sense of
'demonstrate, behave like' tends to be glossed 'teach' in the dative,
i.e., 'to demonstrate to'.  This rather reminds me of the perfect of 'to
see' being 'to know' in Ancient Greek.  There's also gaNdha 'to donate' in
this group.  I think the other g-stems are intransitive.  Actually,
they're gaNz^iNga 'not to know how to' (presumably takes a clausal
argument) and gi 'to come home'.  If there are any more, I'm forgetting
them.

In principle, kkik-kaghe should mean 'to make onself' but obviously this
isn't a particularly useful form ouside of philosophy and the gloss I've
encountered is 'to make for oneself', Another verb like this is une 'to
search for, to hunt', which has a possessive ugine 'to search for one's
own' and a reflexive/reciprocal ukkine 'to search for for oneself'.

I suppose there may be a more insightful account of when the reflexive is
a reflexive benefactive than 'when it's not very useful as a reflexive',
but I'm afraid it escapes me.  There don't seem to be contrasting
'reflexive' and 'reflexive benefactive' forms, but there may be cases
where either interpretation is possible.  It's at this point that my more
or less morphological acquaintence with OP begins to break down.

Reflecting, I suppose it's possible that the possessive form here should
mean 'make for one's own' (that is 'make s.t. for s.o. who is one's own')?

Incidentally, one thing that puzzled me a bit about the possessive at
first was that I expected it to apply whenever any object was possessed.
However, in OP at least, it seems to be applied essentially for kin.  The
principle may be 'inalienable possessions' - another place where my
understanding is inadwquate.  It certainly isn't applied for things that
use tta or 'to have' or some other form of possessive construction, not
as far as I know.

It's easy (for me) to get the possessive construction crossed with the
dative experiencer verbs, like 'one's own to die' or 'one's own to be
burnt up' and so on.  However, the forms there are dative, and the
association is primarily via the English glossing.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Aug 13 16:09:02 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:09:02 -0500
Subject: reflexive vs. suus 'make'.
Message-ID: <TUE.13.AUG.2002.110902.0500.>

Good summary.  BTW ga:ghe is consistently long; I
wonder what happens when the accent shifts?

> In OP
>
> base       dative         possessive (suus)
reflexive
>
> gaghe      giaghe         gikkaghe
kkikkaghe
>
> make       make for s.o.  make one's own       make
for oneself
>
> The forms for gaNze : giaNze etc, are analogous, but
the root sense of
> 'demonstrate, behave like' tends to be glossed
'teach' in the dative,
> i.e., 'to demonstrate to'.  This rather reminds me of
the perfect of 'to
> see' being 'to know' in Ancient Greek.  There's also
gaNdha 'to donate' in
> this group.  I think the other g-stems are
intransitive.  Actually,
> they're gaNz^iNga 'not to know how to' (presumably
takes a clausal
> argument) and gi 'to come home'.  If there are any
more, I'm forgetting
> them.

Can't recall any others either.

bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Aug 13 16:37:00 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:37:00 -0600
Subject: Syncopating or Short Pronominal Stems (Re: reflexive vs. suus
 'make')
In-Reply-To: <005f01c242e3$bec535c0$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <TUE.13.AUG.2002.103700.0600.>

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> Good summary.  BTW ga:ghe is consistently long; I wonder what happens
> when the accent shifts?

I wish I'd been listening properly ...

So, to summarize, the g-stems are gaa'ghe 'to make', g(aN)aN'ze 'to
demonstrate', g[aN]aN'dha 'to donate', g[aN]aN'z^iNga 'not to know how'
(sure looks like 'to little wish'!), and gi 'to come back'.

The verb gaN'=dha (both roots inflected) 'to want, to wish' is similar,
but has kkaN'=bdha in the first person, with kk where the others have a
pp.  Actually, of course, kk is what I'd expect with gaa'ghe, but ppaa'ghe
is what you get.

The only d-stem (*t-stem) is d[aN]aN'be 'to see'.  Interestingly, in
Ioway-Otoe and Winnebago the only *t-stem is *a...ta (hada', haj^a') -
same gloss, different stem.  In Dakotan there is a verb that's not coming
to mind, that has ki-k-t... in what seems to be a dative or frozen dative
that I suspect is a relict t-stem, of special interest as (a) a Dakotan
example of the *t-stems, and (b) a *t-stem that doesn't mean 'to see',

There are more b-stems.  Most are derived with the ba- and bi-
instrumentals, but b[e]e'thaN 'to fold' is a b-stem, and in Osage baN' 'to
call' is or was, and I suspect that most stems in b- probably were at one
point.  There aren't a great many of them, but I don't know the list off
the top of my head.

In fact, once you allow for the dha- and dhi- instrumentals, there aren't
actually all that many other dh-stems (*r-stems, or y-stems in Dakotan
terms), either.  Perhaps under ten?  The causative looks like a *r-stem in
Dakotan and Dhegiha, but is not.

This is one of the anomalies of Siouan grammatical treatments.  Sometimes
the *ptk stems are treated as irregular verbs, sometimes as major
paradigms, but there actually never are that many of them in either case -
except as due to the productiveness of certain instrumentals.  The
perception of the nature of the category is partly a matter of whether or
not there is a separate personal paradigm.  But even when there is not,
there are often substantially characterizing patterns of dative and
possessive derivation.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 14 16:01:07 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:01:07 -0600
Subject: *t-stems in Dakotan
Message-ID: <WED.14.AUG.2002.100107.0600.>

The verb form I couldn't remember in my posting on lists of stop-stems is
kikta 'to get up' (wekta, etc.).  I take it to involve an underlying stem
ta.  I believe I simply found this in Buechel looking under kik- out of
curiosity.  Also relevant in Dakotan is akiktuNwaN 'to look around for
one's own', mentioned in Boas & Deloria 1941 as anomalous.  This time it's
that 'see' gloss (and one of the stems) again.

The anomally in each case in Dakotan is the extra -k- following the first
ki.  The first ki is the one that fuses with the personal pronouns in
inflection (or however we interpret the paradigm we, ye, ki).  The
intrusive -k- after that is anomalous as part of the regular pattern in
Dakotan or Omaha-Ponca, but "normal" as part of the stop-stem pattern in
Omaha-Ponca.

My suspicion is that the extra -k- is historically non-anomalous, or
rather, inherited, in Dakotan as well.  That is, I think that stop-stem
possessives in Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan, maybe Proto-Siouan, had
*k- (syncopated from *ki-) as a derivational prefix.  The details of
inflection of both the derived and underived stems vary, but I believe
that the pronominals of the underived stems were also syncopated (*p-,
*s^-) originally, as they still are in Omaha-Ponca (and most other Siouan
languages, Dakotan and Mandan being major exceptions within "Central"
Siouan).

It is debatable whether the derived possessive stems (in, e.g., *k-t...)
had an additional *ki, too, e.g., *ki-k-t..., at this stage or that.
Adding an additional or pleonastic regular prefix over an irregular one is
an on-going tendency in Siouan languages, and typically behavior at a
given instant (now, 1890, etc.) varies with the individual stem.  Various
patterns are attested, even within particular languages.  We pay more
attention to this with pronominals, but it seems to me to be a relevant
consideration with other prefixal morphology as well.

It is also variable whether in cases where there was this additional *ki-
the resulting stems were regularly inflected, or had the fused paradigm
(*we-, *ye-, *ki-).  I'm not sure what conditions the fused paradigm,
apart from analogy, which seems to be the main factor at present.  It may
originally have been something like k => [nil] / V_V', but there are
exceptions to application of this.


From mosind at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 14 18:08:19 2002
From: mosind at yahoo.com (Constantine Xmelnitski)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:08:19 -0700
Subject: *t-stems in Dakotan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208140933020.19385-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.14.AUG.2002.110819.0700.>

--- Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:
> The verb form I couldn't remember in my posting on
> lists of stop-stems is
> kikta 'to get up' (wekta, etc.).  I take it to
> involve an underlying stem
> ta.  I believe I simply found this in Buechel
> looking under kik- out of
> curiosity.  Also relevant in Dakotan is akiktuNwaN
> 'to look around for
> one's own', mentioned in Boas & Deloria 1941 as
> anomalous.  This time it's
> that 'see' gloss (and one of the stems) again.
>

Two more words with -kik- (both seemingly obsolete):
ikikcu "take one's own" < icu
akicikcita "hunt one's own" < akhita (not sure about
aspiration in c's in akicikcita).

Talking about kikta this could be from ki- + kta stem
(non-ablauting), occuring in a number of other verbs:
wakta "expect", akta "respect, regard, give heed to",
ihakta.

Here's also from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar".

Page 88

? 101. The use of ki- for back again

"A peculiar use of ki is probably reducible to the
dative ki. The possessive forms iki'kcu he takes his
own, i.e. he takes it back 47.1, 48.8; kichu' he gives
his own, i.e., he gives it back; ophe'kithuN he buys
his own, i.e., he buys it back; kicha' he asks for his
own, i.e., he asks it back; kikta' to get up from a
lying position, i.e., to be up again; all imply a
return to a former state. The first person has the
regular possessive form we'. The k does not change to
c after e and i.

"A number of other forms which render the idea of
return to a previous state are expressed by forms
corresponding to the first dative ki, with first
person waki...

Best wishes,
Constantine.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 15 06:28:03 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:28:03 -0600
Subject: *t-stems in Dakotan
In-Reply-To: <20020814180819.61768.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.002803.0600.>

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Constantine Xmelnitski wrote:
> Two more words with -kik- (both seemingly obsolete):

> ikikcu "take one's own" < icu

Boas & Deloria (1941:102) mention this one, too.  I omitted it only
because it represents - I think - a different stem initial, *y or maybe
*k.

Background:  It's clear that *y becomes c^h in Dakotan when it's alone in
the syllable initial, but it seems to become just c^ in clusters. Examples
in clusters are (wi)kc^emna 'ten' cf. OP gdheb(dh)aN, apparently from
*kyepraN (or *kyewraN, if one prefers), or c^hetaN 'hawk' cf. OP gdhedaN,
from *kyetaN, or c^haphuNka 'mosquito' cf. Os laphoNke < *kraphoNke, from
*kyaphuNk-.  Sometimes Dakotan loses the initial stop.

The only reconstructed *y-stem is 'think', as in the Dakotan verb epc^a 'I
thought it' (*e-p-yE), only known in the first person in Dakotan.
Omaha-Ponca has all persons, in the first it's ebdhe (< *e-p-yE) + egaN
apparently always requiring the egaN 'like that'.  I interpret this as an
obligatory "sort of":  'I sorta thought ...'.  Since *y and *r merge to
such a great extent, it's hard to identify *y-stems in opposition to
*r-stems.  Dakotan seems to be the only environment in which *Cy is
distinguishable from *Cr in verbs, and it has mainly 'I thought'.  Maybe
i-ki-k-c^u is an additional example.

However, the base form here is apparently ic^u, not ic^hu (fide B&D), and
that tends to suggest that ic^u is from something like *iku, not *iyu.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to identify a cognate of this stem or
root that would clarify matters.  If the source is a form *iku, then
ikikc^u is unusual in keeping the c^ when separated from the i.  I'd
expect ikikhu < *iki-h-ku < **i-ki-k-ku.

> akicikcita "hunt one's own" < akhita (not sure about aspiration in c's
> in akicikcita).

Buechel (1970:71a), right?  This gives akic^ic^ita 'hunt a thing for
another', and then akic^ikc^ita 'hunt one's own' under that, calling the
latter a possessive of akhita (aspiration clear in main entry a few pages
later).  So I suppose the first form is akic^ic^hita < *a-kiki-khita,
which would be 'to hunt for something for someone'.  I'd expect the
regular possessive of this to be akic^hita, if I'm not confused, and I
often get that way faced with Dakota ki-things.  This form is in the next
column, so I'm probably OK.  Checking a little further, it looks like the
first two forms (akic^ic^hita and akic^ikc^ita) date to Riggs.

Also, I don't know any reason to expect the ki-k- of a pleonastic double
possessive to be separated by the second dative sequence kic^i.

I wonder if the strange second one is being handled as a reduplication of
ac^hita:  a-c^hik-c^hita > a-ki-c^hik-c^hita.  Of course, there isn't any
ac^hita ... so I'm at a loss.  A hapless hapax legomenon.

> Talking about kikta this could be from ki- + kta stem (non-ablauting),
> occuring in a number of other verbs: wakta "expect", akta "respect,
> regard, give heed to", ihakta.

The semantics seem a bit of a stretch.  What's your suggestion for them?

> Here's also from Boas & Deloria's "Dakota Grammar". Page 88
>
> ? 101. The use of ki- for back again
>
> "A peculiar use of ki is probably reducible to the dative ki. The
> possessive forms iki'kcu he takes his own, i.e. he takes it back 47.1,
> 48.8; kichu' he gives his own, i.e., he gives it back; ophe'kithuN he
> buys his own, i.e., he buys it back; kicha' he asks for his own, i.e.,
> he asks it back; kikta' to get up from a lying position, i.e., to be
> up again; all imply a return to a former state. The first person has
> the regular possessive form we'. The k does not change to c after e
> and i.

Isn't the root sense of ic^u 'to receive, to accept'?  Of course this is
just a different analysis of 'to take', and the *rusE stem has both senses
in the rest of MVS.  Anyway, I'd argue that 'back' here comes from the
logic of 'to accept one's own', which implies a return.  'Back' is
secondary, not primary, here.

In fact, I think that this paragraph in B&D is simply a speculation that
doesn't pan out.  It also appears to confuse the dative and possessive and
then actually goes on to discuss dative forms with similar readings.

> "A number of other forms which render the idea of return to a previous
> state are expressed by forms corresponding to the first dative ki,
> with first person waki...


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 15 15:36:31 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:36:31 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.103631.0500.>

Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
be discovered.

UPPER CASE vowels are accented.  What I found so far:

Quapaw /$adAkke/ is 'Cherokee'.
Quapaw /$awaNnaN/ is 'Shawnee'.

Kansa /$ayAkki/ is 'Cherokee' in Dorsey's notes, but by
the 1970's Mrs. Rowe gave a more modern /ccelEkki/.
Note that Quapaw /d/ and Kansa /y/ normally correspond
in cognate vocabulary.
Kansa /moN$kOge/ is 'Creek, Muskogee'.  It's
interesting since the Kansa speakers borrowed the name
(from Creeks or perhaps others) with /$/ rather than
/s/.  This probably reflects the fact that, in Creek,
the sibilant is most often retroflexed next to back
vowels, and this was apparently perceived as the
alveopalatal rather than the dental or alveolar.
Kansa /ccIkkasa/ and /ccattA/ are 'Chickasaw' and
'Choctaw' respectively -- both from Dorsey.
Kansa /hi$A/ is 'Caddo'.  I don't have any etymology
for this.  It's from Dorsey.
Kansa /$Awane/ is 'Shawnee' for Dorsey, but again Mrs.
Rowe gave the modern /$oNnI/.


From cqcqcq at pgtv.net  Thu Aug 15 15:31:26 2002
From: cqcqcq at pgtv.net (Carolyn Quintero)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:31:26 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
In-Reply-To: <001301c24471$8858a820$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.103126.0500.>

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:37 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?


Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
be discovered.

UPPER CASE vowels are accented.  What I found so far:

Quapaw /$adAkke/ is 'Cherokee'.
Quapaw /$awaNnaN/ is 'Shawnee'.

Kansa /$ayAkki/ is 'Cherokee' in Dorsey's notes, but by
the 1970's Mrs. Rowe gave a more modern /ccelEkki/.
Note that Quapaw /d/ and Kansa /y/ normally correspond
in cognate vocabulary.
Kansa /moN$kOge/ is 'Creek, Muskogee'.  It's
interesting since the Kansa speakers borrowed the name
(from Creeks or perhaps others) with /$/ rather than
/s/.  This probably reflects the fact that, in Creek,
the sibilant is most often retroflexed next to back
vowels, and this was apparently perceived as the
alveopalatal rather than the dental or alveolar.
Kansa /ccIkkasa/ and /ccattA/ are 'Chickasaw' and
'Choctaw' respectively -- both from Dorsey.
Kansa /hi$A/ is 'Caddo'.  I don't have any etymology
for this.  It's from Dorsey.
Kansa /$Awane/ is 'Shawnee' for Dorsey, but again Mrs.
Rowe gave the modern /$oNnI/.


From cqcqcq at pgtv.net  Thu Aug 15 15:53:14 2002
From: cqcqcq at pgtv.net (Carolyn Quintero)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:53:14 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
In-Reply-To: <001301c24471$8858a820$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.105314.0500.>

Bob,
All my speakers were "rusty" when it came to tribe names.  The ones I find
are the following:

Cherokee $Alaki [Bristow, ok'd by Morrel]
	Cherokee (Variant) $saAke [Bristow, unconfirmed]
Creek (Muskogee): muskOke [Bristow, tentatively ok'd by L Shannon and Ed Red
Eagle] LF: moN-shko'-ge
Choctaw -unknown; Not in LF
Chickasaw - ??;  LF = T-dot si'-ge-shi
Shawnee - $Awani [Bristow, confirmed by Margaret Red Eagle]; LF ZhoN-ni'
Caddo - hiNiN$A  [produced, Holding and Morrell]

NOT S.E. OR NOT REQUESTED  are the following:
Pawnee -hpadhImaha (Holding), hpAimaNhaN (Bristow), hpAiNmaha (Morrell - who
applies this term to any western tribe) LF: P-dot a'-thiN  and P-dot
a'-thiN-moN-hoN
Navajo - haxINlez?kaaghe  [LF same....]
Sac and Fox - sakIwa, sakIz^iN, sakIwo

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:37 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?


Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
be discovered.

UPPER CASE vowels are accented.  What I found so far:

Quapaw /$adAkke/ is 'Cherokee'.
Quapaw /$awaNnaN/ is 'Shawnee'.

Kansa /$ayAkki/ is 'Cherokee' in Dorsey's notes, but by
the 1970's Mrs. Rowe gave a more modern /ccelEkki/.
Note that Quapaw /d/ and Kansa /y/ normally correspond
in cognate vocabulary.
Kansa /moN$kOge/ is 'Creek, Muskogee'.  It's
interesting since the Kansa speakers borrowed the name
(from Creeks or perhaps others) with /$/ rather than
/s/.  This probably reflects the fact that, in Creek,
the sibilant is most often retroflexed next to back
vowels, and this was apparently perceived as the
alveopalatal rather than the dental or alveolar.
Kansa /ccIkkasa/ and /ccattA/ are 'Chickasaw' and
'Choctaw' respectively -- both from Dorsey.
Kansa /hi$A/ is 'Caddo'.  I don't have any etymology
for this.  It's from Dorsey.
Kansa /$Awane/ is 'Shawnee' for Dorsey, but again Mrs.
Rowe gave the modern /$oNnI/.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 15 16:25:25 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:25:25 -0600
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
In-Reply-To: <001301c24471$8858a820$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.102525.0600.>

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
> the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
> found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
> wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
> Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
> Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
> presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
> be discovered.

There is a list of Omaha ethnonyms in Fletcher & LaFlesche that has some
of these, I think.  There's also a list in Howard's Ponca Tribe, and I
know some of them appear in LaFlesche for Osage.  Unfortunately, those are
the only sources for Dhegiha ethnonyms that I know of, other than possible
random inclusions in ethnographic material or texts.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 15 18:33:01 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:33:01 -0600
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes? (fwd)
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.123301.0600.>

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, David Costa wrote:
> Dorsey didn't get any?

I don't recall that he includes a list of ethnonyms in any of his Dhegiha
publications.  Those he collected are in his unpublished slip files.  Any
year now I'm going to either get a microfilm reader or find out how to
have microfilm copied to CDs, and then, thanks to my benefactor Mark
Swetland, I'll be able to consult Dorsey's slip file for Omaha.

The CD solution occurred to me within the last year or so, but I haven't
been able to implement it yet.  I'd need a commercial service to do the
conversion, and I haven't located one.

JEK


From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com  Thu Aug 15 18:40:59 2002
From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:40:59 +0100
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.194059.0100.ANTHONY.GRANT3@BTINTERNET.COM>

Folks:

Could Quapaw /hi$a/ have something to do with the little-known Caddoan tribe
whose name is usually spelt Eyeish?  One Caddo clan was supposedly of Quapaw
origin and was called Imaha - a clearly Dhegiha name!.  (There was also a
Caddo clan of Choctaw origin, named 'Yowani', according to Alice Fletcher.)

Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: R. Rankin <rankin at ku.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?


> Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
> the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
> found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
> wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
> Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
> Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
> presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
> be discovered.
>
> UPPER CASE vowels are accented.  What I found so far:
>
> Quapaw /$adAkke/ is 'Cherokee'.
> Quapaw /$awaNnaN/ is 'Shawnee'.
>
> Kansa /$ayAkki/ is 'Cherokee' in Dorsey's notes, but by
> the 1970's Mrs. Rowe gave a more modern /ccelEkki/.
> Note that Quapaw /d/ and Kansa /y/ normally correspond
> in cognate vocabulary.
> Kansa /moN$kOge/ is 'Creek, Muskogee'.  It's
> interesting since the Kansa speakers borrowed the name
> (from Creeks or perhaps others) with /$/ rather than
> /s/.  This probably reflects the fact that, in Creek,
> the sibilant is most often retroflexed next to back
> vowels, and this was apparently perceived as the
> alveopalatal rather than the dental or alveolar.
> Kansa /ccIkkasa/ and /ccattA/ are 'Chickasaw' and
> 'Choctaw' respectively -- both from Dorsey.
> Kansa /hi$A/ is 'Caddo'.  I don't have any etymology
> for this.  It's from Dorsey.
> Kansa /$Awane/ is 'Shawnee' for Dorsey, but again Mrs.
> Rowe gave the modern /$oNnI/.
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 15 20:05:58 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:05:58 -0600
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
In-Reply-To: <007a01c2448d$7011fde0$132f073e@a5h1k3>
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.140558.0600.>

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Anthony Grant wrote:
> Could Quapaw /hi$a/ have something to do with the little-known Caddoan tribe
> whose name is usually spelt Eyeish?  One Caddo clan was supposedly of Quapaw
> origin and was called Imaha - a clearly Dhegiha name!.

I'd noticed the Imaha.  They're one of the four (?) Quapaw villages that
Dorsey mentions in his survey article Siouan Sociology, which is mainly a
list of bands, clans, and villages from various sources.

Bob Rankin and I have a long standing debate over whether the village name
Okaxpa ("Quapaw, lit. downstream") is opposed the village name ImaNhaN, or
to the tribal name UmaNhaN ("Omaha") both literally "upstream".  Or, of
course, whether they are all independent of each other.  A major
constituent of this issue is whether Okxapa properly applied originally
only to the village Okaxpa, or to all of the Quapaw (in later terms).
Also of interest, how the term Arkansas (Alkansea) related to KkoNze
(Kansa(s), Kaw, various clans in Dhegiha groups) and which groups it
applied to.

I don't know if anyone has the energy to rehearse the arguments here and
now ...


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 15 22:18:25 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:18:25 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.171825.0500.>

> > Could Quapaw /hi$a/ have something to do with the
little-known Caddoan tribe
> > whose name is usually spelt Eyeish?  One Caddo clan
was supposedly of Quapaw
> > origin and was called Imaha - a clearly Dhegiha
name!.

They may well have been the group of Quapaws who moved
in with the Caddos when they left Arkansas.

The Dhegiha "Caddo" term is probably better preserved
in the Osage form /hiN:$a/ (long, nasal V as Carolyn
recorded) than in the Kaw term.  As for Eyeish, I
really can't offer an opinion.

> I'd noticed the Imaha.  They're one of the four (?)
[five -- RLR] Quapaw villages that Dorsey mentions in
his survey article Siouan Sociology, ...

which is mainly a
> list of bands, clans, and villages from various
sources.
>
> Bob Rankin and I have a long standing debate over
whether the village name
> Okaxpa ("Quapaw, lit. downstream") is opposed the
village name ImaNhaN, or to the tribal name UmaNhaN
("Omaha") both literally "upstream".  Or, of
> course, whether they are all independent of each
other.  A major
> constituent of this issue is whether Okxapa properly
applied originally
> only to the village Okaxpa, or to all of the Quapaw
(in later terms).

Well, FWIW, the village name was okaxpa-xti 'real
Quapaws' in the French accounts.  I won't recap all the
rest -- it must be in the archives someplace.

Bob


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 15 22:27:00 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:27:00 -0500
Subject: Imaha
Message-ID: <THU.15.AUG.2002.172700.0500.>

> They may well have been the group of Quapaws who
moved
> in with the Caddos when they left Arkansas.

Sorry, my wording was unclear.  It is the Caddo group
called Imaha that I'm talking about here, not the
"Eyeish."

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Aug 16 18:30:54 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:30:54 -0600
Subject: Character Set Problems with List
Message-ID: <FRI.16.AUG.2002.123054.0600.>

Is anyone other than the folks at KU receiving messages from the list
(some or all) that are converted to attachments, with the message replaced
by a text that starts out "This message uses a character set that is not
supported by the Internet Service."?

Is anyone noticing it occurring with postings from anyone other than David
Rood or myself?  Does it occur always with postings from us, or only
sometimes?

I am presently under the impression that this occurs when a Microsoft
Exchange email server receives a message in a character set it hasn't been
configured to believe supported, e.g., iso-8859-1.  I believe the Exchange
mail server can be told not to do this, by adding additional code pages,
but I haven't yet verified this.  The problem seems to be exacerbated by
particular users' sending email programs, e.g., maybe pine, which seems to
be especially solicitous about preserving such settings in included
messages.

This problem is different from a simple warning displayed at the top of
mail that the character set being used in the mail is, e.g., iso-8859-1,
and that you are actually using a different set.  It is also different
from problems due to email having been encoded wholly or partially in
HTML, which also causes some mail programs to present the message as an
attachment.  In those cases the message is sometimes displayed in
unformatted text, too.  I would discourage use of HTML in letters posted
to the list for that reason, though nobody's actually complained about it
(recently) and it doesn't seem to be a big problem.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Aug 16 20:02:37 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:02:37 -0500
Subject: More Quapaw ethnonyms for Dhegihanists.
Message-ID: <FRI.16.AUG.2002.150237.0500.>

While at the office today I checked the few field notes
A.S. Gatschet left from his Quapaw elicitation in 1888.
Gatschet is not known for his phonetic ability, so in
some instances it is not possible to determine which
voiceless stop he was hearing.  I the cases where I
simply cannot venture a phonemization, I write the stop
in CAPS below.  N marks nasalization of preceding V,
and accented V's are in CAPS also.

Gatschet           phonemicized     tribe
Shawa'no        /$awANno/        Shawnee
Masko'gi          /maskOki/            Creek
Ta'xta                /ttAxta/            Choctaw
(this is what happens to [c^] before a back V in a
language that had no phonemic affricates.  G. wrote it
two different times with initial T-)
Tcika'su            /CikkAso/        Chickasaw (note
that palatal is accepted preceding front V).
Semino'ne        /semiNnONne/ Seminole
Tonka'wa        /ToNKAwa/        Tonkawa
Shada'ki            /$adAkki/        Cherokee
Su'te                /sOTe/                Caddo
(another mysterious Caddo term)

I also double-checked La Flesche's Osage dictionary,
but oddly, no term for Cherokee.

Bob


From napsha51 at aol.com  Mon Aug 19 22:28:59 2002
From: napsha51 at aol.com (napsha51 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:28:59 -0400
Subject: chagxa & ichage
Message-ID: <MON.19.AUG.2002.182859.0400.>

TO All,
I have thought this over and over, and I feel I should write and clarify. I know that the question applied to these two words had nothing to do with complementary distribution, I don't know what I was thinking at the time I wrote it, I apologize!
unshimalapiye!


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Wed Aug 21 08:14:54 2002
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda A Cumberland)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:14:54 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <DGECJCJMGOEJKGCEPLFMMEKECHAA.shanwest@uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.031454.0500.>

I've been on the road for a while and am just now working through all the
messages on this list, hence the belated contribution to the discussion.
I'll add my Assiniboine data to Shannon's, since I have a few additional
terms, and there is some variation in the ones that I have.  These are
from Carry The Kettle, but are consistent with the forms Doug Parks
collected a decade ago at Ft. Belknap:

s^uNk-thokeca	= wolf
s^uNk-cuk?ana	= coyote (unaspirated c, but frequently written as j)
s^uNks^iNca  	= coyote pup (cf. s^uNks^iNcana  'puppy')
thokhana	= gray fox
s^uNka-sana     = red fox
mnaNza		= wolverine
wiNkcena	= wolverine


The first four (including 'puppy') have second syllable stress; the last
three have first syllable stress. The intervocalic voicing rule (as I
described in  Anadarko) applies. I include the terms for gray fox and
wolverine because they are non-canine.

cuk?ana = 'little', although it only occurs in 5 or 6 words in my (our)
data, as well as independently. The words commonly used are cusina
'little' and ptecena 'small'.

-s^iNca is surely a variant of c^iNca 'child' but nothing in the phonology
that I have discovered accounts for c^ -> s^. kc^ is rare, occurring only
in compounds and reduplications, i.e., across morpheme boundaries, and the
c^ does not change to s^ in those instances.  ks^ is a very common
syllable onset, of course, but the case in question crosses a morpheme
boundary. The two examples here are the only ones I find like that.

Linda



On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote:

> Did a little digging, and the Assiniboine Nakota words I found were
>
> s^uNga-dokeja = wolf
> s^uNga-jukana = coyote
> s^uNga-taNga = horse
>
> I have no non-canine based words for these, but I'll ask next time I see or
> talk to any of my consultants.
>
> Shannon
>
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 16:54:31 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:54:31 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020821020626.4443A-100000@lear.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.105431.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Linda A Cumberland wrote:
> s^uNks^iNca  	= coyote pup (cf. s^uNks^iNcana  'puppy')

> -s^iNca is surely a variant of c^iNca 'child' but nothing in the phonology
> that I have discovered accounts for c^ -> s^. kc^ is rare, occurring only
> in compounds and reduplications, i.e., across morpheme boundaries, and the
> c^ does not change to s^ in those instances.  ks^ is a very common
> syllable onset, of course, but the case in question crosses a morpheme
> boundary. The two examples here are the only ones I find like that.

For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca 'little, small, young' is z^iNga',
cognate with c^hiNc^a.  (This is aspirated in the southerly dialects of
Dakotan, right?)  The proto-form is *yiNka.  OP z^iNga' can be truncated
to just z^iN in special diminutive forms like si'z^iN 'little offspring'
from nisi' z^iNga' or saN'z^iN 'little brother' from saNga' z^iNga', and
so on.  For some reason 'old woman' is wa'?uz^iNga, literally 'little
woman', cf. English 'little old woman'.  I think this pattern occurs in
other Siouan languages as well, and maybe areally.

Interestingly, however, there are two words with s^iN'ga in what seems to
be the same diminutive sense.  One is s^iN'gaz^iNga '(younger) children',
cf. s^e'mi(N)z^iNga 'girl child' (a 'maid(en)' in old English usage) and
nu'z^iNga 'boy child' (a 'youth' in old English usage).  The other is
ni'kkas^iNga, nia's^iNga 'person(s)'.  I associate this possibly with the
diminutive only from knowing that the Osage refer to themselves in at
least ritual literature as 'the little ones', though I do not recall the
Osage form associated with this gloss.  Nikka refers to 'people' and
occurs in compounds, like these and nikkagahi 'chief'.  Nia's^iNga is an
puzzling variant of ni'kkas^iNga that I think I've mentioned before.

I believe there's another diminutive root *ksik(a) that we noticed
recently in some animal names.

JEK


From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu  Wed Aug 21 18:13:50 2002
From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:13:50 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.131350.0500.>

A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any Native American
languages have a word for land that means/is derived from "mother" (or
presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge but I'd ask around a
bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical ways of refering to
land too, and anything that indicates land conceived of as a possession (or
not).

I'll forward anything interesting to him, or if you "reply to all" he
should get it.  Thanks,
Catherine


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Wed Aug 21 18:46:49 2002
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda A Cumberland)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:46:49 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208211029170.5347-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.134649.0500.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca 'little, small, young' is z^iNga',
> cognate with c^hiNc^a.  (This is aspirated in the southerly dialects of
> Dakotan, right?)

Just to be clear, I'll confirm that the second c in c^iNca is unaspirated
in Assiniboine (a "northerly" dialect).



>   For some reason 'old woman' is wa'?uz^iNga, literally 'little
> woman', cf. English 'little old woman'.  I think this pattern occurs in
> other Siouan languages as well, and maybe areally.
>
> Interestingly, however, there are two words with s^iN'ga in what seems to
> be the same diminutive sense.  One is s^iN'gaz^iNga '(younger) children',
> cf. s^e'mi(N)z^iNga 'girl child' (a 'maid(en)' in old English usage) and
> nu'z^iNga 'boy child' (a 'youth' in old English usage).

For comparison, here are some relevant Assiniboine terms:

wakaNnana		old woman
wiNc^iNcana		girl  (literally, 'little woman' or 'little female')
but: hoks^ina		boy
c^iNca			child
mic^iNcapi		my children
but: 'taku's^kina	children (1st and 3rd syll. stress)
c^iNcana		calf; any small offspring of an animal
as in:
honog^ina c^iNcana	maggots
ptec^iNcana		buffalo calf

(and what does this imply about wiNc^iNcana?!)

Also of interest: 'thecana 'young' and wa'thecana 'to be young'

Linda


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 19:03:54 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:03:54 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <OFBAD67848.7A2B7FB4-ON86256C1C.00634BF8@wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.130354.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote:
> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any Native American
> languages have a word for land that means/is derived from "mother" (or
> presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge but I'd ask around a
> bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
> He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical ways of refering to
> land too, and anything that indicates land conceived of as a possession (or
> not).

I don't have an explicit reference in mind, but I've always had the
impression that the Earth is Grandmother and that various grandmothers in
higaN are the personification of Earth, e.g., Rabbit's Grandmother.  I
think this applies across Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe, and Winnebago.

As far as discussion of land, the letters in the Dorsey Omaha-Ponca text
collections would be a place to look for it.  I can recall some particular
examples.  One could find them easily by searching in the texts for
various terms like mazhaN, ttaNde, etc.  You have to be careful with
looking only at the English translation, as there are several different
possessive constructions in Omaha-Ponca, and these must to some extent
reflect different attitudes to or natures of possession.

Also, I recently read something in:

Mountain Wolf Woman, Sister of Crashing Thunder: The Autobiography of a
Winnebago Indian by Nancy O. Lurie (Editor), Ruth M. Underhill (Paperback
- June 1961)

MWW's father didn't take a homestead because he was Eagle Clan and felt
that land was the concern of Bear Clan, not Eagle Clan.  He said that
Eagle Clan was properly concerned with the sky, not the earth,

Certainly any discussion of treaty rights that includes or reports the
words of the Native Americans involved would be worth considering.  The
literature on this is large.  This is one of the sorts of things you can
find in the OP letters.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 19:05:33 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:05:33 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020821125419.3781G-100000@lear.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.130533.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Linda A Cumberland wrote:
> > For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca 'little, small, young' is z^iNga',
> > cognate with c^hiNc^a.  (This is aspirated in the southerly dialects of
> > Dakotan, right?)
>
> Just to be clear, I'll confirm that the second c in c^iNca is unaspirated
> in Assiniboine (a "northerly" dialect).

I see the problem.  Linda uses ^ to mark aspiration, whereas I use it for
hacek.  Linda's c^ is my c^h.  her c is my c^.

JEK


From daynal at nsula.edu  Wed Aug 21 21:08:45 2002
From: daynal at nsula.edu (Dayna Bowker Lee)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:08:45 -0700
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.140845.0700.DAYNAL@NSULA.EDU>

The Caddo use ?i-nah wah-dut (mother earth), sometimes just i-nah (?
"Because the Caddo came out of the ground they call it ina, mother, and go
back to it when they die" (Mooney 1896:1093-4).


----- Original Message -----
From: "Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC" <CaRudin1 at wsc.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Cc: "Randy Bertolas/SS/AC/WSC" <raberto1 at wsc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: land=mother???


>
> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any Native American
> languages have a word for land that means/is derived from "mother" (or
> presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge but I'd ask around a
> bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
> He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical ways of refering to
> land too, and anything that indicates land conceived of as a possession
(or
> not).
>
> I'll forward anything interesting to him, or if you "reply to all" he
> should get it.  Thanks,
> Catherine
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 20:37:17 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:37:17 -0600
Subject: please forward to the list (fwd)
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.143717.0600.>

Posted for Jan Ullrich.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:17:53 +0200
From: Jan Ullrich <mathotopa at centrum.cz>
To: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU>
Subject: please forward to the list

Catherine Rudin wrote:

> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any Native American
> languages have a word for land that means/is derived from "mother" (or
> presumably vice versa).

In traditional prayers the Lakhotas address the Earth as UNci' Makha' -
"Grandmother Earth".
In my audio collection of about 300 Lakhota prayer songs UNci' Makha'
appears about 10 times. In two songs nikhuN'shi (your grandmother) is used
instead, only symbolically without mentioning any particular word for Earth
or land.
The recent literature is full of the "Mother Earth" term, but I'd guess this
is a modern influence of the New Age or of the Pan-Indian approach. I have
no record of a song or a prayer with the word "in?" (mother) applied for the
land or the Earth.

> He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical ways of refering to
> land too, and anything that indicates land conceived of as a possession
> (or not).

I don't know if this is what your colleague is looking for, but in the songs
I found:
ThuNkashila makhoce kiN thawamakiya - Grandfather (Creator) gave me the land
makhoce waN washe chic'upi cha yanipi kte - I gave a good country so that
you may live (Creators words)


Also in so called Four Direction songs (which usually are actually six
direction songs) the directions are represented by animals and the earth
direction is usually symbolized by wahiN'heya - the mole.


Jan


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 20:44:56 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:44:56 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <OFBAD67848.7A2B7FB4-ON86256C1C.00634BF8@wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.144456.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote:
> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" ...

See also

Buffalo Bird Woman's Garden: Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians (Borealis)
by Gilbert L. Wilson, Jeffery R. Hanson (Introduction)

for Hidatsa attitudes to land and control of land.

I suspect that the request oversimplies, but I would imagine that European
and Native American attitudes toward land vary extensively with the
particular group within each larger category, and with time and place,
too.  Freehold has been an unusual pattern in Europe in many places in the
past, though it is considered the norm in the US (for those who don't live
in apartments).

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Aug 21 21:09:35 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:09:35 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.160935.0500.>

I can't think of anything in Siouan or Muskogean
languages that would approach this.  There are several
senses of Earth, of course.  The notion of "Mother
Earth" (and "Father Sky") seems to be central to a lot
of early Indo-European religious thinking.  The
concepts are discussed in some detail in that book on
Indo-European by Mallory.  If you need the
bibliographic information, I have it at the office.

My recollection is that some of the Southeastern tribes
had very definite ideas of land ownership.  The best
sources to consult on those groups would probably be
the large compendia published by the Bureau of American
Ethnology by John R. Swanton, but I have no specific
references to send you to.

Bob Rankin

----- Original Message -----
From: Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC <CaRudin1 at wsc.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Cc: Randy Bertolas/SS/AC/WSC <raberto1 at wsc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: land=mother???


>
> A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something
about Native American
> vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any
Native American
> languages have a word for land that means/is derived
from "mother" (or
> presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge
but I'd ask around a
> bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in
Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
> He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical
ways of refering to
> land too, and anything that indicates land conceived
of as a possession (or
> not).
>
> I'll forward anything interesting to him, or if you
"reply to all" he
> should get it.  Thanks,
> Catherine
>
>


From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Wed Aug 21 21:33:46 2002
From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:33:46 -0700
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <OFBAD67848.7A2B7FB4-ON86256C1C.00634BF8@wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.143346.0700.>

The Seneca (and other Iroquois) ritual expression for the earth means "our
mother, who serves as a support for our feet".

Yes, the Caddo expression is ina? wa:dat (? for glottal stop, and wa:dat
has an accent on the first syllable). It's quite literally "mother earth".
Can ina? be a borrowing from Osage (assuming that Osage women captives
often became Caddo mothers)?

Wally


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Aug 21 21:35:50 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:35:50 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.163550.0500.>

> Can ina? be a borrowing from Osage (assuming that
Osage women captives
> often became Caddo mothers)?

There was also the Quapaw group that associated itself
with the Caddos for awhile, and they have the same
term, inaN'.

Bob


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Wed Aug 21 22:02:34 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:02:34 -0700
Subject: 'he told me'
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.150234.0700.>

For the Assiniboine of 'he told me', I've got omagiyaga and omijiyaga. I
recognize the rule g --> j / i_, but why is the i there in the first place?
Is there a difference in these two forms that I'm not seeing? Linda, do you
get both forms too?

I have this pair but I don't have a clue what to do with it.

John buza waNz^i hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omagiyaga
John told me he bought a cat last night (he = John)

John buza waN'z^i 'hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omijiyaga
He told me John bought a cat last night (same reading as English he != John)

Any ideas?

Shannon


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 22:19:23 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:19:23 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <000901c2495a$bc156c00$e2b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.161923.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> There was also the Quapaw group that associated itself with the Caddos
> for awhile, and they have the same term, inaN'.

I think they Imaha are actually still a component of the Caddo tribe, or
rather that this was a permanent merger.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 22:32:42 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:32:42 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <14298283.1029940426@[192.168.2.36]>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.163242.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote:
> Yes, the Caddo expression is ina? wa:dat (? for glottal stop, and wa:dat
> has an accent on the first syllable). It's quite literally "mother earth".
> Can ina? be a borrowing from Osage (assuming that Osage women captives
> often became Caddo mothers)?

Is ina? then not the usual term for mother in Caddo?  Or is this term not
typical of Caddoan generally?  If it isn't the usual mother term, it's
interesting that it is still glossed as 'mother'.  I think na ~ ma and so
on are in the usual range for 'mother' terms in many languages, like pa ~
ta, etc., for 'father', but it would be interesting to have a demonstrable
borrowing, with or without a special usage.  A special usage would be like
learned mater, alma mater, maternal and so on in English.

The Siouan terms for 'mother' and 'father' are all fairly clearly related,
in spite of being within the range of non-genetic similiarity for these
terms.  One oddity that is fairly regularly repeated (along with regular
sound correspondences) is the presence of two suppletive stems in each
case.  In Dhegiha -naNhaN is the 'first person/vocative' stem for
'mother', while the third person is stem is -haN.  I don't think the
suppletion always goes along those precise lines.

Dhegiha also has iN as the first person possessive for these stems,
otherwise not found in Dhegiha (except maybe iNs^?age '(my) elder'?), but
rather similar, I think, to the first person possessive in Ioway-Otoe,
though I doubt it's a loan.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 21 22:47:10 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:47:10 -0600
Subject: 'he told me'
In-Reply-To: <000c01c2495e$74f98be0$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.164710.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Shannon West wrote:

> For the Assiniboine of 'he told me', I've got omagiyaga and omijiyaga. I
> recognize the rule g --> j / i_, but why is the i there in the first place?
> Is there a difference in these two forms that I'm not seeing? Linda, do you
> get both forms too?

Isn't this an opposition of the possessive and the second dative?  I
suppose in this case the stems are something like ogiyaga 'to tell to
someone regarding one's own' and ogijiyaga 'to tell to someone regarding
someone else's (with the approval of that other person)'.  And the first
dative would be ogiyaga, too, but inflect differently, and mean 'to tell
to someone regarding someone else's (without their approval)'?  Except I'd
kind of expect the possessive to be omiyaga, and for omagiyaga to be the
first dative.  Perhaps I can be forgiven being a bit confused when the
regular OP dative and possessive are opposite in morphological behavior
from the Dakotan forms.  At least there's no second dative to worry about
in OP.

> I have this pair but I don't have a clue what to do with it.
>
> John buza waNz^i hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omagiyaga
> John told me he bought a cat last night (he = John)
>
> John buza waN'z^i 'hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omijiyaga
> He told me John bought a cat last night (same reading as English he != John)
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Shannon
>


From mmccaffe at indiana.edu  Thu Aug 22 00:03:48 2002
From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:03:48 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <002501c24957$0f736b80$e2b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.190348.0500.>

You might look at Charles Callendar, 1962, "Social Organization of the
Central Algonkian Indians." Publications in Anthropology 7. Milwaukee
Public Museum, Milwaukee. In Emerson's and Sasso's excellent chapter 15
titled  "Prelude to History on the Eastern Prairies" in the Smithsonian's
recent (what year?) _Societies in Eclipse, Archaeology of the Eastern
Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400-1700_, ed., Brose, Cowan and Mainfort,
they seem to suggest an Oneata cultural pattern expressed in
"...patrilineal clans organized into earth and sky moieties."

I'm not sure if this is useful to your research, but maybe.

Michael McCafferty


 On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:

> I can't think of anything in Siouan or Muskogean
> languages that would approach this.  There are several
> senses of Earth, of course.  The notion of "Mother
> Earth" (and "Father Sky") seems to be central to a lot
> of early Indo-European religious thinking.  The
> concepts are discussed in some detail in that book on
> Indo-European by Mallory.  If you need the
> bibliographic information, I have it at the office.
>
> My recollection is that some of the Southeastern tribes
> had very definite ideas of land ownership.  The best
> sources to consult on those groups would probably be
> the large compendia published by the Bureau of American
> Ethnology by John R. Swanton, but I have no specific
> references to send you to.
>
> Bob Rankin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC <CaRudin1 at wsc.edu>
> To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> Cc: Randy Bertolas/SS/AC/WSC <raberto1 at wsc.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:13 PM
> Subject: land=mother???
>
>
> >
> > A colleague here at Wayne State is writing something
> about Native American
> > vs. European views of "the land" and asked me if any
> Native American
> > languages have a word for land that means/is derived
> from "mother" (or
> > presumably vice versa).  I said not to my knowledge
> but I'd ask around a
> > bit.    So....  Anyone know of any such thing in
> Siouan?   Or elsewhere?
> > He'd probably be interested in any other metaphorical
> ways of refering to
> > land too, and anything that indicates land conceived
> of as a possession (or
> > not).
> >
> > I'll forward anything interesting to him, or if you
> "reply to all" he
> > should get it.  Thanks,
> > Catherine
> >
> >
>
>
>


Michael McCafferty
307 Memorial Hall
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
47405
mmccaffe at indiana.edu

"When you eventually see through the veils to how things really are, you
will keep saying again and again, "This is certainly not like we thought
it was".

--Rumi


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 22 01:59:25 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:59:25 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020821185726.19384D-100000@ariel.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.195925.0600.>

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> ... In Emerson's and Sasso's excellent chapter 15 titled "Prelude to
> History on the Eastern Prairies" in the Smithsonian's recent (what
> year?) _Societies in Eclipse, Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands
> Indians, A.D. 1400-1700_, ed., Brose, Cowan and Mainfort, they seem to
> suggest an Oneota cultural pattern expressed in "...patrilineal clans
> organized into earth and sky moieties."

This is generally descriptive of Dhegiha society, and, though I'm not sure
about the moieties, the rest covers Ioway-Otoe-Missouria and Winnebago,
too, and generally Central Algonquian (in the regional sense).  It's
certainly very likely that some of the picture, or the clarity in it,
comes from examining the likely suspects.

On the other hand, some fairly abstract cultural factors are thought to be
estimatable from physical evidence.  For example, the fairly rapid change
in stylistic detail of Oneota pottery is thought to reflect a patrilineal,
patrilocal pattern, on the assumption that women made the pottery and that
this approach to social organization is known to produce this pattern in
comparable historical societies.  Essentially, the pottery makers bring in
and get exposed to a variety of competing styles as they come into their
husband's group.  By contrast, the stability of styles in Middle Missouri
reflects matilineal, matrilocal patterns.  Using the traditional style is
an expression of kingroup solidarity.

I've also seen discussions of Oneota that suggest, based on house
population sizes estimated from house size and hearth numbers, and
arranged temporally, that Oneota varied between wife's parent and
husband's locality patterns with time.  Larger houses are correlated with
wife's parent residence, which might reflect matrilineality.

(I forget the terms for wife's parent and husband's parent residence -
uxorilocal and avunculocal?)

A possible basis for an assumption of a sky moiety could be the suspicion
that certain Oneota pottery decoration patterns are though to be stylized
representations of hawks.  I don't know if other patterns are thought to
represent the earth, but I know that a fairly wide range of patterns are
found.

Although it's certainly a reasonable suspicion that Oneota has some
conection with Siouan, the notion is not universally accepted and the
details are far from clear.  The existance of earth and sky divisions is
fairly well attested in historical times, however, and might be adequately
attested to in, say, Dorsey's Siouan Sociology survey, or in Fletcher &
LaFlesche.

Although not all IE languages follow a sun:male :: moon:female pattern
(historically reversed in Germanic), I think sky:male :: earth:female is
fairly constant.  In Siouan (and regional?) mythology the sun is male.  I
believe that the Sun is the father of the two twins, though this part of
the story is missing in the OP version.  It's there in the IO version, if
I remember correctly.  It's also true, I think, in Navajo mythology.  The
Sun and his sons figure in Blackfoot mythology as well, though the point
of view is somewhat different.


From jggoodtracks at juno.com  Wed Aug 21 23:54:40 2002
From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:54:40 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <WED.21.AUG.2002.185440.0500.>

For what it is worth, in Pawnee, my mother = atira.
John might ask David what the term is in Wichita.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:32:42 -0600 (MDT) Koontz John E
<John.Koontz at colorado.edu> writes:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote:
> > Yes, the Caddo expression is ina? wa:dat (? for glottal stop, and
wa:dat
> > has an accent on the first syllable). It's quite literally "mother
earth".
> > Can ina? be a borrowing from Osage (assuming that Osage women
captives
> > often became Caddo mothers)?
>


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Thu Aug 22 05:50:17 2002
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda A Cumberland)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:50:17 -0500
Subject: 'he told me'
In-Reply-To: <000c01c2495e$74f98be0$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.005017.0500.>

The whole -ki-/kici thing has been giving me fits, too.  There are three
verbs in the set:

oyaka		to tell, announce
		   omnaka	'I tell, announce'
		   oyaka	'he tells, announces'

okiyaka		to tell someone
		   owemnaka	'I told him'
		   omakiyaka	'he told me'  (dat. pros: ma-/ni)

okiciyaka	to tell someone about something (else)
		   owecimnaka	'I told him about it'
		   omiciyaka    'he told me about it' (mici-/nici)

Okiciyaka is really more like 'he told me it for me', so John's suggestion
of second data is on target.  I don't have examples of the forms you give,
Shannon, but I like your two test sentences and I will phone my primary
consultant to elicit them from her to see if I get the same responses.

Here is my most straightforward example of okiciyaka:

mas?apha s^ten ochicimnakiNkta	'when he calls, I'll tell you'

So I guess I should say, mas?awakipha s^ten ochicimnakiNkta ('when I call
her, I'll tell you about it')!

Linda



On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Shannon West wrote:

> For the Assiniboine of 'he told me', I've got omagiyaga and omijiyaga. I
> recognize the rule g --> j / i_, but why is the i there in the first place?
> Is there a difference in these two forms that I'm not seeing? Linda, do you
> get both forms too?
>
> I have this pair but I don't have a clue what to do with it.
>
> John buza waNz^i hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omagiyaga
> John told me he bought a cat last night (he = John)
>
> John buza waN'z^i 'hiNhaN opetuN (z^e) omijiyaga
> He told me John bought a cat last night (same reading as English he != John)
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Shannon
>
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 22 17:30:55 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:30:55 -0500
Subject: land=mother???
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.123055.0500.>

Ioway-Otoe hiN- is, I think, definitely to be
associated with earlier *miN-.  There are a few other
terms that show the same h/m/w alternation (or
replacement) pattern.  I seriously wonder/doubt if
Dhegiha iN- is cognate with the IO prefix; the
alternation is semi-regular for IO but not at all in
Dhegiha.  I guess I always just assumed that terms for
'ones own parent' didn't need a possessor since they
were always possessed by their antecedant.  And I don't
think iN- a loan either.

> Dhegiha also has iN as the first person possessive
for these stems,
> otherwise not found in Dhegiha (except maybe iNs^?age
'(my) elder'?), but
> rather similar, I think, to the first person
possessive in Ioway-Otoe,
> though I doubt it's a loan.


From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com  Thu Aug 22 17:54:34 2002
From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:54:34 +0100
Subject: land=mother
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.185434.0100.ANTHONY.GRANT3@BTINTERNET.COM>

Folks:

My understanding is that in Caddo ina' is confined to 'my mother' and that the normal stem for 'mother' is quite different (is it /sa:sin/ or is my memoy playing tricks on me?).  Caddo has such a low percentage of cogantes with any other Caddoan language that the original Proto-Cadoan form may just now be attested in Wichita, Kitsai, etc.  

Anthony.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020822/c177c359/attachment.htm>

From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Thu Aug 22 17:58:31 2002
From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:58:31 -0700
Subject: land=mother
In-Reply-To: <002301c24a04$fc1d52e0$9f5e073e@a5h1k3>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.105831.0700.>

Yes, ina? is the speaker's mother, while sa:sin? is somebody else's mother.
My thought has been that sa:sin? is the earlier Caddo word, and that ina?
developed from the practice of making captive women into Caddo mothers.
Since the Osages were the prototypical enemies of the Caddos, I thought
that Osage might be the best source. (?)
Wally


From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Thu Aug 22 18:06:46 2002
From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:06:46 -0700
Subject: land=mother
In-Reply-To: <56357.1030013910@[192.168.2.36]>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.110646.0700.>

On 'mother'

Something that always tickled my fancy is the fact that the Tuscarora word
for 'my mother' is E:nE? (where E here represents nasalized schwa, with
stress on the first one, and automatic falling tone). Unlike the other
forms for mother, which are quite different, and all other kinship terms,
there is no identifiable pronominal prefix referring to either of the
kinsmen in the relationship, the mother or the child.

As you all know, the Tuscarora were in the Southeast (mostly North
Carolina) until most of them made their way back up north to join the
other Northern Iroquoians at the beginning of the eighteenth century.


Marianne Mithun


On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote:

> Yes, ina? is the speaker's mother, while sa:sin? is somebody else's mother.
> My thought has been that sa:sin? is the earlier Caddo word, and that ina?
> developed from the practice of making captive women into Caddo mothers.
> Since the Osages were the prototypical enemies of the Caddos, I thought
> that Osage might be the best source. (?)
> Wally
>
>
>


From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Thu Aug 22 18:13:39 2002
From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:13:39 -0700
Subject: land=mother
In-Reply-To: <56357.1030013910@[192.168.2.36]>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.111339.0700.>

I should add that the Tuscarora form is not cognate with forms for 'my
mother' in the other Northern Iroquoian languages, except for it's closest
relative Nottoway, which was spoken into the nineteenth century in
Virginia.


Marianne Mithun


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 22 18:25:28 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:25:28 -0500
Subject: mother CORRECTION
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.132528.0500.>

Wally's note made me look twice at my posting re Quapaw
'mother'.  The Quapaw form for one's own mother is
normally iNda', not inaN as I had originally written,
although d/n do vary in contact with a nasal vowel in
Quapaw.  So I think Wally's right -- Osage may well be
the better bet.  I have to admit though that I have no
idea what Caddo phonology might do with either of these
Siouan forms.

I've got to stop doing my email at home where I can't
check up on my data. . . .

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 22 21:40:36 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:40:36 -0600
Subject: land=mother???
In-Reply-To: <001b01c24a01$bc6edcc0$d1b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <THU.22.AUG.2002.154036.0600.>

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:

> Ioway-Otoe hiN- is, I think, definitely to be associated with earlier
> *miN-.

Agreed.  Of course, I'm referring here to the first person inalienable
possessive prefix.

> There are a few other terms that show the same h/m/w alternation (or
> replacement) pattern.

As far as I can recollect hiN- ~ miN- within IO only in the sense that
certain auxiliary verbs have miN- in the first person, whereas most verbs
gave hiN- for the first person patient.

Actually, there's not trace of w ~ m in the first person in Mississippi
Valley except in Dakotan (where w ~ m are general), in syncopated first
persons that have *p- still represented as b or m (like Dakotan y-stems or
?-stems bluha, muN), in Dhegiha wi- A1P2 (equivalent of Dakotan c^hi-), in
Dhegiha first person possessive wi-, and in those IO miN- forms.  Other
forms have h- (IO and Wi) or 0 (zero) (Dhegiha).  So:

                Da        OP        IO         Wi
Possessive      ma/i(N)-  wi-/iN-   hiN-       ---
Regular A1      wa-       a-        ha-        ha-
Regular P1      ma(N)-    aN-       hiN-/miN-  hiN-
Notes           mi(N)-    iN-

Notes:  Da mi(N)- is the form in the possessive and second dative.
        Dh iN is the P1 form in the (only) dative.
        IO miN- occurs with certain positional stems as first person.

Winnebago has epenthetic h- before initial V, but IO does not.  Both IO
and Wi lose initial h in the first person when some other morpheme comes
before the first person.

I've suggested elsewhere that the IO and Wi regular P1 forms are
contamination from the dative paradigm.  In essence the old dative
paradigm as attested in OP has replaced the regular transitive paradigm.
There is serious rearranging of the dative paradigms in IO and Wi anyway.
This part looks essentially like an antipassive run wild.

> I seriously wonder/doubt if Dhegiha iN- is cognate with the IO prefix;
> the alternation is semi-regular for IO but not at all in Dhegiha.  I
> guess I always just assumed that terms for 'ones own parent' didn't
> need a possessor since they were always possessed by their antecedant.
> And I don't think iN- a loan either.

The iN- is definitely extra on the front of the first persons of father
and mother, e.g., dadi' 'father (VOC) vs. iNda'di 'my father'.  These
forms have the stem -dadi. The second person is dhi-adi, the third is
idh-adi (epenthetic dh after i).  These have the alternate stem -adi.

The two things that may explain iN- here as something other than an
arbitrary fact are the IO first person possessive hiN- and the OP dative
iN-, which are not necessarily related of course other than by both being
first persons.  Etymologically the iN- on the front of iNs?a'ge 'elder' is
also extra, but it's apparently fixed in OP.

I don't mean to imply that the first person possessive in OP 'father' and
'mother' is borrowed from IO, but only that it arises in the same way in
Proto-MV, but is restricted as to which kin terms it applies to.
Elsewhere in OP the first person possessive prefix is wi- as in wine'gi
'my mother's brother'.  Dh wi- actually looks more like an innovation than
iN- given the Dakotan and IO forms.


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Mon Aug 26 14:39:29 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:39:29 -0500
Subject: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
Message-ID: <MON.26.AUG.2002.093929.0500.>

I've checked Fletcher & LaFlesche, and also the
Stabler-Swetland dictionary.  For "Cherokee", the
latter has:

che'thuki  (corruption of English-no Omaha word)


Of the ethnonyms requested, Fletcher & LaFlesche
list only Caddo.  (Pawnee is Pa'thiN.)

Caddo, Pa'thiNwasabe.  This name means "black Pawnee."


Apologies if this has already been covered.  I just
got back from a week-and-a-half vacation.


Rory





                      Koontz John E
                      <John.Koontz at colorad        To:       siouan at lists.colorado.edu
                      o.edu>                      cc:
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  Re: Dhegihanists: Ethnonyms for SE tribes?
                      owner-siouan at lists.c
                      olorado.edu


                      08/15/2002 11:25 AM
                      Please respond to
                      siouan






On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> Awhile back I was asked to provide Dhegiha names for
> the various tribes of the aboriginal Southeast.  I
> found several in my Kansa and Quapaw notes, but I
> wonder if any of you have more from Osage, Omaha or
> Ponca?  These would include names for the Cherokee,
> Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and
> presumably Caddo, plus a variety of others if they can
> be discovered.

There is a list of Omaha ethnonyms in Fletcher & LaFlesche that has some
of these, I think.  There's also a list in Howard's Ponca Tribe, and I
know some of them appear in LaFlesche for Osage.  Unfortunately, those are
the only sources for Dhegiha ethnonyms that I know of, other than possible
random inclusions in ethnographic material or texts.


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Mon Aug 26 17:05:18 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:05:18 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
Message-ID: <MON.26.AUG.2002.120518.0500.>

John wrote:
>  Nikka refers to 'people' and
> occurs in compounds, like these and nikkagahi 'chief'.  Nia's^iNga is an
> puzzling variant of ni'kkas^iNga that I think I've mentioned before.

I wonder if dropping the /kk/ in this word isn't just
a rapid-speech slurring that is becoming a secondary
standard because four full syllables is too long for
a word that just means 'person' or 'people'.  I've
heard the word reduced even further in a compound by
one of our speakers, Emmaline Sanchez, to what sounds
like /ne'os^iN/ (the 'o' being perhaps more of a shwa):

ne'os^iN hiN's^kube = 'thick-haired person' = Bigfoot

Tangentially, Fletcher & LaFlesche list /s^e hiN's^kube/
as 'peach', where /s^e/ means 'apple' in Omaha.  So I
guess /hiN's^kube/ (/hiN/ = 'hair'; /s^kube/ = 'deep' or
'thick') could be glossed as the standard Omaha word for
'hairy'.

Does anyone have words for Bigfoot in other languages?

Rory


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Aug 27 15:23:00 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:23:00 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <OF2AB04A56.8FC63634-ON86256C21.005BF078@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.27.AUG.2002.092300.0600.>

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> John wrote: > Nikka refers to 'people' and > occurs in compounds, like
> these and nikkagahi 'chief'.  Nia's^iNga is an > puzzling variant of
> ni'kkas^iNga that I think I've mentioned before.
>
> I wonder if dropping the /kk/ in this word isn't just
> a rapid-speech slurring that is becoming a secondary
> standard because four full syllables is too long for
> a word that just means 'person' or 'people'.  I've
> heard the word reduced even further in a compound by
> one of our speakers, Emmaline Sanchez, to what sounds
> like /ne'os^iN/ (the 'o' being perhaps more of a shwa):

I wondered about fast speech and contraction, but elision usually affects
dh and simple stops, not the tense series.  Also, this variation is
attested in Dorsey's materials from the 1880s.  My impression is that
nias^iNga emphasizes an outside person, while nikkas^iNga is an inside
person or the default form.  I supppose the kk could be viewed a sort of
reflexive or reciprocal, though it doesn't appear that the
reflexive/reciprocal -kki- is historically present here.

I'm hestitent about putting too much weight on this hypothesis.  It seemed
consistant across a random sample of examples, but it called for a certain
amount of interpretation, and I thought that a larger sample or
consultation would be needed to confirm it.  Unfortunately, nias^iNga and
nikkas^iNga are very common in the texts and consultation wasn't possible.

I think I've discussed this with Kathy Shea in the past, but I can't
remember what she suggested, which I hope means we didn't come to any
definite conclusions!

> ne'os^iN hiN's^kube = 'thick-haired person' = Bigfoot

The loss of -ga in a compound would be reasonable, especially with z^iNga,
of which I take s^iNga to be a doublet form.  Isn't bluebird waz^iN'ttu
(waz^iNga '(small) bird')?  Z^iNga also loses -ga in diminutive forms like
siz^iN 'little child' or saNz^iN 'little brother'.

> Tangentially, Fletcher & LaFlesche list /s^e hiN's^kube/ as 'peach',
> where /s^e/ means 'apple' in Omaha.  So I guess /hiN's^kube/ (/hiN/ =
> 'hair'; /s^kube/ = 'deep' or 'thick') could be glossed as the standard
> Omaha word for 'hairy'.

I agree, I've encountered 'deep furred/haired' somewhere else, too, I
think in the Dorsey texts.  I believe hiN is 'fur' or 'body hair' (e.g.,
on a human).

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 28 03:10:20 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:10:20 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208270907480.21278-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.27.AUG.2002.211020.0600.>

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
> I've encountered 'deep furred/haired' somewhere else, too, I think in
> the Dorsey texts.  I believe hiN is 'fur' or 'body hair' (e.g., on a
> human).

hiN' s^ku'be 'thick feathers' (under the wing of an eagle) JOD 90:581:1-2
waiiN' s^ku'be 'thick robe' JOD 90:40-18
xa'de s^ku'be 'deep grass' JOD 90:58.13

but

uc^[h?]i'z^e s^u'ga 'dense thicket' JOD 90:38.14
wac^hi's^ka wiN s^u'ga=xti 'a very thick[ly wooded?] creek' JOD 90:149.10
ha' s^u'ga 'thick skin' JOD 90:235.19
xdhabe' s^uga'=xti 'thick[ly standing] trees' JOD 90:277.2

HiN' apparently also covers downy feathers as well as fur or body hair.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 28 04:41:42 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:41:42 -0600
Subject: Vowel Length in Omaha-Ponca
Message-ID: <TUE.27.AUG.2002.224142.0600.>

In OP there are some words that vary in accentuation.  In the previous
examples of 'thick', for example, this variation occurred with s^u'ga ~
s^uga'.  A prominent example is naN'ba ~ naNba' 'two'.  To a certain exten
one can formulate rules like 'accent falls on every other syllable in a
phrase' or 'accent falls on the second syllable when followed by =bi or
some other enclitic.

Alternating:

xdhabe' naNba' 'two trees' 90:320.6
gdhe'ba naN'ba 'twenty' 90:86.9

Moved by enclitic?

gdhe'bahiN'wiNttaN'ga naNba'=bi=ama '2000 they say' 90:88.8
aN'ba waxu'be naNba'=the=di'=hi=kki 'when two Sundays had passed' 90:661.6

But these only work some of the time.

Not alternating:

hiNbe' naN'ba 'two moccasions' 90:297.14
miN'daNbe naN'ba 'two hours' 90:21.27
z^aN'inaN'ge naNba' 'two wagons' 90:642.2
s^aN'ge wa'xe etta'=xti naNba' 'two of the white people's horses' 90:777.8

Not moved by enclitic:

naN'ba=xti=egaN 'about two' 90:247.16

Neither principle at work:

wakkaN'dagi naN'ba=akha 'the two watermonsters' 90:249.1

Here we see waCV'CV naN'ba and waCV'CV naNba':

wasa'be naN'ba=ma 'the two black bears'  90:18.5-6
tti' waxu'be naNba'=the 'the two sacred tents' 90:462.2
nini'ba waxu'be naN'ba=khe 'the two sacred pipes' 90:471.14

There are often doublets or near doublets, as just above or below:

ni'as^iNga naN'ba 'two people' 90:23.2
ni'as^iNga naNba'=dhaNkha 'the two people' 90:356.218

nu'z^iNga naNba'=akha 'the two boys' 90:86.5
nu'z^iNga naN'ba 'two boys' 90:85.14

maN' naN'ba 'two arrows' 90:46.8
maN' naNba'=dhaNdhaN 'two arrows each' JOD 1890:13
naN' naNba'=akha 'the two grown ones' 90:88.14

====

There seem to be several possibilities here, one being that Dorsey
couldn't hear accent very well, and another being that the principles
governing it are too complex for my deductive powers at present.  I'm not
so sure that I believe the former, though the latter could easily be true.

What has occurred to me is that the word 'two' is naN'baa or maybe
naNaN'baa with H(H)LL as its pitch contour or accentual pattern, and a
final long vowel.  I suspect that a final long vowel would occasionally be
salient enough, especially if emphasized by an alternating stress pattern
or perhaps by certain following enclitics, to come across to English
trained ears as accented.

An alternative I'm less comfortable with is that naNaN'ba alone can be
sometimes perceived as finally accented, though it is always HHL, perhaps
simply because it is not reduced to schwa?  Cases like naNba'=akha would
still be analyzable as hearing something like a long vowel as accented:
naN(aN)'ba=akha heard as naNbaa'kha in spite of a H(H)LL(L) contour.
(The final vowel is elided or voiceless after /kh/.)

====

The comparative data doesn't help here.  Dakotan has nuN'pa, reduplicating
as nuN'mnuNpa, i.e., appearing to be monosyllabic with a stem-forming -a.
Ioway-Otoe has nuN(uN?)'we.  Winnebago has nuNuN'p, but all monosyllables
are long and the final vowel being e after a simple stop has been lost.
The length of the first syllable may be indicated by Winnebago nuNuNpi'wi
'a pair', which retains length in a context of a longer word.

JEK


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Aug 28 16:47:56 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:47:56 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.114756.0500.>

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
>> I've encountered 'deep furred/haired' somewhere else, too, I think in
>> the Dorsey texts.  I believe hiN is 'fur' or 'body hair' (e.g., on a
>> human).
>
> hiN' s^ku'be 'thick feathers' (under the wing of an eagle) JOD 90:581:1-2
> waiiN' s^ku'be 'thick robe' JOD 90:40-18
> xa'de s^ku'be 'deep grass' JOD 90:58.13

> but

> uc^[h?]i'z^e s^u'ga 'dense thicket' JOD 90:38.14
> wac^hi's^ka wiN s^u'ga=xti 'a very thick[ly wooded?] creek' JOD 90:149.10
> ha' s^u'ga 'thick skin' JOD 90:235.19
> xdhabe' s^uga'=xti 'thick[ly standing] trees' JOD 90:277.2

> HiN' apparently also covers downy feathers as well as fur or body hair.

> JEK

Yes.  I think s^ku'be generally means 'deep' like water
or 'thick' like a board.  s^u'ga is most commonly used for
'thick' in the sense of trees or bodies clustered closely
together.  The ha' s^u'ga example John gives above challenges
that limitation, however.

Rory





                      Koontz John E
                      <John.Koontz at colorad        To:       Siouan List <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
                      o.edu>                      cc:
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  RE: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
                      owner-siouan at lists.c
                      olorado.edu


                      08/27/2002 10:10 PM
                      Please respond to
                      siouan


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Aug 28 17:27:20 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:27:20 -0600
Subject: OP waiiN 'robe'
In-Reply-To: <OF132028BF.DBA2181A-ON86256C23.005B81B2@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.112720.0600.>

> waiiN' s^ku'be 'thick robe' JOD 90:40-18

An incidental footnote:  I believe I transcribed waiiN' 'robe' as it was
provided by Dorsey, in the sense of one thing for one thing.  I never
heard it said myself.  I've always assumed it was something like wai'?iN
or wa(?)iN'i, except that I'd expect the first to be *we'?iN and I can't
see why the form would be plural (the second alternative).  I'm assuming a
connection with [?]iN 'wear on the shoulders'.  One of those little
mysteries that I can't solve, though the smaller they are, the more
grateful I am.  Except that anything that simultaneously challenges the
foundation block of second syllable or, better, second mora stress and the
morphophonemics of wa-i- can't be swept under the carpet without leaving a
bit of a bulge.

I suppose this term might be the one used today for blanket, but I don't
remember that.

JEK


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Aug 28 20:19:39 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:19:39 -0500
Subject: OP waiiN 'robe'
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.151939.0500.>

>> waiiN' s^ku'be 'thick robe' JOD 90:40-18

> An incidental footnote:  I believe I transcribed waiiN' 'robe' as it was
> provided by Dorsey, in the sense of one thing for one thing.  I never
> heard it said myself.  I've always assumed it was something like wai'?iN
> or wa(?)iN'i, except that I'd expect the first to be *we'?iN and I can't
> see why the form would be plural (the second alternative).  I'm assuming
a
> connection with [?]iN 'wear on the shoulders'.  One of those little
> mysteries that I can't solve, though the smaller they are, the more
> grateful I am.  Except that anything that simultaneously challenges the
> foundation block of second syllable or, better, second mora stress and
the
> morphophonemics of wa-i- can't be swept under the carpet without leaving
a
> bit of a bulge.

> I suppose this term might be the one used today for blanket, but I don't
> remember that.

Could it just be wa?iN' meaning 'that which is worn', with the glottal
stop being elided for lazy speech, while the moment originally alotted
to it is epenthetically taken up with oral /i/ as the jaw and tongue
move into position for the following /iN/ before the vellum opens the
passage to the nasal cavity?

The form *we'?iN apparently does exist in the term shoN'geweiN, meaning
'harness' ['thing-by-means-of-which-a-horse-draws-with-its-shoulders'],
as given in Fletcher & LaFlesche on page 621.

Rory


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Aug 28 22:19:23 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:19:23 -0500
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.171923.0500.>

John wrote:
> I wondered about fast speech and contraction, but elision usually
> affects dh and simple stops, not the tense series.

What are you referring to as "simple stops" here?  My understanding
has been that there are three series in Omaha: voiced unaspirated;
voiceless unaspirated, or tense; and voiceless aspirated.  Am I
missing a set?

Thanks,
Rory


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 00:19:17 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:19:17 -0600
Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes
In-Reply-To: <OF4C9B2403.99D878AC-ON86256C23.00799B9D@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.181917.0600.>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> What are you referring to as "simple stops" here?  My understanding
> has been that there are three series in Omaha: voiced unaspirated;
> voiceless unaspirated, or tense; and voiceless aspirated.  Am I
> missing a set?

Only the ejectives, but I always overlook them in this context, too, so
essentially, no, you have them all.  Some might prefer to call the tense
series voiceless geminate or voiceless preaspirated (not really true in
OP, but mostly so in Osage).  They are, strictly speaking voiceless
unaspirated, too, and that is often the most perceptible quality they have
in OP.  However, they are not historically the voiceless unaspirated
series.  What is now the voiced series was formerly the voicless
unaspirated series *p > b, etc.  The corresponding series in Dakotan and
Osage are still voiceless aspirated.  I forget with Quapaw, but it's
complex there.

The tense series correspond to Dakotan clusters (OP tte vs. Da pte) or
aspirates (OP tta vs. Da tha).  Since I look at things historically a lot,
I tend to avoid calling the OP tense series the voiceless unaspirated
series.  It only confuses things in that context.  It's a perfectly valid
assessment, though, as far as things go synchronically in OP.

I also wouldn't call the voiced series voiced unaspirated, because, while
it's quite true, there aren't any voiced aspirated series in languages of
the region.  You might also call the voiced series lax (in opposition to
the tense series).

Simple, the term you asked about, is another term for voiced.  The
terminology arises from the fact that the other series behave like
clusters in syllable canons.  So, some people might treat the other series
as clusters or complex.  Or maybe only one of them, depending on what
school they followed.  I think most people don't treat them as clusters
today, or at least not Dakotan aspirates, but I decided sometime around
1980 that I didn't care one way or another - that it was primarily a
matter of intellectual fashion.  Still, fashion or not, I think in the 60s
you could lose your job and degree ex post facto for thinking incorrectly
on this.

There's also the old conundrum about neutralization, too, of course.  Are
the stops that combine with fricatives or resonants in clusters like sp or
bdh the same as the b that occurs alone as a syllable onset?  Or are they
neutralizations of the opposition b vs. ph vs. pp vs. p?.  Might they be
really positional variants of the tense series?  After all they are
unvoiced in sp, s^p, xp, etc.!  I also now refuse to get overly excited
about this.  I treat the p in sp and the b in bdh as variants of the b
that occurs alone, and don't worry too much about spelling one of the
variants with a p and the others with b.

I do notice that Ken Miner writes sg in Winnebago.  Maybe he got sick of
the argument, too.  Maybe he just wanted to be consistent.  You can get in
trouble that way, too.  At one point I wrote p for b, t for d, and k for g
in OP, arguing that voicing was predictable.  It also saved me having the
explain why it's ppethaN and.s^pethaN but bethaN.  Or so I thought, On the
other hand, I've spent the rest of my life saying, "No, p is pronounced
b!" to non-Omahas and "Sorry, it really is a b." to Omahas.

You can't win with this sort of thing ...


From are2 at buffalo.edu  Thu Aug 29 01:54:05 2002
From: are2 at buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:54:05 -0400
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208281750040.2502-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.28.AUG.2002.215405.0400.>

I've transcribed waiiN as waiN and waiN: in my notes.
There is no glottal stop in the modern pronunciation.  It is frequently
used and can mean shawl, robe or blanket.  It comes up a lot at doings.
Regards,
Ardis

PS I don't think it is a loss of a glottal stop in fast speech, either.
Wa'u woman never becomes wau.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 06:41:13 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:41:13 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10208282149280.12334-100000@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.004113.0600.>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Ardis R Eschenberg wrote:
> PS I don't think it is a loss of a glottal stop in fast speech, either.
> Wa'u woman never becomes wau.

I agree.  The paradigm that are called glottal stop stems in Siouan
studies, the ones that inflect miN, z^iN, iN, aNiN in Omaha-Ponca, never
have any trace of [?].  Similarly, eaN 'how', which is presumably from e +
aN 'to do', where aN is a glottal stop stem, also never has [?].  I
included a (?) in the form only to draw attention to the root.

The only phonetic ? manifested in OP is ? from *k? or *x?.  Thus ?i 'to
give' has a?i as first person.  This matches Dakotan k?u. first person
wak?u.  For that matter, Osage has k?u, ak?u (Osage u is [u"]). Examples
with *x? are a bit harder to turn up, but wa?u that Ardis cites is one,
cf. Osage wak?o and Quapaw wax?o.  I believe that the CSD project
uncovered evidence that this characteristic Dhegiha 'woman' word derives
from an earlier form meaning something like 'matron, married woman'.  The
? here is not detectable except between vowels, since all V-initial words
have an epenthetic ?.  (At least I didn't notice any difference.)

There aren't any traces of *k or *s^ plus glottal stop stem leading to *k?
or *s^? in OP, either, these being the usual ways in which *? is
manifested phonetically in Siouan languages, apart from the any tendency
of ? to appear word initially or between vowels.  Essentially all the
Siouan languages have an epenthetic ? before word initial vowels, the
exception being Winnebago, which has epenthetic h instead.  (The Winnebago
are the Cockneys of the Siouan world.)  Interestingly, Winnebago doesn't
add h to ?-stems.  Somehow they know (or knew) ...  which makes you wonder
about the assertion that organic initial ? is indistinguishable from
epenthetic ?.  Perhaps by knowing what happens when prefixes are added?
At least in those languages where ? < *? is not observed between vowels.
Winnebago also has s^?  in the second person of ?-stems.

The main language with k? (in datives and inclusives) is Dakotan.  In OP
and other Dhegiha languages the first person in m- (< *w perhaps) and
second person in z^ (< *y perhaps, as that is a regular development) look
very "unglottalic."  Dakotan's second persons of ?-stems in n- look like
either *r-, i.e., n- < *r-VN... or, perhaps more likely, contamination
from *r-stems, i.e., n- < *s^-n....  In Omaha-Ponca this is the pattern of
verbs like 'the (sitting)', which is miNkhe, (s^)niNkhe, dhiNkhe and 'to
ask (a question)', which is imaNghe, i(s^)naNghe, idhaNghe ~ iwaNghe.
(That's the whole list of such verbs, I think.)

The precise nature of the initials of the ?-stems in Proto-Siouan remains
obscure.  In any event, *? figures in Proto-Siouan in ejectives,
glottalized fricatives, and the initials of glottal stop stems.  It
doesn't seem to occur, say, within roots between vowels.  Nothing like
Tahitian fa?a 'to make' (< PP *faka, I think).


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Thu Aug 29 15:11:41 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:11:41 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.101141.0500.>

> I've transcribed waiiN as waiN and waiN: in my notes.
> There is no glottal stop in the modern pronunciation.  It is frequently
> used and can mean shawl, robe or blanket.  It comes up a lot at doings.
> Regards,
> Ardis

> PS I don't think it is a loss of a glottal stop in fast speech, either.
> Wa'u woman never becomes wau.

Thanks, Ardis!

Wa?u' comes from wak?o', with the glottal stop being derived
fairly recently from /k?/.  Could someone remind me where OP
?iN, meaning to wear or draw with the shoulders, comes from?
Is that from *k?iN, or is there some other source for that
glottal?

Rory


From jmcbride at kayserv.net  Thu Aug 29 15:41:15 2002
From: jmcbride at kayserv.net (Justin McBride)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:41:15 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.104115.0500.>

> Wa?u' comes from wak?o', with the glottal stop being derived
> fairly recently from /k?/.  Could someone remind me where OP
> ?iN, meaning to wear or draw with the shoulders, comes from?
> Is that from *k?iN, or is there some other source for that
> glottal?

I assume so.  I know that the Kaw form k?iN means 'to pack or carry on the
back.'  It shows up in a few of the Dhegiha clan names, too.  Incidentally,
there are some good analogs for some of these clans throughout the family.
Here are just a scant few.

KAW
ke k?iN    'turtle carriers'
miN k?iN    'sun (or blanket?) carriers'

OMAHA
iNkesabe  (sp???) 'black shoulder'

-Justin


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 16:34:21 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:21 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <OF2FAF1F57.C48C8B42-ON86256C24.0052C88B@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.103421.0600.>

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> Wa?u' comes from wak?o', with the glottal stop being derived fairly
> recently from /k?/.  Could someone remind me where OP ?iN, meaning to
> wear or draw with the shoulders, comes from? Is that from *k?iN, or is
> there some other source for that glottal?

No, that's a separate verb, though possibility of a derivational
relationship exists.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 17:16:33 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:16:33 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <004f01c24f72$8315b860$1a77f0c7@Language>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.111633.0600.>

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Justin McBride wrote:
> I assume so.  I know that the Kaw form k?iN means 'to pack or carry on the
> back.'  It shows up in a few of the Dhegiha clan names, too.  Incidentally,
> there are some good analogs for some of these clans throughout the family.
> Here are just a scant few.
>
> KAW
> ke k?iN    'turtle carriers'
> miN k?iN    'sun (or blanket?) carriers'
>
> OMAHA
> iNkesabe  (sp???) 'black shoulder'

iNkhesabe (this k's one of the few aspirates).  The Omaha Schools scheme
has raised h for aspirates, which I've been writing H in email, by analogy
with N for raised n (or a nasal hook), so they would render this iNkHesabe
(with the appropriate substitutions for N and H).  This is a nice example
of a truncated (old C-final?) root in compounding, since the free form of
'shoulder' is iNkhede.  I've always been interested that the initial
syllable is nasalized, since the Proto-Siouan form is *khet-, and the
potential source for the iN that occurs to me is a 3rd person possessive
i-.

On the actual subject of this post, it is indeed strikign the way so many
Dhegiha clan names and sub-clan names go right across the various Dhegiha
groups.  This is a large part of what LaFlesche meant in refering to them
as "cognate tribes."  It must still produce a distinct feeling of
relatedness among the several groups, perhaps just as much as the degree
of linguistic association.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 17:21:11 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:21:11 -0600
Subject: OP waiiN 'robe'
In-Reply-To: <OF80F95E7E.8A74377C-ON86256C23.006D37E2@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.112111.0600.>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> Could it just be wa?iN' meaning 'that which is worn', with the glottal
> stop being elided for lazy speech, while the moment originally alotted
> to it is epenthetically taken up with oral /i/ as the jaw and tongue
> move into position for the following /iN/ before the vellum opens the
> passage to the nasal cavity?

I think that the "original" glottal stop (from *?, not *k?) is probably
simply never pronounced in Omaha-Ponca, so that its omission is not a fast
speech thing.  But the explanation of Dorsey's extra i as an epenthetic
sound, a transition between wa and iN, makes sense to me and seems
consistent with the forms Rory and Ardis are citing from personal
observation and other sources.  It offers a bit of insight into Dorsey's
transcriptional practices, too.


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 29 18:10:33 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:10:33 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.131033.0500.>

WaiN is just from *wa-?iN with an organic glottal stop.
I take it that Omaha never keeps those glottals -- only
the peculiar conjugation that went with them (compare
zha-miN,
zha-zhiN, zhiN  'think').

Proto-Siouan glottal stop only remains after consonants
in Omaha then, as far as I know.  And about the only
example(s) I can come up with right off is/are naNp?iN
and
wanaNp?iN 'wear about the neck', which contains the
same etymon as *wa?iN.

As far as I know the /?/ from /k?/ always remains in
Omaha and Ponca.  And of course it's preserved as /k?/
(or sometimes an original /x?) in Kaw, Osage and
Quapaw.  QU is the only one that preserves /x?/, the
other 2 merge it with /k?/.

Note that sequences of aNk-/aNg- '1st du/pl' followed
by ?V do not retain any trace of the glottal in Dhegiha
but do in Dakotan.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: <rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: waiN


>
> > I've transcribed waiiN as waiN and waiN: in my
notes.
> > There is no glottal stop in the modern
pronunciation.  It is frequently
> > used and can mean shawl, robe or blanket.  It comes
up a lot at doings.
> > Regards,
> > Ardis
>
> > PS I don't think it is a loss of a glottal stop in
fast speech, either.
> > Wa'u woman never becomes wau.
>
> Thanks, Ardis!
>
> Wa?u' comes from wak?o', with the glottal stop being
derived
> fairly recently from /k?/.  Could someone remind me
where OP
> ?iN, meaning to wear or draw with the shoulders,
comes from?
> Is that from *k?iN, or is there some other source for
that
> glottal?
>
> Rory
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 29 18:14:37 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:14:37 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.131437.0500.>

> I assume so.  I know that the Kaw form k?iN means 'to
pack or carry on the
> back.'  It shows up in a few of the Dhegiha clan
names, too.  Incidentally,
> there are some good analogs for some of these clans
throughout the family.

There are two distinct roots under discussion here.

Proto-Siouan *?iN   'to wear' (&homophone 'think') and

Proto-Siouan *k?iN 'to pack on the back, carry'

In Omaha, these two should come out /iN/ and /?iN/.
Someone with a bent toward instrumental phonetics might
want to make some recordings and see what they look
like.

bob


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Thu Aug 29 19:19:40 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:19:40 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.141940.0500.>

> There are two distinct roots under discussion here.

> Proto-Siouan *?iN   'to wear' (&homophone 'think') and

> Proto-Siouan *k?iN 'to pack on the back, carry'

> In Omaha, these two should come out /iN/ and /?iN/.
> Someone with a bent toward instrumental phonetics might
> want to make some recordings and see what they look
> like.

> bob

Thanks, Bob.  That clarifies things a lot.  I was
obviously confusing these two, which must be pronounced
identically in Omaha in the third person.

The meanings also seem close enough to be variants of a
single verb concept.  Just out of curiosity, suppose we
had an original Proto-Siouan verb *?iN, meaning to bear
on the back.  This verb then becomes used for robes and
other clothing that people generally bear on their backs,
so that it takes on the primary sense of 'wear'.  Then
when speakers want to refer to the original sense of
carrying things on the back in the sense of laboring
rather than wearing, they try to clarify their reference
by adding some sort of /ki-/ particle in front to get
*ki?iN' or some such, meaning literally 'carry one's own',
but in practice meaning 'carry a pack or a child', as
distinct from 'wear a robe'.  The accent is on the verb
root, and the /i/ in /ki-/ is eventually schwa-ed and
elided, leaving *k?iN, to pack something on the back,
vs. *?iN, meaning to wear on the back, as two separate
verb roots.  Does this hypothesis sound at all
plausible?

Rory

(Still slightly confused, but getting better!)


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Aug 29 20:19:34 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:19:34 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.151934.0500.>

> > There are two distinct roots under discussion here.
> > Proto-Siouan *?iN   'to wear' (&homophone 'think')
and
> > Proto-Siouan *k?iN 'to pack on the back, carry'
> > In Omaha, these two should come out /iN/ and /?iN/.

> That clarifies things a lot.  I was
> obviously confusing these two, which must be
pronounced
> identically in Omaha in the third person.

Maybe.  That's my question.  Morphophonologically they
are distinct -- i.e., they conjugate very differently.
Phonemically, it would be interesting to run some tests
in the 3rd person in different contexts and find out
for sure.

> The meanings also seem close enough to be variants of
a
> single verb concept.  Just out of curiosity, suppose
we
> had an original Proto-Siouan verb *?iN, meaning to
bear
> on the back.

> . . . adding some sort of /ki-/ particle in front to
get
> *ki?iN' or some such, meaning literally 'carry one's
own',
> . . . the /i/ in /ki-/ is eventually schwa-ed and
> elided, leaving *k?iN, to pack something on the back,
> vs. *?iN, meaning to wear on the back, as two
separate
> verb roots.  Does this hypothesis sound at all
> plausible?

We do know that the vowel of pronominal prefixes and
certain other prefixes like ki- is lost in much of
Siouan.  So, phonologically, it is plausible.  But I
don't think there is any real evidence for it here.
Some of the languages that don't seem to lose the
requisite prefix vowel would have to retain evidence to
convince me.  Otherwise it's a bit like trying to
derive Romance vulpe 'fox' from vol- 'to fly' plus pes
'foot' because foxes are swift of foot. Something that
was tried by Roman grammarians.  :-)

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Aug 29 21:56:17 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:17 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <OF701E26B3.21A135ED-ON86256C24.0066F527@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.29.AUG.2002.155617.0600.>

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> > There are two distinct roots under discussion here.
> > Proto-Siouan *?iN   'to wear' (&homophone 'think') and
> > Proto-Siouan *k?iN 'to pack on the back, carry'
>
> The meanings also seem close enough to be variants of a
> single verb concept.  ...

I was thinking somewhat along these lines myself, though more abstractly.
The same verbs that have "short" or "syncopated" pronominals (b, p/t/k, m
for a; s^, z^ for dha) generally have "short" or "syncopated" possessive
prefixes, too, i.e., (g, k for gi).  For example, bdha'the 'I ate it' and
gdha'the 'he ate his own'.  I just picked a verb and ran it through the
rules, but I'm not sure this one would meet the approval of a native
speaker.

The problem would probably be that gdhathe would have to mean 'eat one's
own (relative)' not 'eat one's own (sandwich)'.  Possibly not, but I
thought I'd better admit that up front!

I believe I'm correct in recalling that dha-stems take g-dha- in
possessives, while ga-stems take gi-g-dha-, which seems to have something
to do with Mississippi Valley's *ka- instrumental being *(r)aka- in other
branches of Siouan.  Except for the dh-stems, where it's g-, the
syncpating possessive is gi-g-, though with the -g- fairly heavily fused
with the stem, initial, e.g., gikkaghe < gaghe, inflected agippaghe,
dhagis^kaghe, gikkaghe.  This is almost the sort of double inflection you
get with daNbe 'to see', e.g., attaNbe, dhas^daNbe, daNbe, but with the
addition of the intervening gi and the tensing of the stem initial in the
third person.

So, anyway, one might expect that a verb iN with first person miN might
have *kiN > giN or perhaps *k?iN > ?iN as its possessive form.  However,
I'm not aware of any (other?) ?-stems with possessives, so it's hard to
say if k?iN is one.

I do know that the dative of such stems is particularly weird, with the
morphosyntax gi-PRO-root, e.g., egimaN, egiz^aN, egaN 'I/you/he do so
(to/for someone)'.  Similarly, with h-stems, egiphe, egis^e, ege 'I/you/he
say (to someone)'.  Normally PRO would precede gi.

JEK